Predicting COVID-19 Transmission to Inform the Management of Mass Events: Model-Based Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Modelling COVID-19 transmission at live events and public gatherings is essential to controlling the probability of subsequent outbreaks and communicating to participants their personalized risk. Yet, despite the fast-growing body of literature on COVID-19 transmission dynamics, current risk models either neglect contextual information including vaccination rates or disease prevalence or do not attempt to quantitatively model transmission. OBJECTIVE: This paper attempted to bridge this gap by providing informative risk metrics for live public events, along with a measure of their uncertainty. METHODS: Building upon existing models, our approach ties together 3 main components: (1) reliable modelling of the number of infectious cases at the time of the event, (2) evaluation of the efficiency of pre-event screening, and (3) modelling of the event's transmission dynamics and their uncertainty using Monte Carlo simulations. RESULTS: We illustrated the application of our pipeline for a concert at the Royal Albert Hall and highlighted the risk's dependency on factors such as prevalence, mask wearing, and event duration. We demonstrate how this event held on 3 different dates (August 20, 2020; January 20, 2021; and March 20, 2021) would likely lead to transmission events that are similar to community transmission rates (0.06 vs 0.07, 2.38 vs 2.39, and 0.67 vs 0.60, respectively). However, differences between event and background transmissions substantially widened in the upper tails of the distribution of the number of infections (as denoted by their respective 99th quantiles: 1 vs 1, 19 vs 8, and 6 vs 3, respectively, for our 3 dates), further demonstrating that sole reliance on vaccination and antigen testing to gain entry would likely significantly underestimate the tail risk of the event. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the unknowns surrounding COVID-19 transmission, our estimation pipeline opens the discussion on contextualized risk assessment by combining the best tools at hand to assess the order of magnitude of the risk. Our model can be applied to any future event and is presented in a user-friendly RShiny interface. Finally, we discussed our model's limitations as well as avenues for model evaluation and improvement.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".