Modeling the second outbreak of COVID-19 with isolation and contact tracing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first case of Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) was reported in Wuhan, China in December 2019. Since then, COVID-19 has quickly spread out to all provinces in China and over 150 countries or territories in the world. With the first level response to public health emergencies (FLRPHE) launched over the country, the outbreak of COVID-19 in China is achieving under control in China. We develop a mathematical model based on the epidemiology of COVID-19, incorporating the isolation of healthy people, confirmed cases and contact tracing measures. We calculate the basic reproduction numbers 2.5 in China (excluding Hubei province) and 2.9 in Hubei province with the initial time on January 30 which shows the severe infectivity of COVID-19, and verify that the current isolation method effectively contains the transmission of COVID-19. Under the isolation of healthy people, confirmed cases and contact tracing measures, we find a noteworthy phenomenon that is the second epidemic of COVID-19 and estimate the peak time and value and the cumulative number of cases. Simulations show that the contact tracing measures can efficiently contain the transmission of the second epidemic of COVID-19. With the isolation of all susceptible people or all infectious people or both, there is no second epidemic of COVID-19. Furthermore, resumption of work and study can increase the transmission risk of the second epidemic of COVID-19.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".