[Goose]

Also, the big missing piece is how many contacts did they get from the 70-75% they reached? If the got a grand total of 100 contacts in a week and reached 65 of them, that is virtually useless. Strangely, nobody seems to be willing to report an actual number of contacts for each time period. They reveal the number of cases each day, but not 1)the number of cases contacted each day, 2)the number of contacts obtained each day, 3) the number of contacts reached each day. As a result we really don't know what the effort is actually accomplishing, if anything. This is in addition to the fact we get no indication they are checking to ensure contacts are actually quarantining themselves.

I agree that the lack of transparency into what is being observed with case tracking is frustrating.

However, I disagree that being able to reach 65 out of 100 contacts is "virtually useless".  You can bring a pandemic with an R of 2.5 (as COVID-19 roughly is) if you effectively track and trace 65% of contacts.  The issue is tracking those contacts effectively enough to stop the transmission chain, and my suspicion is that we aren't effective in doing so.  But again, in theory, you don't need 100% tracking; every little bit helps to drive down R.

BC

Unfortunately BC, I think you missed my point, and it is a critical one. If you track even 100% of the contacts you are aware of, but only are aware of say 14% of the contacts, your efforts are basically useless. If for example SCC has 100 cases a day for a week, and you get 100 contacts (from the 700 cases) then tracing 65 of them isn't going to help much at all. That is why knowing how many contacts they have been provided to trace is essential. 700 cases and 100 contacts means that at least 600 contacts (probably more, but just count the people who gave the disease to the 600 cases) are out there running free. You trace 65 of the 100 contacts. You have affected R by 9%, best case. Not going to get it done.

[Goose]

Also, the big missing piece is how many contacts did they get from the 70-75% they reached? If the got a grand total of 100 contacts in a week and reached 65 of them, that is virtually useless. Strangely, nobody seems to be willing to report an actual number of contacts for each time period. They reveal the number of cases each day, but not 1)the number of cases contacted each day, 2)the number of contacts obtained each day, 3) the number of contacts reached each day. As a result we really don't know what the effort is actually accomplishing, if anything. This is in addition to the fact we get no indication they are checking to ensure contacts are actually quarantining themselves.

I agree that the lack of transparency into what is being observed with case tracking is frustrating.

However, I disagree that being able to reach 65 out of 100 contacts is "virtually useless".  You can bring a pandemic with an R of 2.5 (as COVID-19 roughly is) if you effectively track and trace 65% of contacts.  The issue is tracking those contacts effectively enough to stop the transmission chain, and my suspicion is that we aren't effective in doing so.  But again, in theory, you don't need 100% tracking; every little bit helps to drive down R.

BC

Unfortunately BC, I think you missed my point, and it is a critical one. If you track even 100% of the contacts you are aware of, but only are aware of say 14% of the contacts, your efforts are basically useless. If for example SCC has 100 cases a day for a week, and you get 100 contacts (from the 700 cases) then tracing 65 of them isn't going to help much at all. That is why knowing how many contacts they have been provided to trace is essential. 700 cases and 100 contacts means that at least 600 contacts (probably more, but just count the people who gave the disease to the 600 cases) are out there running free. You trace 65 of the 100 contacts. You have affected R by 9%, best case. Not going to get it done.