Mathematical modelling of non-pharmaceutical interventions to control infectious diseases: application to COVID-19 in Kenya
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The first case of COVID-19 in Kenya was reported on March 13, 2020, prompting the collection of baseline data during the initial spread of the disease. Subsequently, the Kenyan government implemented non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) on April 9, 2020, to mitigate disease transmission over a two-month period. These measures were later gradually relaxed starting from June 9, 2020. Methods We applied a deterministic mathematical model to simulate the dynamics of COVID-19 transmission in Kenya. Using baseline data, we estimated transmission and recovery rates and proposed a mathematical model of how NPIs affect disease transmission rates. The model extends to interventions that yield an increase in disease transmission, unlike previous models that were limited to a decrease in transmission. We computed the mitigation and relaxation fractions and hence deduced the impact of the interventions. Results The mitigation measures imposed from April 9, 2020, reduced the disease transmission by 43.7% from the baseline level, while the relaxation from June 9, 2020, increased the transmission by 32% over the mitigation level. Without intervention, the model predicts that infections would have peaked at 30% by late May 2020. However, due to the combined effect of mitigation and relaxation, the epidemic peaked at 13% infection in mid-July 2020. Discussion The model’s projections closely align with observed data, providing valuable insights for planning. Ongoing research aims to refine the model to capture sub-waves and spikes, as well as simulate multiple waves of infection. These efforts will enhance our understanding of COVID-19 dynamics and inform effective public health strategies. The estimated basic reproduction number R0=2.76 , consistent with previous findings, underscores the validity of our model and its relevance in predicting disease transmission dynamics.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".