Back

COVID-19 cases associated with testing policies in 34 highly democratic countries, 2020-2022

Robertson, L. S.

2023-10-19 epidemiology
10.1101/2023.10.19.23297270 medRxiv
Show abstract

COVID-19 testing policies varied in time from testing only the symptomatic, testing the symptomatic and persons at higher risk of severe disease, on-demand testing for people who wanted one, and two periods of government-imposed mass testing in Slovakia. Using Poisson regression, this study examines the associations of COVID-19 cases during the times that the noted policies were in effect in 34 countries rated highest on democracy scores. Statistically corrected for other risk factors, increases in negative tests were associated with subsequent surges in cases when on-demand testing was promoted, particularly when coupled with poor contact tracing. Mass testing in Slovakia was associated with reduced spread of the virus for short periods but was deemed unsustainable. The data support the hypothesis that on-demand testing resulted in the unanticipated consequence of increased travel and increased exposure of travelers to the virus.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 6%
26.0%
Similar papers in this journal
2
Epidemiology and Infection
◐ 89 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
11.7%
Similar papers in this journal
3
BMC Public Health
○ 158 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
9.6%
Similar papers in this journal
4
Viruses
○ 332 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
5.4%
Similar papers in this journal
50% of probability mass above
5
Clinical Infectious Diseases
◐ 235 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.2%
Similar papers in this journal
6
PLOS Global Public Health
● 344 papers in training set
Top 4%
3.2%
7
BMC Infectious Diseases
○ 133 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.6%
8
Public Health
○ 36 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.4%
9
Eurosurveillance
● 83 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
10
Vaccines
○ 198 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
11
Vaccine
○ 203 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
12
Frontiers in Public Health
○ 148 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.5%
13
Vaccine: X
○ 22 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
14
Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease
○ 14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
15
Emerging Infectious Diseases
● 105 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
16
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 65%
1.1%
17
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
○ 129 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
18
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
◐ 142 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
19
Frontiers in Medicine
○ 120 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
20
Access Microbiology
● 25 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
21
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
● 466 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
22
Frontiers in Pediatrics
○ 32 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
23
COVID
○ 14 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
24
Journal of Global Health
● 21 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
25
Epidemics
○ 116 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
26
BMC Medicine
○ 176 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
27
Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses
○ 46 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
28
JMIRx Med
◐ 32 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
29
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
◐ 202 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
30
F1000Research
○ 88 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.