Abstract
Traditional contact tracing for COVID-19 tests the direct contacts of those who test positive even if the contacts do not show any symptom. But, by the time an infected individual is tested, the infection starting from the person may have infected a chain of individuals. Hence, why should the testing stop at direct contacts, and not test secondary, tertiary contacts or even contacts further down? One deterrent in testing long chains of individuals right away may be that it substantially increases the testing load, or does it? We investigate the costs and benefits of such multi-hop contact tracing for different number of hops. Considering a large number of contact topologies, spanning synthetic networks of divergent characteristics and those constructed from recorded interactions, we show that the cost-benefit tradeoff can be characterized in terms of a single measurable attribute, the initial epidemic growth rate. Once this growth rate crosses a threshold, multi-hop contact tracing substantially reduces the outbreak size compared to traditional contact tracing. Multi-hop even incurs a lower cost compared to the traditional contact tracing for a large range of values of the growth rate. The cost-benefit tradeoffs and the choice of the number of hops can be classified into three phases, with sharp transitions between them, depending on the value of the growth rate. The need for choosing a larger number of hops becomes greater as the growth rate increases or the environment becomes less conducive toward containing the disease.
To slow down the spread of COVID-19, public health authorities like the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended testing those who have in the recent past been in physical proximity with an individual who has tested positive, even when the contacts do not exhibit any symptom (1). This preemptive action, commonly known as contact tracing, is deployed because given how contagious the disease is, a patient is likely to have passed the virus to their contacts, and the infected contacts have the potential to infect others even before they show symptoms (2). Discovering and quarantining those infected contacts will stop them from spreading the disease much earlier than a strategy in which only symptomatic individuals who seek medical help are tested. Slowing down the spread by contact tracing comes at the cost of an increase in the testing load, yet, the cost-benefit tradeoff for contact tracing is understood to be substantially favorable, in a situation where many countries have experienced economic downturn and lockdown for a long time.
A question that naturally arises is if cost-benefit tradeoffs may be enhanced through natural generalizations of the core concept of contact tracing - this is what we seek to answer in this paper. In the time that elapses between when an individual, I, is infected until I is tested, the disease spreads from I through a chain of several hops - I infects those I is in contact with, those whom I infects can infect their contacts, the infected contacts can infect their contacts, and so on. A recent study suggests that, due to the high speed of transmission, the epidemic may continue to grow even if all contacts are quarantined with some delay (3).
Fewer people are likely to be infected by testing and quarantining not only direct contacts of an individual who tests positive, but contacts of the contacts and so on (Figure 1b). Such multi-hop tracing and testing will enable identification and quarantine of the individuals further down the chain who have been exposed, earlier than if we had tested only the direct contacts of those who have tested positive and then reach down the chain iteratively. To see why multi-hop contact tracing may be effective note that an infectious disease spreads through growth of clusters of infected individuals around one or more origins, e.g., during the spread of COVID-19 large clusters were observed in meat-packing plants in seven countries, and an e-commerce distribution warehouse in South Korea (4). Contact tracing also form clusters of tested individuals that grow from and around one or more individuals who initially test positive (Figure 1a). In this sense, contact tracing emulates the spread of the disease. If the testing cluster grows faster than the infection cluster and also substantially overlaps with the latter, the outbreak will be contained. And by virtue of its design, multi-hop contact tracing grows the testing cluster faster than traditional contact tracing. Multi-hop tracing strategies have been sporadically deployed in practice with considerable success. For example, in Vietnam, public health authority sometimes reached out to tertiary contacts, and found and tested as many as 200 contacts for each case (5); many of those who were traced and quarantined during the first 100 days of the pandemic were in fact secondary contacts of those who tested positive (6). Vietnam reported only a total of 1, 465 PCR-confirmed cases and 35 deaths by the end of 2020 (7). Nonetheless, this concept has not been comprehensively and systemically investigated - this is the void this paper seeks to fill in.
(a) Left network: This figure is a partial network based on epidemiological investigation information by the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC) and local governments (8). It illustrates how infection spread from two dance instructors (source cases; red circle), both of whom attended a workshop on Feb 15, 2020, in South Korea. Subsequently they separately taught dance classes indoor and spread to the attendees who spread to their contacts. The blue shaded area represents the instructors and the attendees in each dance class, and close contacts (gray dashed line edges) among them in the class. The gray solid lines represent the contact during which the disease is transmitted. The dashed red line between the two instructors indicate that they were in contact (because they simultaneously attended the workshop). Right network: Suppose an index case indicated by the blue square is identified by the health authority. When multi-hop (e.g., 3 hop) contact tracing is done, the tested nodes also form a cluster. Thus, intuitively, the growth of the tested cluster emulates the growth of the infected cluster, this emulation helps in containment. (b) We use a different example to Illustrate and compare 1-hop contact tracing (i.e., testing only the direct contacts of those who test positive) and 3-hop contact tracing (i.e., testing the direct, secondary and tertiary contacts of those who test positive). The time at which a health authority tests the patient-0 (red) was after the infection has propagated 2 hops. By t + 3 time units, both testing policies test 4 individuals (black) other than the patient-0; the 3-hop policy tests and quarantines the positive ones in a shorter time, while 1-hop tests and quarantines them progressively and therefore over longer times. Accordingly, only 3 individuals are infected under the 3-hop policy, while 10 individuals are infected under the 1-hop policy. The real-world initial epidemic growth rates from 258 political units range from 0 to 0.31, with a median of 0.12 (interquartile range 0.08 - 0.17). Each quartile is filled with a different color. (d) Virus transmission model illustration. The Compartmental model consists of the following compartments: Susceptible (S), Presymptomatic-Latent (Ip-L), Presymptomatic (Ip), Symptomatic (Is), Ready-to-Test (RT), Asymptomatic-Latent (Ia -L), Asymptomatic (Ia), Recovered (R), and Dead (D).
The following questions arise in context of multi-hop tracing: 1) Under what circumstances can traditional contact tracing not significantly reduce the outbreak size? In these cases, do aggressive preemptive tracing schemes under multi-hop reduce the outbreak size significantly? 2) Do such schemes necessarily increase the overall number of tests and quarantines? The answer is not a priori clear as reduction in overall infection spread through such a strategy may eventually reduce the number of tests required, as illustrated in Figure 1b. 3) If multi-hop tracing turns out to be beneficial, how many hops provide the best cost-benefit tradeoff? Does a saturation phenomenon in which the benefit increases only marginally by increasing the number of hops beyond a certain point arise? If so, what is the saturation point? 4) How do these answers depend on the attributes of the tests, the time at which contact tracing is deployed, and the behavioral dynamics, that is, the extent of public compliance of public health directives? We proceed to answer these questions in this paper.
We formalize the aggressive preemptive tracing and testing scheme as k-hop contact tracing, where k is the depth of the contact chain that is traced. For example, k = 0 does not trace contacts and tests only those who show symptoms and seek medical help, k = 1 is the traditional contact tracing that tests the direct contacts of an individual who tests positive, k = 2 additionally tests the contacts of the contacts, k = 3 tests yet another hop of contacts, and so on. We call the multiple generations of contacts to COVID-19 cases (i.e., k-hop contact tracing for k≥ 2) multi-hop contact tracing.
