As a marginalised subpopulation, migrant workers often fall short from protection by public policies, they take precarious jobs with unsafe working and living conditions and they grapple with cultural and linguistic barriers. In light of the current COVID-19 pandemic, migrant workers are now exposed to additional stressors of the virus and related responses. We applied a comprehensive qualitative cumulative risk assessment framework for migrant workers living in Kuwait. This pandemic could be one of the few examples where the stressors overlap all domains of migrant workers’ lives. No single intervention can solve all the problems; there must be a set of interventions to address all domains. Local authorities and employers must act quickly to stop the spread, ensure easy access to testing and treatment, provide adequate housing and clear communication, encourage wide social support, safeguard financial protection and mental well-being and continuously re-evaluate the situation as more data are collected.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) forecasts from over 100 models are readily available. However, little published information exists regarding the performance of their uncertainty estimates (i.e. probabilistic performance). To evaluate their probabilistic performance, we employ the classical model (CM), an established method typically used to validate expert opinion. In this analysis, we assess both the predictive and probabilistic performance of COVID-19 forecasting models during 2021. We also compare the performance of aggregated forecasts (i.e. ensembles) based on equal and CM performance-based weights to an established ensemble from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Our analysis of forecasts of COVID-19 mortality from 22 individual models and three ensembles across 49 states indicates that—(i) good predictive performance does not imply good probabilistic performance, and vice versa; (ii) models often provide tight but inaccurate uncertainty estimates; (iii) most models perform worse than a naive baseline model; (iv) both the CDC and CM performance-weighted ensembles perform well; but (v) while the CDC ensemble was more informative, the CM ensemble was more statistically accurate across states. This study presents a worthwhile method for appropriately assessing the performance of probabilistic forecasts and can potentially improve both public health decision-making and COVID-19 modelling.

To combat the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), decision-makers and the public may desire forecasts of the cases, hospitalizations, and deaths that are likely to occur. Thankfully, dozens of COVID-19 forecasting models exist and many of their forecasts have been made publicly available. However, there has been little published peer-reviewed information regarding the performance of these models and what is available has focused mostly on the performance of their central estimates (i.e., predictive performance). There has been little reported on the accuracy of their uncertainty estimates (i.e., probabilistic performance), which could inform users how often they would be surprised by observations outside forecasted confidence intervals. To address this gap in knowledge, we borrow from the literature on formally elicited expert judgment to demonstrate one commonly used approach for resolving this issue. For two distinct periods of the pandemic, we applied the Classical Model (CM) to evaluate probabilistic model performance and constructed a performance-weighted ensemble based on this evaluation. Some models which exhibited good predictive performance were found to have poor probabilistic performance, and vice versa. Only two of the nine models considered exhibited superior predictive and probabilistic performance. Additionally, the CM-weighted ensemble outperformed the equal-weighted and predictive-weighted ensembles. With its limited scope, this study does not provide definitive conclusions on model performance. Rather, it highlights the evaluation methodology and indicates the utility associated with using the CM when assessing probabilistic performance and constructing high performing ensembles, not only for COVID-19 modeling but other applications as well. Significance Statement: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) forecasting models can provide critical information for decision-makers and the public. Unfortunately, little information on their performance has been published, particularly regarding the accuracy of their uncertainty estimates (i.e., probabilistic performance). To address this research gap, we demonstrate the Classical Model (CM), a commonly used approach from the literature on formally elicited expert judgment, which considers both the tightness of forecast confidence intervals and frequency in which confidence intervals contain the observation. Two models exhibited superior performance and the CM-based ensemble consistently outperformed the other constructed ensembles. While these results are not definitive, they highlight the evaluation methodology and indicate the value associated with using the CM when assessing probabilistic performance and constructing high performing ensembles.