Efficacy of a “stay-at-home” policy on SARS-CoV-2 transmission in Toronto, Canada: a mathematical modelling study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Globally, nonpharmaceutical interventions for COVID-19, including stay-at-home policies, limitations on gatherings and closure of public spaces, are being lifted. We explored the effect of lifting a stay-at-home policy on virus resurgence under different conditions. METHODS: Using confirmed case data from Toronto, Canada, between Feb. 24 and June 24, 2020, we ran a compartmental model with household structure to simulate the impact of the stay-at-home policy considering different levels of compliance. We estimated threshold values for the maximum number of contacts, probability of transmission and testing rates required for the safe reopening of the community. RESULTS: After the implementation of the stay-at-home policy, the contact rate outside the household fell by 39% (from 11.58 daily contacts to 7.11). The effective reproductive number decreased from 3.56 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.02-4.14) on Mar. 12 to 0.84 (95% CI 0.79-0.89) on May 6. Strong adherence to stay-at-home policies appeared to prevent SARS-CoV-2 resurgence, but extending the duration of stay-at-home policies beyond 2 months had little added effect on cumulative cases (25 958 for 65 days of a stay-at-home policy and 23 461 for 95 days, by July 2, 2020) and deaths (1404 for 65 days and 1353 for 95 days). To avoid a resurgence, the average number of contacts per person per day should be kept below 9, with strict nonpharmaceutical interventions in place. INTERPRETATION: Our study demonstrates that the stay-at-home policy implemented in Toronto in March 2020 had a substantial impact on mitigating the spread of SARS-CoV-2. In the context of the early pandemic, before the emergence of variants of concern, reopening schools and workplaces was possible only with other nonpharmaceutical interventions in place.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".