How effective was Newfoundland & Labrador’s travel ban to prevent the spread of COVID-19? An agent-based analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background To prevent the spread of COVID-19 in Newfoundland & Labrador (NL), NL implemented a wide travel ban in May 2020. We estimate the effectiveness of this travel ban using a customized agent-based simulation (ABS). Methods We built an individual-level ABS to simulate the movements and behaviors of every member of the NL population, including arriving and departing travellers. The model considers individual properties (spatial location, age, comorbidities) and movements between environments, as well as age-based disease transmission with pre-symptomatic, symptomatic, and asymptomatic transmission rates. We examine low, medium, and high travel volume, traveller infection rates, and traveller quarantine compliance rates to determine the effect of travellers on COVID spread, and the ability of contact tracing to contain outbreaks. Results Infected travellers increased COVID cases by 2-52x (8-96x) times and peak hospitalizations by 2-49x (8-94x), with (without) contact tracing. Although contact tracing was highly effective at reducing spread, it was insufficient to stop outbreaks caused by travellers in even the best-case scenario, and the likelihood of exceeding contact tracing capacity was a concern in most scenarios. Quarantine compliance had only a small impact on COVID spread; travel volume and infection rate drove spread. Interpretation NL’s travel ban was likely a critically important intervention to prevent COVID spread. Even a small number of infected travellers can play a significant role in introducing new chains of transmission, resulting in exponential community spread and significant increases in hospitalizations, while outpacing contact tracing capabilities. With the presence of more transmissible variants, e.g., the UK variant, prevention of imported cases is even more critical.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".