The global response: How cities and provinces around the globe tackled Covid-19 outbreaks in 2021
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Tackling the spread of COVID-19 remains a crucial part of ending the pandemic. Its highly contagious nature and constant evolution coupled with a relative lack of immunity make the virus difficult to control. For this, various strategies have been proposed and adopted including limiting contact, social isolation, vaccination, contact tracing, etc. However, given the heterogeneity in the enforcement of these strategies and constant fluctuations in the strictness levels of these strategies, it becomes challenging to assess the true impact of these strategies in controlling the spread of COVID-19. Methods: In the present study, we evaluated various transmission control measures that were imposed in 10 global urban cities and provinces in 2021- Bangkok, Gauteng, Ho Chi Minh City, Jakarta, London, Manila City, New Delhi, New York City, Singapore, and Tokyo. Findings: Based on our analysis, we herein propose the population-level Swiss cheese model for the failures and pitfalls in various strategies that each of these cities and provinces had. Furthermore, whilst all the evaluated cities and provinces took a different personalized approach to managing the pandemic, what remained common was dynamic enforcement and monitoring of breaches of each barrier of protection. The measures taken to reinforce the barriers were adjusted continuously based on the evolving epidemiological situation. Interpretation: How an individual city or province handled the pandemic profoundly affected and determined how the entire country handled the pandemic since the chain of transmission needs to be broken at the very grassroot level to achieve nationwide control. Funding: The present study did not receive any external funding.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".