We quantify the costs and benefit of contact tracing over a course of 6 months (180 days) starting from the day after contact tracing is initiated, and compare the results for multi-hop contact tracing with 1-hop contact tracing. The benefit is defined as the percentage of reduction in the number of infections over the period compared to when no contact tracing was performed. The costs are comprised of 1) the number of tests and 2) total sum of days of quarantine for the entire population over the period.
However, the nature of the cost-benefit tradeoff for multi-hop contact tracing depends on various attributes. Behavioral dynamics undermine the efficacy of contact tracing. Individuals do not always cooperate with public-health authorities by 1) disclosing their contacts 2) quarantining when exposed to those who test positive. The tests suffer from false negatives and false positives. If an individual tests negative falsely, his k-hop contacts will not be traced and tested (unless those contacts are within k-hop of another individual who tests positive). This undermines the ability of the tracing strategy to contain the outbreak. False positives may increase cost by setting off a chain of unnecessary tracing and testing. Tests can have different turnaround times, high turnaround times delay tracing the contacts of those infected. Contact tracing in its entirety may be initiated by public health officials only after the infection level in the target populace crosses a certain threshold. All these attributes are likely to affect the outcome of the tracing. These attributes depend on regional and cultural characteristics and public health policies which are different in different ambiences. Given the inherent uncertainty of the settings and the heterogeneity for different venues, we consider a range of values of the above attributes based on estimates available in the literature.
Contact pattern among individuals and probability with which a contagious individual infects a susceptible individual in an interaction uniquely determine initial epidemic growth rate that characterizes the intrinsic speed of virus spread within each community in the absence of any public health intervention. Our simulations in a large number of large-scale contact networks reveal that the nature of the cost-benefit tradeoff for multi-hop contact tracing can be characterized in terms of the growth rate, and the nature remains largely stable to variation of the above-mentioned attributes in reasonable ranges. When the growth rate is low, 1-hop contact tracing alone can sufficiently contain the virus, and multi-hop contact tracing does not provide noticeable further benefit in terms of reduction in the outbreak size. Next, a sharp phase transition is exhibited once the growth rate crosses a threshold value. Specifically, at intermediate growth rates, the benefit that 1-hop provides dramatically decreases as compared to the low growth rate range, and multi-hop contact tracing offers substantial further benefit even at a lower cost compared to 1-hop. At high growth rates, multi-hop contact tracing provides substantial further benefit but incurs greater costs, as compared to 1-hop contact tracing. Next, as to the choice of the number of hops, in general, the need for choosing a larger number of hops becomes greater as the growth rate increases or the environment becomes less conducive toward containing the disease. The further benefit for adding another hop beyond 1-hop tends to diminish progressively in almost every topology, the decrease becomes less pronounced for higher growth rates and in more challenging environments. Thus, the saturation phenomenon is observed throughout, though the hop number at which this phenomenon is observed is higher for higher growth rates and in more challenging environments. Specifically, based on the costs and benefits, it becomes apparent that the choice for the number of hops may be confined to 1, 2, 3, 4 hops, with the need for considering 4-hop arising largely for the high growth rate region (5 hops provides non-negligible further benefit only in very few instances).
Model Dynamics and Contact Tracing Process
We consider a discrete time stochastic evolution of COVID-19 in a population that initially consists of susceptible and a few contagious individuals. We model the progression of the disease using a compartmental model (Figure 1d). The disease spreads from the contagious individual (CI) to the susceptible individual (SI) through mutual interaction. In any given interaction with a CI, an SI is infected with a probability β. This transmission probability depends on a range of factors such as whether the individuals observe social distancing, wear protective equipment and varies from one venue to another. Considering (10, 11), we consider a wide range of values for β, namely β ∈ [0.1, 0.3]. After a latency period (the presymptomatic-latent and asymptomatic-latent are in this latency period), the newly infected individuals become contagious. Specifically, at the end of the latency period, the individuals either become presymptomatic (the stage before exhibiting symptoms), or asymptomatic (that is, they never show symptoms). Presymptomatics proceed to become symptomatics in the next stage. After a random delay, symptomatics opt for seeking medical help and testing, and become ready-to-test. Presymptomatics, asymptomatics, symptomatics all however are contagious. Refer to Methods for details on the systems we consider and the parameters we choose.
Once the individual in question tests positive, the public health authority traces his k-hop contacts, over the last 14 days, and informs them at the end of the day that they may have been exposed under the assumption of implementation of digital contact tracing. Such contact tracing may be accomplished through digital contact tracing (refer to SI Appendix for details on digital contact tracing pertaining to multi-hop contact tracing). The authority asks them to self-quarantine for 14 days unless they are already under quarantine or ever tested positive before. We assume that the traced individuals are scheduled for testing in 3 days. The test results are available in 1 to 3 days. Individuals who test positive will not be tested again, but those who test negative can be tested again if they are traced again from an individual who tested positive.
We evaluate the multi-hop testing strategies through agent-driven simulation on diverse large-scale contact networks, spanning a large number of networks of a classical synthetic variety with N = 100, 000 individuals and empirical social contact networks. In the contact networks, the nodes represent the individuals and the edges their contacts; the degrees of the nodes represent the number of contacts of the corresponding individuals. Growth of an epidemic depends on structural attributes of the contact networks, such as 1) average path lengths between nodes 2) clustering coefficient 3) degree distribution. We consider two broad classes of synthetic networks, which captures different ranges of the above attributes: 1) Watts-Strogatz networks 2) Scale-free networks. By varying a parameter, referred to as the rewiring probability, of the Watts-Strogatz networks from 0 to 1, one can realize 1) average path lengths that range from linear to logarithmic functions of the number of nodes 2) clustering coefficients from high to vanishingly small (9). Studies based on real data suggest that contact networks among individuals exhibit short (i.e., logarithmic) average path length and high clustering coefficients (commonly referred to as the small-world property) (12, 13). When clustering coefficient is high, most of the contacts happen between individuals in given phases or clusters; when clustering coefficient is low, most contacts happen between randomly selected individuals. Both extremes and values in between can be captured by choosing the value of the rewiring probability (9). The special case of the Watts-Strogatz model in which the average path length is logarithmic and the clustering coefficient is low corresponds to a variant of the Erdős Rényi random networks; we consider this variant as well. Scale-free networks exhibit heterogeneous degree distributions, i.e., the degree distribution has a high variance and only a polynomially decaying tail (‘fat-tailed’ distribution). The degree distribution in Watts-Strogatz models have exponentially decaying tails for usual choices of parameters. The implication of this difference is that scale-free networks invariably have some individuals with very high degree, while the probability of the same happening in Watts-Strogatz models is low.
Additionally, we consider a social contact network obtained from data recorded from social and professional interaction patterns that have been realized in practice. This data-set records interactions among 69, 441 individuals residing in 75 villages in the state of Karnataka in India (14). In this data-set, each village consists of 354 - 1775 individuals in this data-set. The limitation of this data-set is that it contains information only on social interactions between individuals within each village. However, in reality, individuals living in different villages do come in contact, and pandemic spreads from one village to another through these contacts. Also, the cost-benefit trade-off for multi-hop contact tracing is best evaluated on large population sizes, otherwise the length of the contact chains will be limited by the size of the target populace. We therefore rewire r% of edges to introduce interactions between individuals of different villages, where r is a parameter.
By considering all of these diverse networks complementing each other in fundamental characteristics, we are able to assess the cost-benefit tradeoffs of multi-hop contact tracing and testing strategies for widely varying contact patterns. See Table 1 and Methods for details on all the synthetic and data-driven networks we consider.
