AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
A legitimate one to be sure.
The authors make that observation about testing capacity and contact tracing which they show to be effective if done very early when every person infected or at risk can be traced and possibly quarantined; but that there is considerably less evidence that this matters once the epidemic reaches a certain size, where there isn't as much useful to be gained by the data.
All measures effectiveness are also impacted by the willingness and ability of the population to adhere to different guidance.
This can be a general difference based on country/region; but also one that shifts with time. What people are willing to do will vary by the length of time such measures are in effect; by their proven effect; but also by the surrounding context.
That conclusion doesn't require a meta-analysis - you can't do serious contract tracing in most settings once you hit a certain threshold of cases - I believe Melbourne went full hard lockdown precisely because of this - their number of daily cases exceeded what contact tracers can reliably handle. We have the same problem (but we are more Canadian about that reality - ie. pretend it isn't a problem).
The broader compliant I have about these types of studies is their utility for in driving public policy within time-sensitive contexts - it is too wishy-washy (outcome being driven by so many uncontrollable factors that might or might not matter) in situations where you require near certainty of outcome.
AoD
Last edited: