Large-scale frequent testing and tracing to supplement control of Covid-19 and vaccination rollout constrained by supply
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) were implemented all around the world in the fight against COVID-19: Social distancing, shelter-in-place, mask wearing, etc. to mitigate transmission, together with testing and contact-tracing to identify, isolate and treat the infected. The majority of countries have relied on the former measures, followed by a ramping up of their testing and tracing capabilities. We present here the cases of South Korea, Italy, Canada and the United States, as a look back to lessons that can be drawn for controlling the pandemic, specifically through the means of testing and tracing. By fitting a disease transmission model to daily case report data in each of the four countries, we first show that their combination of social-distancing and testing/tracing have had a significant impact on the evolution of their first wave of pandemic curves. We then consider the hypothetical scenario where the only NPI measures implemented past the first pandemic wave consisted of isolating individuals due to repeated, country-scale testing and contact tracing, as a mean of lifting social distancing measures without a resurgence of COVID-19. We give estimates on the average isolation rates needed to occur in each country. We find that testing and tracing each individual of a country, on average, every 4.5 days (South Korea), 5.7 days (Canada), 6 days (Italy) and 3.5 days (US), would have been sufficient to mitigate their second pandemic waves. We also considered the situation in Canada to see how a frequent large-scale asymptomatic testing and contact tracing could have been used in combination with vaccination rollout to reduce the infection in the population. This could offer an alternative approach towards preventing and controlling an outbreak when vaccine supply is limited, while testing capacity has been increasingly enhanced.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".