The stochasticity in adherence to nonpharmaceutical interventions and booster doses and the mitigation of COVID-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Facing the more contagious COVID-19 variant, Omicron, nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) were still in place and booster doses were proposed to mitigate the epidemic. However, the uncertainty and stochasticity in individuals' behaviours toward the NPIs and booster dose increase, and how this randomness affects the transmission remains poorly understood. We present a model framework to incorporate demographic stochasticity and two kinds of environmental stochasticity (notably variations in adherence to NPIs and booster dose acceptance) to analyze the effects of different forms of stochasticity on transmission. The model is calibrated using the data from December 31, 2021, to March 8, 2022, on daily reported cases and hospitalizations, cumulative cases, deaths and vaccinations for booster doses in Toronto, Canada. An approximate Bayesian computational (ABC) method is used for calibration. We observe that demographic stochasticity could dramatically worsen the outbreak with more incidence compared with the results of the corresponding deterministic model. We found that large variations in adherence to NPIs increase infections. The randomness in booster dose acceptance will not affect the number of reported cases significantly and it is acceptable in the mitigation of COVID-19. The stochasticity in adherence to NPIs needs more attention compared to booster dose hesitancy.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".