We consider an attribute called initial epidemic growth rate, or more simply the growth rate, that characterizes the intrinsic speed of virus spread in each network. This attribute depends on the network structure and the transmission probability β. Let Ntand N0respectively be the cumulative number of infected individuals at times t and t0 in a target region, where t0 represents the start and [t0, t] an initial period of the epidemic growth. Now, similar to (15), we define the growth rate in the target region as (ln Nt − ln N0)/(t − t0). We choose this expression (particularly the logarithmic functions) because the growth of infections during the initial period has been widely observed to be exponential for different epidemics including the COVID-19 pandemic. We consider an initial period because the growth of the epidemic in this period typically happens before any public health intervention, such as contact tracing, preemptive quarantining, lockdown etc. and therefore represents the innate speed of the spread of the virus in the network, and depends only on the network structure and β. Using the data available in (16), we calculated this quantity for COVID-19 for different political units (country/region or province/state/dependency). We limited the analysis to political units that recorded at least 40 cases within the early stages of spread of COVID-19 (i.e., within first three months up to April 20, 2020) of the pandemic. There are 142 such countries/regions and 116 province/state/dependencies (Figure 1c). For each such political unit we considered t0 to be the time at which 40 cases are recorded in the unit, we consider that local community transmissions begin at t0; we consider t to be 3 weeks (21 days) from t0. We found that the growth rates in all these political units range from 0 to 0.31, with a median of 0.12 (Figure 1c). The range of β that we consider provides initial epidemic growth rates, in the diverse contact networks we consider, in a range that subsumes the realistic range [0, 0.31].
We consider various attributes that affect the efficacy of contact tracing, involving variations of false negative rates, false positive rates, test result turnaround times, starting times of contact tracing, and level of cooperation with contact tracing and testing. We first set a default scenario and then consider a variety of environments departing from the choices in the default scenario based on estimates available in the literature. We first consider attributes of the testing equipment and logistics. Test results may be inaccurate, suffering from false-negatives and false-positives. A review (17) of 34 studies based on 12, 057 confirmed patients showed that false-negative rates ranged from 1.8 to 58%, with a median of 11%. We thus set the median 11% false-negative rate as default, but consider both the lowest and highest end-points of the reported range, though note that 58% is unrealistically high for the test-result to be meaningful. As for false positives, studies assessing a total of 119 South Korean laboratories (18, 19) and 52 Austrian laboratories (20) did not report false positive results, and a study evaluating 365 laboratories in 36 countries reported a false positive rate of 0.7% (21). We set the 0% false-positive rate as default, but also consider 0.7% rate. Next, note that there is usually a delay between when a test is conducted and its result is obtained, this delay is known as the turnaround time. According to CDC (22), the turnaround times for 1) most nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs), such as RT-PCR, vary between 1-3 days, 2) point-of-care tests are 15-45 minutes. We set default value of the turnaround time as 1 day, but also consider 3 days.
Public health authorities in different political units may decide to start contact tracing when the infection level in the target populace crosses a certain threshold. We consider that contact tracing is initiated when the first individual tests positive as the default option. This is in accordance with the observations of the leading practitioners of contact tracing programs who recognize that contact tracing should start as soon as the first case is diagnosed. Once the outbreak spreads, the logistical challenges associated with contact tracing multiply because of the sheer volume of the contacts that need to be traced (23). Also, the only countries to have successfully contained the outbreak through contact tracing (i.e., before pharmaceutical preventives became available), namely South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, started the process early (5). We also consider significantly delayed initiations, e.g., a year from when the outbreak is recorded. Using the data available in (16, 24), we calculated the percentage of cumulative confirmed cases in different political units (186 countries and 137 states/provinces/dependencies) at the end of a year from the date the datasets were recorded (Jan 21, 2021). The median of the percentages is 1.1% and maximum is 12.6%. Accordingly, we also consider scenarios in which contact tracing is initiated when the percentage of cumulative infections reaches 1.1%, 12.6%, and also the extreme value of 40%. Finally, we assume full cooperation from the target populace as the default setting, i.e., every individual tests and quarantines as instructed by his local public health authority and reveals his contacts to them. But, we also consider scenarios in which cooperativity is less universal, and describe the forms and levels of non-cooperativity in the next section.
Results
We quantify the costs and benefit of contact tracing over a course of 6 months (180 days) starting from the day after contact tracing is initiated. The total number of infections, the total number of tests, and the total sum of days of quarantine for the entire population over the period are averaged over 150 simulation runs, excluding those in which fewer than 40 individuals are infected within the first 3 months (90 days). By comparing the mean values of these results for different number of hops, we evaluate cost-benefit tradeoffs of multi-hop contact tracing scheme.
We first define key cost-benefit metrics that are utilized throughout the evaluations. Recall that the benefit is defined as the percentage of reduction in the number of infections over the period of study compared to when no contact tracing was performed. There are two different kinds of costs: 1) tests and 2) quarantine. Testing cost is defined as the total number of tests over the period of consideration. We calculate the quarantine cost as the number of individuals quarantined on each day summed over all days in the period under consideration. This equals the number of days each individual is quarantined added over all individuals. We define relative benefit and relative costs to quantify the incremental benefits and costs multi-hop contact tracing provides/incurs as compared to 1-hop contact tracing. The relative benefit for k-hop, k > 1, is defined as the difference between the benefits provided by k-hop and 1-hop, i.e., benefit for k-hop - benefit for 1-hop. The relative costs for k-hop, k > 1, is defined as the ratio of cost difference between multi-hop and 1-hop to cost for 1-hop contact tracing, i.e., 
, which represents how much more or less cost is required compared to 1-hop contact tracing.
We first focus on the benefits and costs for multi-hop contact tracing over single hop (i.e., traditional) contact tracing. We show that the cost-benefit tradeoffs for multi-hop contact tracing can be classified into three phases, each corresponding to a different range of the growth rates; as the growth rate transitions into different ranges, sharp phase transitions are often observed. The range of growth rate we consider is [0, 0.31], the range in which those of the large number of political units we examined lie (Table S2 in SI Appendix). The classifications of the phases turn out to be robust to variations of false negative rates, false positive rates, test result turnaround times, and even some form of non-cooperation such as when the non-cooperative individuals resume their activities from the date of the negative results discounting the possibility of false negatives. On the other hand, the classifications are significantly affected by long delays in starting contact tracing, and more debilitating forms of non-cooperation in which non-cooperative individuals neither disclose their contacts nor comply with public health guidelines on quarantining and testing. We subsequently study the choice of hops for multi-hop contact tracing, considering the cost-benefit tradeoffs and show that the choice can again be classified into the three phases, and classification follows the same partition as that for comparison between multi-hop and single hop. Also, the tradeoffs favor the choice of a higher number of hops as the initial growth rate increases and the testing venues become more challenging. Thus, various behavioral facets of multi-hop contact tracing are determined by a single measurable attribute, the growth rate, for diverse contact pattern networks and wide range of testing, public health policy and cooperativity parameters.
