Abstract
Contact tracing has for decades been a cornerstone of the public health approach to epidemics, including Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome, and now COVID-19. It has not yet been possible, however, to causally assess the method’s effectiveness using a randomized controlled trial of the sort familiar throughout other areas of science. This study provides evidence that comes close to that ideal. It exploits a large-scale natural experiment that occurred by accident in England in late September 2020. Because of a coding error involving spreadsheet data used by the health authorities, a total of 15,841 COVID-19 cases (around 20% of all cases) failed to have timely contact tracing. By chance, some areas of England were much more severely affected than others. This study finds that the random breakdown of contact tracing led to more illness and death. Conservative causal estimates imply that, relative to cases that were initially missed by the contact tracing system, cases subject to proper contact tracing were associated with a reduction in subsequent new infections of 63% and a reduction insubsequent COVID-19–related deaths of 66% across the 6 wk following the data glitch.
Publisher
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Reference25 articles.
1. A structured open dataset of government interventions in response to COVID-19;Desvars-Larrive;Sci. Data,2020
2. Report 9: Impact of non- pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID19 mortality and health- care demand;Ferguson;Imperial College London.,2020
3. J. Li , X. Guo , COVID-19 contact-tracing apps: A survey on the global deployment and challenges. arXiv [Preprint] (2020). https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.03599 (Accessed 1 November 2020).
4. Why contact tracing efforts have failed to curb coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) transmission in much of the U.S;Clark;Clin. Infect. Dis.,2021
5. H. Cho , D. Ippolito , Y. W. Yu , Contact tracing mobile apps for COVID-19: Privacy considerations and related trade-offs arXiv [Preprint] (2020). https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.11511 (Accessed 1 November 2020).
Cited by
66 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献