Shifts in global mobility dictate the synchrony of SARS-CoV-2 epidemic waves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Human mobility changed in unprecedented ways during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. In March and April 2020, when lockdowns and large travel restrictions began in most countries, global air-travel almost entirely halted (92% decrease in commercial global air travel in the months between February and April 2020). Initial recovery in global air travel started around July 2020 and subsequently nearly tripled between May and July 2021. Here, we aim to establish a preliminary link between global mobility patterns and the synchrony of SARS-CoV-2 epidemic waves across the world. METHODS: We compare epidemic peaks and human global mobility in two time periods: November 2020 to February 2021 (when just over 70 million passengers travelled) and November 2021 to February 2022 (when more than 200 million passengers travelled). We calculate the time interval during which continental epidemic peaks occurred for both of these time periods, and we calculate the pairwise correlations of epidemic waves between all pairs of countries for the same time periods. RESULTS: We find that as air travel increases at the end of 2021, epidemic peaks around the world are more synchronous with one another, both globally and regionally. Continental epidemic peaks occur globally within a 20 day interval at the end of 2021 compared with 73 days at the end of 2020, and epidemic waves globally are more correlated with one another at the end of 2021. CONCLUSIONS: This suggests that the rebound in human mobility dictates the synchrony of global and regional epidemic waves. In line with theoretical work, we show that in a more connected world, epidemic dynamics are more synchronized.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".