Quantifying transmissibility of COVID-19 and impact of intervention within long-term health care facilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Estimates of the basic reproduction number ( R 0 ) for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are particularly variable in the context of transmission within locations such as long-term health care (LTHC) facilities. We sought to characterise the heterogeneity of R 0 across known outbreaks within these facilities. We used a unique comprehensive dataset of all outbreaks that have occurred within LTHC facilities in British Columbia, Canada. We estimated R 0 with a Bayesian hierarchical dynamic model of susceptible, exposed, infected, and recovered individuals, that incorporates heterogeneity of R 0 between facilities. We further compared these estimates to those obtained with standard methods that utilize the exponential growth rate and maximum likelihood. The total size of an outbreak varied dramatically, with a range of attack rates of 2%–86%. The Bayesian analysis provides more constrained overall estimates of R 0 = 2.19 (90% CrI [credible interval] 0.19–6.69) than standard methods, with a range within facilities of 0.48–10.08. We further estimated that intervention led to 57% (47%–66%) of all cases being averted within the LTHC facilities, or 73% (63%–78%) when using a model with multi-level intervention effect. Understanding the risks and impact of intervention are essential in planning during the ongoing global pandemic, particularly in high-risk environments such as LTHC facilities.
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 | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".