Single-hop vs Multi-hop Contact Tracing - A cost-benefit perspective
Default Setting
We first evaluate the cost-benefit tradeoffs of multi-hop contact tracing under the default scenario for the synthetic networks. Figure 2a represents different networks and parameter combinations as points on a graph with growth rate as the horizontal axis and benefit as the vertical axis. This figure shows that despite the collective impact of various factors (types of contact networks, mean number of contacts per individuals, and transmission probability), the magnitude of the benefits provided by contact tracing can be characterized in terms of the growth rates. For the combinations in which the growth rate is low, 1-hop contact tracing alone can sufficiently contain the virus, and 2-hop and 3-hop contact tracing does not provide noticeable further benefit in terms of reduction in the outbreak size. Specifically, when growth rate is less than or equal to 0.105, 1-hop contact tracing reduces the outbreak size by 85.0 - 99.9% (median 97.8%), and the relative benefit provided by increasing the number of hops beyond 1-hop is less than 4.3%. Next, a sharp phase transition is exhibited once the growth rate crosses a threshold value. Specifically, the benefit that 1-hop provides dramatically decreases, and multi-hop contact tracing offers substantial relative benefit. When the growth rate exceeds 0.105, the benefit provided by 1-hop is 5.6 - 74.5% with 28.1% as median; increasing the number of hops to 3 provides a relative benefit of 25.5 - 94.2% with 67.7% as median. This suggests that, as the virus spreads faster, traditional contact tracing becomes less than adequate. This is because in the time that elapses between when an individual becomes infectious and I is quarantined through 1-hop contact tracing, the disease spreads from I through a chain of several hops, i.e., the contacts I infects infect their contacts and so on. Thus, the testing cluster (Figure 1a) grows slower than the infection cluster (Figure 1a shows an example testing and infection cluster for example). In this case, as shown in Figure 1b, preemptively tracing and quarantining multi-hop contacts can help tracing catch up with the speed of virus spread faster than 1-hop contact tracing; that is, the testing cluster may grow faster than the infection cluster and the epidemic may be contained.
(a) Benefit each policy provides, from 1-hop to 3-hop contact tracing under the default setting. This represents the percentage of reduction in the number of infections when k-hop contact tracing was performed compared to when no contact tracing was performed. (b) Relative benefit and relative costs for 3-hop contact tracing under the default setting. These respectively represent the incremental benefits and costs 3-hop contact tracing provides/incurs as compared to 1-hop contact tracing. The gray, red, and blue shaded regions respectively represent phase A, B, and C under the default setting. For both (a) and (b), each point represents one of a combination of contact pattern and transmission probability. For example, WS1 · 0.1 represents that the contact pattern corresponds to WS1 network (among the networks listed in Table 1) and the transmission probability is 0.1. Regardless of types of contact tracing scheme, the contact pattern and the transmission probability uniquely determine the growth rate (x-axis) that characterizes the intrinsic speed of virus spread in the absence of any public health intervention. The filled and open circles correspond to synthetic networks and data-driven networks, respectively.
We observe that 3-hop contact tracing can reduce the outbreak by 84.6 - 99.5% even for high growth rates. Hence, we now quantify the costs and benefit of 3-hop contact tracing in comparison with 1-hop contact tracing. Figure 2b reveals that the relative benefit and relative cost for 3-hop contact tracing follow three phases. We classify the instances in which the relative benefit ≤ 20% as phase A. These correspond to low (i.e., ≤0.105 in this case) growth rates (gray shaded region). The relative benefit increases substantially when the growth rate exceeds a threshold value (0.105 in this case). Refer to the first row of Figure 2b. We now investigate the relative costs for 3-hop contact tracing (the second and third rows of Figure 2b). At intermediate growth rates (red shaded region, between 0.105 and 0.247 in this case), the relative costs are negative, which means that 3-hop needs fewer total tests and fewer total sum of days of quarantine for the entire population as compared to 1-hop, despite the fact that 3-hop reduces the outbreak size significantly as compared to 1-hop. At high growth rates (blue shaded region, higher than 0.247 in this case), 3-hop still provides a significant relative benefit, but requires greater costs compared to 1-hop tracing. We classify the former as phase B (relative benefit > 20% & relative costs ≤0%), the latter as phase C (relative benefit > 20% & relative costs > 0%). Multi-hop contact tracing may incur higher costs than 1-hop contact tracing because it traces up to more hops even from the same number of confirmed cases. However, this can more rapidly mitigate the spread of virus as compared to 1-hop contact tracing through faster identification and quarantine of multi-hop contacts of infected individuals, thus fewer individuals need tests with passage of time. In phase B, the latter phenomenon dominates, in phase C the former.
Finally, the relative cost of tests and quarantine for 3-hop contact tracing is not only negative, but substantially so for most of phase B. Except for the two instances of the highest growth rates in phase B, the relative cost of tests is lower than 90.3%. From the two highest growth rates, the magnitudes of the relative costs begin to increase significantly and this increase continues into phase C. In these two instances the relative costs of tests are -36.2% and -5.8% respectively. In phase C, the relative cost of tests and quarantine are also substantially higher than 0. The relative cost of tests is for example 29.9 - 185.9% (median 91.7%). The relative costs of quarantine are similar to those for tests throughout.
We classify phases A, B, and C using the same criteria as in the default setting, for different values of attributes, involving variations of false negative rates, false positive rates, turnaround times, starting times of contact tracing, and cooperativity. The ranges of growth rates corresponding to the phases are about the same for different values of attributes (involving false negative rates, false positive rates, turnaround times, and some forms of non-cooperations) in a realistic range. But, as the environments become more challenging, the growth rate corresponding to the boundaries between phases tend to slightly shift to the left from the boundaries for the default setting. For different attributes in the subsequent paragraphs we explicitly point out wherever the boundaries between the different phases differ or if the classification exhibits any other difference, otherwise we only state that the tradeoffs are similar to the default setting. We describe the results on cost-benefit analysis for a variety of environments in Table S3 in SI Appendix.
We now consider a data-driven network under the same default setting. For different values of the parameter r, the growth rates for the networks are distributed in the second half of the intermediate range and in the high range. Figure 2a shows that in this case the benefits provided by each policy, from 1-hop to 3-hop contact tracing, behave similarly to those observed at the same growth rates in the diverse synthetic networks. Moreover, the relative benefit and relative costs also behave similarly to those observed at the same growth rates in synthetic networks (Figure 2b). Thus, the tradeoffs are similar to the default setting of the synthetic networks.
We now revert to synthetic networks and consider parameter values other than those in the default setting.
Properties of Tests
We now explore the impact of the test, both false negative and false positive, on cost-benefit tradeoff. Note that false negatives prevent tracing the contacts from the individuals who test negative but are infected in reality. This can reduce the benefits of contact tracing. This also may reduce costs as fewer individuals need be quarantined and tested, but on the other hand may also increase costs as larger outbreaks may eventually require higher number of tests and quarantines. We assess the impact of these two opposing factors. The tradeoffs are similar to the default setting except at the extreme value of 58% false negative rate (Figure 3a); in this case the growth rates corresponding to the boundaries between phases shift to the left. Some instances towards the upper end in phases A and B at the default choice of 11% respectively exhibit cost-benefit tradeoffs characterized by phases B and C at the extreme value of 58%.
