Estimating the quarantine failure rate for COVID-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quarantine is a crucial control measure in reducing imported COVID-19 cases and community transmissions. However, some quarantined COVID-19 patients may show symptoms after finishing quarantine due to a long median incubation period, potentially causing community transmissions. To assess the recommended 14-day quarantine policy, we develop a formula to estimate the quarantine failure rate from the incubation period distribution and the epidemic curve. We found that the quarantine failure rate increases with the exponential growth rate of the epidemic curve. We apply our formula to United States, Canada, and Hubei Province, China. Before the lockdown of Wuhan City, the quarantine failure rate in Hubei Province is about 4.1%. If the epidemic curve flattens or slowly decreases, the failure rate is less than 2.8%. The failure rate in US may be as high as 8.3%–11.5% due to a shorter 10-day quarantine period, while the failure rate in Canada may be between 2.5% and 3.9%. A 21-day quarantine period may reduce the failure rate to 0.3%–0.5%.
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 | 0.010 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".