Estimated Deaths, Intensive Care Admissions and Hospitalizations Averted in Canada during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
These datasets explore disparities in COVID-19 mortality observed in the US and Canada between January 2020 and early March 2021. Table 1 provides counts of deaths, hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and cases, by age, for Ontario, Canada (Canada's most populous province). Table 2 estimates deaths averted by Canada's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, relative to that in the United States, by "Canada-standardizing" the US epidemic (i.e., by applying US age-specific mortality to Canadian populations, in order to estimate the deaths that would have occurred in a Canadian pandemic with the same rates of death as have been observed in the US). Observed Canadian deaths are compared to "expected" deaths with a US-like response in order to estimate both deaths averted and SMR (Table 2). As Canadian age groups for purposes of death reporting are slightly different from those used in the US (e.g., 0-17 in the US vs. 0-19 in Canada), we reallocate Canadian deaths based on proportions of deaths occurring in 2-year age categories in Ontario (Table 1). Ontario age-specific case-fatality is used to inflate the deaths averted, in order to estimate cases averted. Ontario age-specific hospitalization and ICU risk (again derived from Table 1) are used to estimate hospitalizations and ICU admissions averted (Table 2). As of August 9, 2022, a new dataset has been added which applies the methodology described above to compare deaths in Canada to those in the United Kingdom, France, and Australia. Estimates of QALY loss, and healthcare costs averted, have also been added. Uncertainty bounds are estimated either as parametric confidence intervals, or as upper and lower bound 95% credible intervals through simulation (implemented using the random draw funding in Microsoft Excel). Errors in confidence intervals for QALY losses in France and Australia corrected February 28, 2023.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".