Digital contact tracing contributes little to COVID-19 outbreak containment
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Digital contact tracing applications have been introduced in many countries to aid in the containment of COVID-19 outbreaks. Initially, enthusiasm was high regarding their implementation as a non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI). Yet, no country was able to prevent larger outbreaks without falling back to harsher NPIs, and the total effect of digital contact tracing remains elusive. Based on the results of empirical studies and modeling efforts, we show that digital contact tracing apps might have prevented cases on the order of single-digit percentages up until now, at best. We show that this poor impact can be attributed to a combination of low participation rates, a non-flexible reliance on symptom-based testing, low engagement of participants, and delays between testing and test result upload. We find that contact tracing does not change the epidemic threshold and exclusively prevents more cases during the supercritical phase of an epidemic, making it unfit as a tool to prevent outbreaks. Locally clustered contact structures may increase the intervention’s efficacy, but only if the number of contacts per individual is homogeneously distributed, a condition usually not found in contact networks. Our results suggest that policy makers cannot rely on digital contact tracing to contain outbreaks of COVID-19 or similar diseases.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.06.21.21259258: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank…
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.06.21.21259258: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.
-
