论文标题
比较向前和向后接触跟踪的效率
Comparing the efficiency of forward and backward contact tracing
论文作者
论文摘要
当与许多传染病的爆发作斗争时，追踪可能感染的案件的潜在感染接触很重要。 COVID-19大流行促使研究人员研究如何在有效性（减轻感染能力）和成本效率（每隔隔离的预防感染的数量）方面与不同的接触追踪策略进行比较。两种重要的策略是所谓的前进接触追踪（疾病传播的追踪）和向后的接触追踪（疾病传播）。最近，Kojaku及其同事报告说，向后的接触追踪是``与前向接触式追踪更有效''，触点追踪有效性``取决于感染的来源''，并且在成本效率方面，触点触摸了较高的案例隔离。在这里，我们表明这些结论一般不是正确的。它们部分基于模拟，大大高估了接触追踪的有效性和效率。我们的结果表明，接触追踪策略的效率是高度背景的。面对疾病爆发，疾病动态决定了追踪感染源或新病例是否更有影响。我们的结果还表明，模拟疾病扩散和缓解措施的重要性并非顺序而不是依次。
Tracing potentially infected contacts of confirmed cases is important when fighting outbreaks of many infectious diseases. The COVID-19 pandemic has motivated researchers to examine how different contact tracing strategies compare in terms of effectiveness (ability to mitigate infections) and cost efficiency (number of prevented infections per isolation). Two important strategies are so-called forward contact tracing (tracing to whom disease spreads) and backward contact tracing (tracing from whom disease spreads). Recently, Kojaku and colleagues reported that backward contact tracing was ``profoundly more effective'' than forward contact tracing, that contact tracing effectiveness ``hinges on reaching the `source' of infection'', and that contact tracing outperformed case isolation in terms of cost efficiency. Here we show that these conclusions are not true in general. They were based in part on simulations that vastly overestimated the effectiveness and efficiency of contact tracing. Our results show that the efficiency of contact tracing strategies is highly contextual; faced with a disease outbreak, the disease dynamics determine whether tracing infection sources or new cases is more impactful. Our results also demonstrate the importance of simulating disease spread and mitigation measures in parallel rather than sequentially.
