Nonpharmaceutical interventions contribute to the control of COVID-19 in China based on a pairwise model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), particularly contact tracing isolation and household quarantine, play a vital role in effectively bringing the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) under control in China. The pairwise model, has an inherent advantage in characterizing those two NPIs than the classical well-mixed models. Therefore, in this paper, we devised a pairwise epidemic model with NPIs to analyze COVID-19 outbreak in China by using confirmed cases during February 3rd–22nd, 2020. By explicitly incorporating contact tracing isolation and family clusters caused by household quarantine, our model provided a good fit to the trajectory of COVID-19 infections. We calculated the reproduction number R = 1.345 (95% CI: 1.230 − 1.460) for Hubei province and R = 1.217 (95% CI: 1.207 − 1.227) for China (except Hubei). We also estimated the peak time of infections, the epidemic duration and the final size, which are basically consistent with real observation. We indicated by simulation that the traced high-risk contacts from incubated to susceptible decrease under NPIs, regardless of infected cases. The sensitivity analysis showed that reducing the exposure of the susceptible and increasing the clustering coefficient bolster COVID-19 control. With the enforcement of household quarantine, the reproduction number R and the epidemic prevalence declined effectively. Furthermore, we obtained the resumption time of work and production in China (except Hubei) on 10th March and in Hubei at the end of April 2020, respectively, which is broadly in line with the actual time. Our results may provide some potential lessons from China on the control of COVID-19 for other parts of the world.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".