Intermediate levels of asymptomatic transmission can lead to the highest epidemic fatalities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Asymptomatic infections have hampered the ability to characterize and prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 throughout the pandemic. Although asymptomatic infections reduce severity at the individual level, they can make population-level outcomes worse if asymptomatic individuals-unaware they are infected-transmit more than symptomatic individuals. Using an epidemic model, we show that intermediate levels of asymptomatic infection lead to the highest levels of epidemic fatalities when the decrease in symptomatic transmission, due either to individual behavior or mitigation efforts, is strong. We generalize this result to include presymptomatic transmission, showing that intermediate levels of nonsymptomatic transmission lead to the highest levels of fatalities. Finally, we extend our framework to illustrate how the intersection of asymptomatic spread and immunity profiles determine epidemic trajectories, including population-level severity, of future variants. In particular, when immunity provides protection against symptoms, but not against infections or deaths, epidemic trajectories can have faster growth rates and higher peaks, leading to more total deaths. Conversely, even modest levels of protection against infection can mitigate the population-level effects of asymptomatic 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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".