Projected impact of COVID-19 mitigation strategies on hospital services in the Mexico City Metropolitan Area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence-based models may assist Mexican government officials and health authorities in determining the safest plans to respond to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the most-affected region of the country, the Mexico City Metropolitan Area. This study aims to present the potential impacts of COVID-19 in this region and to model possible benefits of mitigation efforts. The COVID-19 Hospital Impact Model for Epidemics was used to estimate the probable evolution of COVID-19 in three scenarios: (i) no social distancing, (ii) social distancing in place at 50% effectiveness, and (iii) social distancing in place at 60% effectiveness. Projections of the number of inpatient hospitalizations, intensive care unit admissions, and patients requiring ventilators were made for each scenario. Using the model described, it was predicted that peak case volume at 0% mitigation was to occur on April 30, 2020 at 11,553,566 infected individuals. Peak case volume at 50% mitigation was predicted to occur on June 1, 2020 with 5,970,093 infected individuals and on June 21, 2020 for 60% mitigation with 4,128,574 infected individuals. Occupancy rates in hospitals during peak periods at 0%, 50%, and 60% mitigation would be 875.9%, 322.8%, and 203.5%, respectively, when all inpatient beds are included. Under these scenarios, peak daily hospital admissions would be 40,438, 13,820, and 8,650. Additionally, 60% mitigation would result in a decrease in peak intensive care beds from 94,706 to 23,116 beds and a decrease in peak ventilator need from 67,889 to 17,087 units. Mitigating the spread of COVID-19 through social distancing could have a dramatic impact on reducing the number of infected people and minimize hospital overcrowding. These evidence-based models may enable careful resource utilization and encourage targeted public health responses.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".