Combatting SARS-CoV-2 With Digital Contact Tracing and Notification: Navigating Six Points of Failure (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<sec> <title>UNSTRUCTURED</title> Digital contact tracing and notification were initially hailed as promising strategies to combat SARS-CoV-2; however, in most jurisdictions, they did not live up to their promise. To avert a given transmission event, both parties must have adopted the technology, it must detect the contact, the primary case must be promptly diagnosed, notifications must be triggered, and the secondary case must change their behavior to avoid the focal tertiary transmission event. If we approximate these as independent events, achieving a 26% reduction in the effective reproduction number R<sub>t</sub> would require an 80% success rate at each of these 6 points of failure. Here, we review the 6 failure rates experienced by a variety of digital contact tracing and contact notification schemes, including Singapore’s TraceTogether, India’s Aarogya Setu, and leading implementations of the Google Apple Exposure Notification system. This leads to a number of recommendations, for example, that the narrative be framed in terms of user autonomy rather than user privacy, and that tracing/notification apps be multifunctional and integrated with testing, manual contact tracing, and the gathering of critical scientific data. </sec>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".