The importance of the generation interval in investigating dynamics and control of new SARS-CoV-2 variants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inferring the relative strength (i.e. the ratio of reproduction numbers) and relative speed (i.e. the difference between growth rates) of new SARS-CoV-2 variants is critical to predicting and controlling the course of the current pandemic. Analyses of new variants have primarily focused on characterizing changes in the proportion of new variants, implicitly or explicitly assuming that the relative speed remains fixed over the course of an invasion. We use a generation-interval-based framework to challenge this assumption and illustrate how relative strength and speed change over time under two idealized interventions: a constant-strength intervention like idealized vaccination or social distancing, which reduces transmission rates by a constant proportion, and a constant-speed intervention like idealized contact tracing, which isolates infected individuals at a constant rate. In general, constant-strength interventions change the relative speed of a new variant, while constant-speed interventions change its relative strength. Differences in the generation-interval distributions between variants can exaggerate these changes and modify the effectiveness of interventions. Finally, neglecting differences in generation-interval distributions can bias estimates of relative strength.
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 | 0.014 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".