Estimating COVID-19-Related Infections, Deaths, and Hospitalizations in Iran Under Different Physical Distancing and Isolation Scenarios
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Iran is one of the first few countries that was hit hard with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We aimed to estimate the total number of COVID-19 related infections, deaths, and hospitalizations in Iran under different physical distancing and isolation scenarios. METHODS: We developed a susceptible-exposed-infected/infectious-recovered/removed (SEIR) model, parameterized to the COVID-19 pandemic in Iran. We used the model to quantify the magnitude of the outbreak in Iran and assess the effectiveness of isolation and physical distancing under five different scenarios (A: 0% isolation, through E: 40% isolation of all infected cases). We used Monte-Carlo simulation to calculate the 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs). RESULTS: Under scenario A, we estimated 5 196 000 (UI 1 753 000-10 220 000) infections to happen till mid-June with 966 000 (UI 467 800-1 702 000) hospitalizations and 111 000 (UI 53 400-200 000) deaths. Successful implantation of scenario E would reduce the number of infections by 90% (ie, 550 000) and change the epidemic peak from 66 000 on June 9, to 9400 on March 1, 2020. Scenario E also reduces the hospitalizations by 92% (ie, 74 500), and deaths by 93% (ie, 7800). CONCLUSION: With no approved vaccination or therapy available, we found physical distancing and isolation that include public awareness and case-finding and isolation of 40% of infected people could reduce the burden of COVID-19 in Iran by 90% by mid-June.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".