Classifications of the phases for variations of (a) false negative rate, (b) false positive rate, and (c) test result turnaround time. Vertical dashed lines represent boundaries between phases under the default setting, i.e., false negative rate is 11%, false positive rate is 0%, and test result turnaround time is 1 day. The circles with grey, red, and blue respectively represent the contact pattern and transmission probability combinations in phases A, B, and C respectively. Note that as false negative rate increases, we find some red circles at the left of the left vertical dashed lines, and some blue circles at the left of the right vertical dashed lines. Thus, the boundaries between the phases tend to slightly shift to the left as false negative rate increases. We observe the same phenomenon as the false positive rate and turnaround times increase as compared to the default setting. This phenomenon is more pronounced at the extreme value of 58% false negative rate. Otherwise, the classifications of the phases are robust to variations of false negative rates, false positive rates, and test result turnaround times in a realistic range. Points and bars indicate the mean and 5th-95th percentiles.
False positives do not reduce the benefit of the contact tracing strategies, but may incur higher costs particularly for greater values of the growth rate. Nonetheless, Figure 3b shows that the tradeoffs are similar to the default setting.
Test Result Turnaround Time
Longer test result turnaround time causes delays in contact tracing. Nonetheless, Figure 3c shows that for 3 days turnaround time the boundaries between phases slightly shift to the left.
Starting Point of Contact Tracing
We now assess how the cost-benefit tradeoff is affected if public health authorities do not initiate contact tracing right at the onset of the epidemic. We allow the virus to spread on contact networks without any intervention, and start contact tracing when the cumulative infection percentage crosses a designated threshold (1.1%, 12.6%, 40%). We calculate averages over 150 simulation runs in which this threshold is crossed within one year, and consider only the networks and parameter values for which this threshold is crossed for at least 1 simulation run among the first 150 runs. Figure 4 shows that the growth rates corresponding to the boundaries between phases for the 1.1% starting point shift to the left from those (vertical dashed lines) for the default choice. For 12.6% and 40%, even if relative benefit is still significant, greater costs are required to achieve the benefit. In particular, for the extreme value of 40%, relative benefits are mostly above 20%, while relative costs are mostly above 0%, so all but a few cases fall into phase C.
Classifications of the phases for variations of starting points of contact tracing. Vertical dashed lines represent boundaries between phases under the default setting, i.e., contact tracing is initiated when the first individual tests positive. We follow the same color code as in Figure 3. When the starting point is at 1.1%, we find some red circles at the left of the left vertical dashed lines, and some blue circles at the left of the right vertical dashed lines. This phenomenon is more pronounced as contact tracing is delayed. Points and bars indicate the mean and 5th-95th percentiles.
Level of Cooperation with Contact Tracing and Testing
The extent of cooperation of individuals with public health guidance plays an important role in preventing the spread of the virus. Non-cooperation can arise in different forms: individuals not revealing their contacts, not testing nor self-quarantining. Based on the default setting, we explore two different scenarios of limited cooperation:
Scenario 1: Non-cooperative individuals resume their activities from the date of the negative results discounting the possibility of false negatives, and do not share their contacts during the period of advised quarantine.
Scenario 2: Non-cooperative individuals do not get tested nor quarantine upon notification of exposure. They get tested and quarantine only if they develop symptoms and that too after a delay from symptom onset. They do not disclose their contacts either before or after getting tested.
Figure 5a show that in Scenario 1, even when 50% of individuals do not cooperate, the cost-benefit tradeoff remains similar to when everyone fully cooperates (default setting). However, in Scenario 2, the cost-benefit tradeoff is significantly altered as fewer individuals cooperate, because refusal to test and reveal contacts limit tracing and the contact network as known to tracers becomes fragmented and sparse. Accordingly, in most cases that belong to phases B and C under 100% cooperativity, the relative benefit decreases and becomes below 20% under 50% cooperativity. Thus, they belong to phase A.
Classifications of the phases for variations of level of cooperation with contact tracing and testing. Vertical dashed lines represent boundaries between phases under the default setting, i.e., full cooperation from the entire population (100% cooperativity). For scenario 1, as cooperativity decreases, the boundaries between the phases slightly move to the left. For scenario 2, as cooperativity decreases, the cost-benefit tradeoff is significantly altered. Specifically, most cases that belong to phases B and C under 100% cooperativity belong to phase A under 50% cooperativity.
Comparison Across Different Number of Hops - A cost-benefit perspective
Our numerical computations reveal some broad trends, with regard to the choice of the number of hops, recurring across various scenarios. We first define two additional concepts. The further benefit of hop k is defined as additional benefit provided by increasing hops by one, i.e., difference between benefits of k-hop and (k - 1)-hop. The further cost of hop k is defined as the additional relative cost incurred by increasing hops by one, i.e., difference between relative costs of k-hop and (k - 1)-hop. While criteria for choosing the number of hops may be subjective, for ease of exposition, we rule out higher number of hops if they do not result in 10% or greater further benefits. Recall that we chose a 20% difference in relative benefit for 3 hops as the criteria for classifying instances of topologies and parameters into phase A vs phases B, C. The criteria for choice of hops is applied on a different quantity, further benefit of higher number of hops. Different values for the two markers, 10%, 20%, have been used because the goal for the demarcations are different: 1) a higher difference 20% is used to demarcate the instances in which multi-hop substantially lowers the outbreak size as compared to 1-hop (phases B, C) 2) higher hops are ruled out when they provide only marginal further benefit, that is, lower than 10%. Among the rest of the hops, we posit that the choice would be made based on additional costs incurred by each hop over the previous. Recall that, for the default setting, phases A, B, and C respectively correspond to growth rates of 0 - 0.105, 0.105 - 0.247, and 0.247 - 0.31. We refer to these fixed ranges as low, intermediate and high throughout the paper. We present broad trends observed in each region for a wide range of parameter choices, based on the criteria mentioned above:
In the low growth rate range, 1-hop contact tracing alone frequently reduces the outbreak size by over 90%, and further benefit on increasing the number of hops beyond 1-hop is usually lower than 10%. Thus, 1-hop is the natural choice by our criteria. We observe deviation from this trend in different degrees when 1) false negative rates are excessively high 2) turnaround times are long 3) there is long delay in starting the contact tracing after the onset of the pandemic and 4) when the delay in starting contact tracing is unrealistically long and cooperativity (Scenario 2) is low. Mostly, wherever the further benefits are higher for multi-hop contact tracing, 1) 3 or higher number of hops attain lower than 10% further benefit, and may therefore be ruled out by our criteria 2) 2-hop suffices in reducing the outbreak size; and also attains lower cost as compared to 1-hop in almost every case.
In the intermediate growth rate range, the benefit that 1-hop provides dramatically decrease as compared to the low growth rate range (sharp phase transition once a threshold value is crossed), and 2-hop offers substantial further benefit, even at a lower cost compared to 1-hop. Increasing the number of hops beyond 3-hop provide lower than 10% further benefit, except for scenarios in which cooperativity is low and false negative rates are excessively high (for delays in starting point, the further benefit of 4 hops exceeds 10% only slightly). Thus, except for challenging environments, the choice can be limited to 2 or 3 hops in this range per our criteria. Between 2 and 3 hops, the further benefit provided by 3 hops exceeds 10% only in a few instances towards the higher end of the intermediate growth rate range. Thus, per our criteria, 2 hop constitutes a natural choice in most of the intermediate growth rate range. We observe divergence from this trend as the environments become more challenging, such as, excessively high false negative rates, long delay in starting the contact tracing (in these cases the additional benefits provided by 3 hops exceed 10% in several instances throughout the intermediate growth rate range), and low cooperativity. Also, in general, the trends in the higher end of the intermediate growth rate range resemble those in the high growth rate region, for some extreme scenarios the trends throughout the intermediate growth rate range are similar to those in the high growth rate region. Finally, wherever the further benefits attained by 3-hop exceeds 10%, the choice between 2 and 3 hop would be determined based on the additional cost incurred by 3 hop over 2 hop.
