Modelling the health and economic impacts of different testing and tracing strategies for COVID-19 in the UK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is resurgent in the UK and health and economic costs of the epidemic continue to rise. There is a need to understand the health and economic costs of different courses of action. Methods: We combine modelling, economic analysis and a user-friendly interface to contrast the impact and costs of different testing strategies: two levels of testing within the current test-trace-isolate (TTI) strategy (testing symptomatic people, tracing and isolating everyone) and a strategy where TTI is combined with universal testing (UT; i.e. additional population testing to identify asymptomatic cases). We also model effective coverage of face masks. Results: Increased testing is necessary to suppress the virus after lockdown. Partial reopening accompanied by scaled-up TTI (at 50% test and trace levels), full isolation and moderately effective coverage of masks (30% reduction in overall transmission) can reduce the current resurgence of the virus and protect the economy in the UK. Additional UT from December 2020 reduces the epidemic dramatically by Jan 2021 when combined with enhanced TTI (70% test-trace levels) and full isolation. UT could then be stopped; continued TTI would prevent rapid recurrence. This TTI+UT combination can suppress the virus further to save ~20,000 more lives and avoid ~£90bn economic losses, though costs ~£8bn more to deliver. We assume that all traced and lab-confirmed cases are isolated. The flexible interface we have developed allows exploration of additional scenarios, including different levels of reopening of society after the second lockdown in England as well as different levels of effective mask coverage. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that increased TTI is necessary to suppress the virus and protect the economy after the second lockdown in England. Additional UT from December 2020 reduces the epidemic dramatically by Jan 2021 and could then be stopped, as continued TTI would prevent rapid recurrence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".