Simulating preventative testing of SARS-CoV-2 in schools: policy implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: School testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection has become an important policy and planning issue as schools were reopened after the summer season and as the COVID-19 pandemic continues. Decisions to test or not to test and, if testing, how many tests, how often and for how long, are complex decisions that need to be taken under uncertainty and conflicting pressures from various stakeholders. METHOD: We have developed an agent-based model and simulation tool that can be used to analyze the outcomes and effectiveness of different testing strategies and scenarios in schools with various number of classrooms and class sizes. We have applied a modified version of a standard SEIR disease transmission model that includes symptomatic and asymptomatic infectious populations, and that incorporates feasible public health measures. We also incorporated a pre-symptomatic phase for symptomatic cases. Every day, a random number of students in each class are tested. If they tested positive, they are placed in self-isolation at home when the test results are provided. Last but not least, we have included options to allow for full testing or complete self-isolation of a classroom with a positive case. RESULTS: We present sample simulation results for parameter values based on schools and disease related information, in the Province of Ontario, Canada. The findings show that testing can be an effective method in controlling the SARS-CoV-2 infection in schools if taken frequently, with expedited test results and self-isolation of infected students at home. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that while testing cannot eliminate the risk and has its own challenges, it can significantly control outbreaks when combined with other measures, such as masks and other protective measures.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".