In the high growth range, further benefit of 2-hop and 3-hop mostly exceed 10%, those of 4-hop also exceed 10% in several instances, those of 5-hop exceed 10% in very few instances. Usually, each hop fetches greater cost than the previous hop. This constitutes an important distinction with intermediate growth rate range. In the intermediate growth rate range 2-hop usually incurs lower cost than 1-hop except for very challenging environments and the few (two, to be specific) highest growth rates in the range, and in several of these 3-hop incurs lower cost than 2-hop. In the high growth rate range, additional benefits provided by 4 and 5-hop increase as the environments become more challenging, such as, increase in false negative rates and turnaround times and decrease in cooperativity (Scenario 1). The choice on the number of hops need to be made depending on the magnitude of the additional benefits and affordability of the additional costs incurred when hop count is increased (this is also the phenomenon observed in extreme scenarios and in growth rates at the higher end of the intermediate growth rate range).
Thus, overall 5-hop can be ruled out except in very few instances, and the choice is confined to 1, 2, 3, 4 hops, with the need for considering 4-hop arising largely for the high growth rate region. Next, in general, the need for choosing a larger number of hops becomes greater as the growth rate increases or the environment becomes less conducive towards containing the disease. But, at the same time the further benefit for adding another hop beyond 1-hop tends to diminish progressively in almost every topology, just that, the decrease becomes less pronounced for higher growth rates and in more challenging environments.
Default setting
We now describe the simulation results in the default setting in greater detail. The further benefit incurred by adding another hop beyond 1-hop tends to diminish progressively. In a range of low growth rates, 1-hop contact tracing reduces the outbreak size by 85.0 - 99.9% (median 97.8%), and the further benefit provided by increasing the number of hops beyond 1-hop is less than 4.3%.
When the growth rate exceeds a certain threshold, we observe a sharp decrease in the benefit that 1-hop provides. Specifically, in a range of intermediate growth rates, the benefit provided by 1-hop is 5.6 - 74.5% with 30.3% as median. In all but two instances in this region, 2-hop adequately contain the outbreak (further benefit beyond what 1 hop provides is 25.5 - 93.9%, median 63.0%); increasing the number of hops beyond 2-hop provides only 2.4% or lower further benefit. The costs for 2-hop are even lower than those for 1-hop (further costs for 2-hop are negative). In the remaining two instances, which correspond to the highest growth rates in the intermediate growth rate range, 2-hop offers further benefit of 51.6% and 59.9% and incurs higher costs than 1-hop, simultaneously 3-hop also provides further benefit of 16.0% and 16.9% with less costs than both 1 and 2-hop (further cost of tests and quarantine for 3-hop is respectively -57.8, -32.9 and -58.0, -33.2). Also, increasing the number of hops beyond 3-hop provides only at most 1.8% further benefit in these instances. Thus, 3-hop emerges as the natural choice in these instances. Thus, in the intermediate growth rate range, 2-hop constitutes the natural choice, except for two instances at the high end of this range, for which 3-hop constitutes the natural choice.
In the high growth rate region, further benefits of 1-hop, 2-hop, 3-hop, 4-hop are 12.4-43%, median 23%, 34.8 - 56.5%, median 42.2%, 2.5 - 32.6%, median 27%, 0.3 - 9.8%, median 4.6%, respectively. Thus, starting 2 hops, the further benefits are progressively decreasing, but are considerable for up to 3 hops. Also, multi-hop contact tracing (up to 4 hops) incur greater costs than that incurred by the previous hop in almost every case; further cost of tests and quarantine for 3-hop is respectively up to 53.4 and 51.4, and further cost of tests and quarantine for 4-hop is respectively up to 100.9 and 95.7. By our criteria, the choice should be between 2 and 3 hops, depending entirely on the affordability of the additional costs incurred by 3 hop in each instance.
Thus, the natural choices that emerge are: 1) 1-hop throughout the low growth rate region 2) 2-hop throughout the intermediate growth rate region except for 2 with the highest growth rates in which 3-hop constitutes the natural choice 3) either 2 or 3 hops throughout the high growth rate region depending on the affordability of the additional costs incurred by 3 hops in each instance. Also, for each topology, starting from 2 hops, the further benefits constitute a non-increasing function of the number of hops, thus the principle of diminishing return holds.
The broad trends also recur in the data-driven networks. Furthermore, the trends remain similar if we vary false negative rates, cooperativity (Scenario 1), false positive rates, and turnaround times in a realistic range, departing from the choices in the default scenario. Refer to SI Appendix for details on specific numbers and analysis, in which we present the further benefits and costs up to 5 hops for different parameter combinations, classifying the results in three categories of growth rates, low, intermediate, and high.
Discussion
Contact tracing has been deployed during the first year of the pandemic in many countries, but very few of those countries have successfully contained the pandemic before the advent of pharmaceutical interventions. Vietnam is one of the few success stories in successful containment of the outbreak, and it is also the only country to have incorporated multi-hop contact tracing in its containment program. This observation motivates us to embark on an investigation of multi-hop contact tracing considering a diverse set of large-scale contact networks, spanning synthetic networks of various families and design choices and those obtained from real-world contact data. Our simulations reveal that multi-hop contact tracing has the potential to reduce the outbreak to a much smaller size as compared to conventional contact tracing (i.e., single-hop contact tracing), even at lower costs than the conventional contact tracing. We also show that the cost-benefit tradeoffs for multi-hop contact tracing can be classified into three phases, with sharp transitions between the phases, and each phase corresponds to a different range of the initial epidemic growth rates. When the growth rates are low, multi-hop becomes redundant as single-hop contains the outbreak adequately. For higher growth rates, multi-hop substantially reduces the outbreak size, incurring 1) substantially lower quarantining and testing costs as compared to single-hop in the intermediate growth rate region 2) considerable higher costs in the high growth rate region. The cost-benefit tradeoffs lead to appropriate choices of the hop size in each region; as growth rate increases or the testing ambience becomes more challenging, the cost-benefit tradeoffs propel us towards choosing higher number of hops. We calculate the growth rates in a large number of political units from publicly available pandemic data; our calculations show that these growth rates span all three ranges. In particular, therefore, multi-hop contact tracing substantially reduces the outbreak size and lowers overall costs for a large number of realistic values of growth rates. The classifications of the phases and the associated choice of the hop count turn out to be largely robust to variations of parameters such as false negative rates, false positive rates, test result turnaround times, and even some forms of non-cooperations.
