The Incoming Influenza Season — China, the United Kingdom, and the United States, 2021–2022
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Seasonal influenza activity has declined globally since the widespread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission. There has been scarce information to understand the future dynamics of influenza - and under different hypothesis on relaxation of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) in particular - after the disruptions to seasonal patterns. METHODS: We collected data from public sources in China, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and forecasted the influenza dynamics in the incoming 2021-2022 season under different NPIs. We considered Northern China and Southern China separately, due to the sharp difference in the patterns of seasonal influenza. For the United Kingdom, data were collected for England only. RESULTS: Compared to the epidemics in 2017-2019, longer and blunter influenza outbreaks could occur should NPIs be fully lifted, with percent positivity varying from 10.5 to 18.6 in the studying regions. The rebounds would be smaller if the mask-wearing intervention continued or the international mobility stayed low, but sharper if the mask-wearing intervention was lifted in the middle of influenza season. Further, influenza activity could stay low under a much less stringent mask-wearing intervention coordinated with influenza vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: The results added to our understandings of future influenza dynamics after the global decline during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In light of the uncertainty on the incoming circulation strains and the relatively low negative impacts of mask wearing on society, our findings suggested that wearing mask could be considered as an accompanying mitigation measure in influenza prevention and control, especially for seasons after long periods of low-exposure to influenza viruses.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".