Potential magnitude of COVID-19-induced healthcare resource depletion in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background The global spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues in several jurisdictions, causing significant strain to healthcare systems. The purpose of our study is to predict the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient outcomes and the healthcare system in Ontario, Canada. Methods We developed an individual-level simulation to model the flow of COVID-19 patients through the Ontario healthcare system. We simulated different combined scenarios of epidemic trajectory and healthcare capacity. Outcomes include numbers of patients needing admission to the ward, Intensive Care Unit (ICU), and requiring ventilation; days to resource depletion; and numbers of patients awaiting resources and deaths associated with limited access to resources. Findings We demonstrate that with effective early public health measures system resources need not be depleted. For scenarios considering late or ineffective implementation of physical distancing, health system resources would be depleted within 14-26 days. Resource depletion was also avoided or delayed with aggressive measures to rapidly increase ICU, ventilator, and acute care hospital capacity. Interpretation We found that without aggressive physical distancing measures the Ontario healthcare system would have been inadequately equipped to manage the expected number of patients with COVID-19, despite the rapid capacity increase. This overall lack of resources would have led to an increase in mortality. By slowing the spread of the disease via ongoing public health measures and having increased healthcare capacity, Ontario may have avoided catastrophic stresses to its health care system.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".