Multi-hop contact tracing has been subject to limited rigorous investigation thus far. To our knowledge, the only other work to investigate this concept has been (25). Our work is complementary to (25) which used real-world social network data of 468 individuals and considered tracing and quarantining (without testing) both primary and secondary contacts of those who test positive. (25) found that quarantining secondary contacts decreases the cumulative infection count compared to quarantining only the primary contacts, but also requires substantially higher number of quarantines. Next, they focused on reducing the number of quarantines through 1) social distancing and 2) testing. When individuals are tested, those who test negative are released from quarantine right after the results are obtained; this reduces the quarantine periods but increases the outbreak. The authors acknowledge that it is unclear if their results would hold for networks with larger size. Results may become artifacts of network size for multi-hop contact tracing because the length of contact chains may be limited by network size when the size is small. We investigate multi-hop contact tracing involving a combination of quarantining and testing for k hops, where k can be 2, 3, 4, 5 etc. over large networks comprising of up to 100, 000 individuals, and consider a large number of instances from both synthetic networks corresponding to various families and parameter choices and networks obtained from contact data. We use tests to further trace contacts rather than to release those traced early from quarantining and evaluate both testing and quarantining costs. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, we show that the cost-benefit tradeoffs for different number of hops (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, …) can be very different depending on growth rate and venue of the tests, and the tradeoffs for different test venues can be characterized by only one parameter vis a vis the network topology, that is the growth rate. In particular the result (25) reports as to the comparison between 1 and 2 hops for “quarantine only” corresponds to what we observe throughout the high growth rate range for our simulations. When social distancing is additionally incorporated, the growth rate decreases; their finding in this case is consistent with the phenomenon we observe for the intermediate growth rate range. Thus, our investigation positions their findings as parts of a broader trend. This is in addition to revealing the phase-transition patterns for cost-benefit tradeoffs and identifying the hop choices for different ranges of growth rates, different testing ambiences and a diverse class of larger networks.
We now discuss limitations of multi-hop contact tracing in the current context and how to circumvent the limitations in order to prevent a future epidemic from becoming a pandemic. First, the benefits of contact tracing, both single hop and multi-hop, considerably decrease if a non-negligible percentage of the society do not reveal their contacts, do not test, and do not quarantine when asked to. Cooperation with health authorities varies across the world: while a high degree of cooperation was witnessed in South Korea and Taiwan which had suffered from large scale epidemics in the last twenty years (26, 27), cooperation was lower in Europe and US (28), both of which experienced a large scale epidemic about a century ago (the 1918 flu). Learning from the experience of this pandemic, public awareness campaigns need to be pursued to elicit cooperation with health authorities. Multi-hop may provide an important advantage to ensure cooperation in that it can contain the outbreak faster which may incentivize full cooperation for a short duration, whereas cooperation may wane due to pandemic-fatigue as time progresses.
Next, manual tracing of contacts is a labor intensive activity even for single-hop tracing. This over-load will likely be exacerbated for multi-hop during the initial days of the tracing. This is because although in many instances testing and quarantining (and therefore tracing) costs over time were lower for multi-hop as compared to single-hop, at the start, invariably multi-hop needs to trace more than single-hop. Thus, multi-hop will be feasible only if the tracing is digital, but in democracies the digitization is often critically reliant on the willingness of the populace to download the apps the health authorities use, which has again varied from country to country for the COVID-19 outbreak. For example, in Singapore over 92% of the population over 6 years of age had downloaded the governmental contact tracing app on their smartphone (29), but the fraction has been lower in many other countries, particularly those in Europe and US. This is again where a public awareness campaign starting now can be of great help for the next outbreak. Also, another possibility is to embed the tracing software in the operating system of all smartphones (e.g., Apple and Google are exploring this option (30)) and have phone companies activate those in a political unit as soon as the first case for an infectious virus with a considerable hospitalization and mortality rates is detected. This will eliminate the need to download the apps separately but may also breach privacy of the consumers. Again, the tradeoff may be palatable only for short durations and multi-hop has the potential for controlling outbreaks in such durations. Since multi-hop may be able to contain outbreaks through targeted testing and quarantine, rather than through universal lockdowns, its adverse impacts on livelihoods would be considerably less and in fact in many cases its overall quarantine periods are lower than those for single-hop.
We now point to directions for future research. We have assumed that the traced k-hop contacts of an individual (say I) who tests positive can start their quarantine within a day of I testing positive, though they test after some delay. But this is not in general possible unless I downloads the contact tracing app either before or at least right after testing positive (31). Next, depending on classifiers such as duration, environment (indoor or outdoor), usage of protective equipment, observance of personal hygiene, different contacts may pass on infection with different probabilities. Assuming that such a probability is identical for all contacts with same infectious categories, which is what we did, is equivalent to considering an average over all contacts. Explicitly investigating the impact of 1) delays in starting quarantining and 2) non-uniform transmission probabilities constitute directions for future research. Finally, during the early part of a new epidemic, or even a successfully mutated version of an earlier epidemic, pharmaceutical interventions are not available and contact tracing and quarantining the infected early on remains one of the few available mechanisms for containing the outbreak. Other epidemics may well emerge in future. Thus, investigating multi-hop contact tracing for other infectious diseases constitutes an imperative direction for future research towards building a knowledge-base for containing future epidemics before they become pandemics and repeat the enormous toll that COVID-19 imposed. Our framework may provide a building block for such an investigation for other infectious diseases by appropriately choosing the parameters and stages of the disease evolution.
Methods
Compartmental model of virus transmission
Compartmental models have been widely used in studies on virus spread (32, 33). We use a discrete time compartmental disease model to model the progression of COVID-19 where the transition from each compartment to the next happens after a random amount of time with a geometric distribution. Different stages of the disease are shown in Figure 1d. The model consists of the following stages: Susceptible (S), Presymptomatic-Latent (Ip-L), Presymptomatic (Ip), Symptomatic (Is), Ready-to-Test (RT), Asymptomatic-Latent (Ia-L), Asymptomatic (Ia), Recovered (R), and Dead (D). Only symptomatic individuals show symptoms, while presymptomatic, symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals can infect others. When a susceptible individual comes into contact with an infectious individual, the susceptible is infected with transmission probability β.
Once an individual is infected he becomes contagious after a geometrically distributed latency time, whose expectation depends on whether he will develop symptoms at some point or otherwise. Following the nomenclature in compartmental models already utilized for COVID-19, we assume that an infected individual becomes asymptomatic-latent (with probability pa) or presymptomatic-latent (with probability 1 -pa) and those in this latency period have a negative test (the tests do not detect the presence of COVID-19). The asymptomatic-latent (Ia-L) individuals never develop symptoms, do not infect others for a mean latency duration of 1/λ, and subsequently become contagious, at which stage we call them asymptomatic or Ia for simplicity. An asymptomatic individual remains contagious for a geometrically distributed random duration with mean 1/ra, after which the individual recovers. We now consider the other compartment an individual enters after infection, the presymptomatic-latent compartment. A presymptomatic-latent individual, say B, becomes contagious after a mean latency period of 1/λ, at which point we call B presymptomatic or Ip. B remains presymptomatic for a geometrically distributed duration with mean 1/α; after this duration B develops symptoms and is called symptomatic. A symptomatic individual B continues to infect contacts until B opts for testing (RT). The duration for which a symptomatic individual infects others is geometrically distributed with mean 1/w. Once this duration ends, the patient quarantines and does not infect others. The patient ultimately dies (D) with probability pd, or recovers (R) with probability 1 -pd, after a geometrically distributed duration whose mean is 1/rs. We do not consider that individuals can be reinfected. In all the networks, we consider that initially all but three individuals are susceptible, among the three there is one presymptomatic, one symptomatic and one asymptomatic. Refer to Table S1 in SI Appendix for the parameter values we choose.
