Projections of the transmission of the Omicron variant for Toronto, Ontario, and Canada using surveillance data following recent changes in testing policies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the end of 2021, with the rapid escalation of COVID19 cases due to the Omicron variant, testing centers in Canada were overwhelmed. To alleviate the pressure on the PCR testing capacity, many provinces implemented new strategies that promote self testing and adjust the eligibility for PCR tests, making the count of new cases underreported. We designed a novel compartmental model which captures the new testing guidelines, social behaviours, booster vaccines campaign and features of the newest variant Omicron. To better describe the testing eligibility, we considered the population divided into high risk and non-high-risk settings. The model is calibrated using data from January 1 to February 9, 2022, on cases and severe outcomes in Canada, the province of Ontario and City of Toronto. We conduct analyses on the impact of PCR testing capacity, self testing, different levels of reopening and vaccination coverage on cases and severe outcomes. Our results show that the total number of cases in Canada, Ontario and Toronto are 2.34 (95%CI: 1.22-3.38), 2.20 (95%CI: 1.15-3.72), and 1.97(95%CI: 1.13-3.41), times larger than reported cases, respectively. The current testing strategy is efficient if partial restrictions, such as limited capacity in public spaces, are implemented. Allowing more people to have access to PCR reduces the daily cases and severe outcomes; however, if PCR test capacity is insufficient, then it is important to promote self testing. Also, we found that reopening to a pre-pandemic level will lead to a resurgence of the infections, peaking in late March or April 2022. Vaccination and adherence to isolation protocols are important supports to the testing policies to mitigate any possible spread of the virus.
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 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".