Optimized workplace risk mitigation measures for SARS-CoV-2 in 2022
Bibliographic record
Abstract
596 million SARS-CoV-2 cases have been reported and over 12 billion vaccine doses have been administered. As vaccination rates increase, a gap in knowledge exists regarding appropriate thresholds for escalation and de-escalation of workplace COVID-19 preventative measures. We conducted 133,056 simulation experiments, evaluating the spread of SARS-CoV-2 virus in hypothesized working environments subject to COVID-19 infections from the community. We tested the rates of workplace-acquired infections based on applied isolation strategies, community infection rates, methods and scales of testing, non-pharmaceutical interventions, variant predominance, vaccination coverages, and vaccination efficacies. When 75% of a workforce is vaccinated with a 70% efficacious vaccine against infection, then no masking or routine testing + isolation strategies are needed to prevent workplace-acquired omicron variant infections when the community infection rate per 100,000 persons is ≤ 1. A CIR ≤ 30, and ≤ 120 would result in no workplace-acquired infections in this same scenario against the delta and alpha variants, respectively. Workforces with 100% worker vaccination can prevent workplace-acquired infections with higher community infection rates. Identifying and isolating workers with antigen-based SARS-CoV-2 testing methods results in the same or fewer workplace-acquired infections than testing with slower turnaround time polymerase chain reaction methods. Risk migration measures such as mask-wearing, testing, and isolation can be relaxed, or escalated, in commensurate with levels of community infections, workforce immunization, and risk tolerance. The interactive heatmap we provide can be used for immediate, parameter-based case count predictions to inform institutional policy making. The simulation approach we have described can be further used for future evaluation of strategies to mitigate COVID-19 spread.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".