Modelling the interaction between ethnicity and infectious disease transmission dynamics in Aotearoa New Zealand during the first Omicron wave of the COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Aotearoa followed an elimination strategy followed by a mitigation strategy, which saw high success and kept health impact low. However, there were inequities in health outcomes, notably that Māori and Pacific Peoples had lower vaccine coverage and experienced higher age-standardised rates of hospitalisation and death. Models provide predictions of disease spread and burden, which can effectively inform policy, but are often less good at including inequities/heterogeneity. Despite the differences in health outcomes, most models have not explicitly considered ethnic heterogeneities as factors. We developed such a model to investigate the first Omicron wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Aotearoa, which was the first widespread community transmission of SARS-CoV-2. We analysed three models for contact patterns within and between ethnicities: proportionate, assortative, and unconstrained mixing, which were fit using ethnicity-specific data on reported cases and spatially disaggregated population counts. We found that Māori, Pacific, and Asian transmission rates were between 1.08–2.46, 1.50–3.89, and 0.80–0.92 times the European rates, respectively. We then found that from the parameters considered in the model, the disparity in ethnic transmission rates explained the majority of the observed ethnic disparity in attack rates, while assortativity and vaccination rates explained comparatively less.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".