The impact of super-spreader cities, highways, and intensive care availability in the early stages of the COVID-19 epidemic in Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although international airports served as main entry points for SARS-CoV-2, the factors driving the uneven geographic spread of COVID-19 cases and deaths in Brazil remain mostly unknown. Here we show that three major factors influenced the early macro-geographical dynamics of COVID-19 in Brazil. Mathematical modeling revealed that the "super-spreading city" of São Paulo initially accounted for more than 85% of the case spread in the entire country. By adding only 16 other spreading cities, we accounted for 98-99% of the cases reported during the first 3 months of the pandemic in Brazil. Moreover, 26 federal highways accounted for about 30% of SARS-CoV-2's case spread. As cases increased in the Brazilian interior, the distribution of COVID-19 deaths began to correlate with the allocation of the country's intensive care units (ICUs), which is heavily weighted towards state capitals. Thus, severely ill patients living in the countryside had to be transported to state capitals to access ICU beds, creating a "boomerang effect" that contributed to skew the distribution of COVID-19 deaths. Therefore, if (i) a lockdown had been imposed earlier on in spreader-capitals, (ii) mandatory road traffic restrictions had been enforced, and (iii) a more equitable geographic distribution of ICU beds existed, the impact of COVID-19 in Brazil would be significantly lower.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".