Synthetic networks
We consider two classes of synthetic networks: 1) Watts-Strogatz networks (9) and 2) scale-free networks (34). Each network we consider has N = 100, 000 nodes. The Watts-Strogatz networks have average degrees of k = 4, 8, that is, 200, 000, 400, 000 edges. They are generated following a variant of the original Watts-Strogatz model. Based on a ring of N nodes, each node is connected to k nearest neighbors by undirected edges. Subsequently, each end point of each edge is rewired to a uniformly randomly chosen node over the entire ring with rewiring probability of p, avoiding link duplication (i.e., multiple edges between the same pair of nodes) and self-loops. The scale-free network topologies are generated by Barabási-Albert model where new nodes are added at each time step with m links that connect to existing nodes with a probability that is proportional to the degree of the existing nodes (34); we set m = 2 to generate the network. The resulting network consists of 199, 997 edges, thus average degree of a node is k = 3.99994.
Data-driven network
We use the publicly-available network data covering a wide range of interactions among individuals collected by survey in each of 75 villages located in Karnataka, India (14). The surveys includes interaction information such as names of those who visit the respondents’ homes, those with whom the respondents go to pray, etc. The network consist of a total of 69, 441 individuals and 294, 945 interactions among them. However, the dataset only contains information on interactions between individuals within each village. Since the population size of each village is relatively small population (354 to 1775 individuals for each village), we introduce interaction between individuals in different villages through degree-preserving rewiring (35, 36). We first randomly select two villages and select a random edge within each cluster, and then swap the two edges to reach across the pair of villages. The process is repeated until the percentage of edges that are rewired among the total number of edges becomes r%, and r is called the mixing parameter (36). The degree-preserving rewiring preserves the degree of all the nodes in the network regardless of the parameter r, but it changes the frequency of inter-village interactions and network properties. We generated three different networks with the mixing parameters r = 1, 3, 5. As the parameter r increases from 1 to 5, the diameter, average path length, and clustering coefficient monotonically decrease (refer to Table 1).
Data Availability
Data are included in this article and Supplementary Information. Contact networks generated during this study are available from the repository https://github.com/jungyeol-kim/contact-tracing.
Supplementary Information
Digital Contact Tracing
Apps have already been deployed by states in US and other countries that can use technology developed by Apple and Google and anonymous Bluetooth signals to digitally trace and notify the 1-hop contacts of COVID-19 patients who test positive (e.g., COVID Alert Pennsylvania, COVID Green in Ireland, Delaware COVID-19 tracing app (12)). These apps can trace and notify 1-hop contacts over last 14 days even if patients download the apps after they test positive. Thus, a recursive utilization of this app can be used to trace k-hop contacts, that is, if 1-hop contacts download such apps after notification of their exposure, tracing their 1-hop contacts over the previous 14 days will provide the 2-hop contacts of the patient who tested positive over the last 14 days and so on. The notified individuals receive an alert to check the app, which provides instructions and information from state health officials about seeking medical help, staying at home, and quarantining. To ensure privacy, the app shields the identity of the person who tested positive from people receiving a notification, and vice versa. It does not store location data, personal information, or the identities of individuals who were possibly exposed and keeps the data anonymous (12).
General Notes for Tables S3, S4, S5, S6, and S7
Results are presented as range and median (in parentheses). Default setting for parameters as follows: cooperativity is 100%, false negative rate is 11%, false positive rate is 0%, turnaround time is 1 day, and contact tracing begins when the first confirmed case is identified. For the default setting, phases A, B, and C respectively correspond to growth rates of 0 - 0.105, 0.105 - 0.247, and 0.247 - 0.31. We refer to these fixed ranges as low, intermediate and high. ‘T’ stands for Test and ‘Q’ stands for Quarantine.
Single-hop vs Multi-hop contact tracing - A cost-benefit perspective
Comparison Across Different Number of Hops - A cost-benefit perspective
Default Setting (Data-driven Network)
We now consider the data-driven network under the same default setting. Recall that for different values of the parameter r, the growth rates for the networks are distributed in the second half of the intermediate range and in the high range. In the intermediate range, the benefit provided by 1-hop is 30.8-43.7% with 42.1% as median. 2-hop contact tracing provides further benefit of 47.6 - 57.7% median 53.6%. Increasing the number of hops beyond 2-hop provides 9.4% or lower further benefit. The costs for 2-hop are even comparable or lower than those for 1-hop (further costs for 2-hop are negative except in 1 instance). Thus 2-hop constitutes an appropriate choice in this region.
In the high range, further benefits of 1-hop, 2-hop, 3-hop, 4-hop are 10.9 - 29.7%, median 21.3%, 29.3 - 44.5%, median 36.4%, 22.5 - 38.4%, median 29.2%, 3.4 - 13.7%, median 6.0%, respectively. Starting 2-hop, the further benefits are mostly progressively decreasing. Also, the further costs of these hops are all positive, except some cases for 3-hop. By our criteria, the choice will be between 2 and 3 hops, except in one instance in which the further benefit for 4-hop exceeds 10% in which case 2, 3, and 4 hops should be considered. Thus, the phenomena previously observed in various types of synthetic networks also recur in the data-driven networks.
Level of Cooperation with Contact Tracing and Testing: Scenario 1
The trends are same as the default scenario with the following differences. For 50% cooperativity, the behavior of the instances with the two highest growth rates in the intermediate growth rate range become identical to those in high growth rate region. Specifically, each hop incurs higher costs compared to the previous hop. The further benefit attained by 4-hop exceeds 10%, and in one of these two instances, the further benefit of even 5-hop exceeds 10%. Thus, in these two instances, the choice would be between 2, 3, and 4 hops or even 2, 3, 4, and 5 hops and will depend on the affordability of the additional costs of each hop.
Properties of Tests
As noted earlier, false positives primarily increase the costs for greater number of hops in the high growth rate region; further cost of tests and quarantine for 3-hop is respectively up to 313.4 and 319.1 for 0.8% false positive rate. Otherwise, the trends are the same as that for the default scenario.
Under false negatives, the trends for 1.8% false negative rate is very similar to those for 11% (default), which means that the trends in general and the effectiveness of multi-hop contact tracing in particular are resilient to increases in the false negative rate in a realistic range. However, we notice actual divergence from the broad trends reported above only for the impractically high false negative rate, 58%, which we consider for the sake of completeness. We describe the divergences next.
Considering the low growth rate region, in two instances towards the upper end, 2-hop provides greater than 10% further benefits beyond what 1-hop provides (62.4, 70.5%) with less costs than 1-hop. The behavior of those instances with highest growth rates in the low growth rate region is similar to those in the intermediate growth rate region. Recall that in the earlier subsection of the Results section, we had noted that phase B starts at the higher end points of the low growth rate region for the same setting. The phenomena here is consistent with the earlier observation.
In the intermediate growth rate region, the further benefit of 5-hop is lower than 2.8% throughout. So, the choice ought to be between 2, 3, and 4 hops. 2-hop always, 3-hop mostly and 4-hop in some instances, provide greater than 10% further benefit. Also, except for 2 instances which have the highest growth rates, 3-hop attains lower cost compared to 2-hop which attains lower cost compared to 1-hop, 4-hop attains comparable or lower costs compared to 3-hop. Thus, 3 or 4 hops constitute the natural choices in most of these instances (wherever its further benefit of 3 hops exceeds 10%). In two instances with the highest growth rates, 4-hop provides further benefits, 12.8, 14.7%, and 2, 3 hops incur greater costs compared to the previous hop, while 4-hop attains lower cost in one instance and greater cost in another instance. Thus, the choice for the right number of hops can be 2, 3, or 4 depending on the affordability of the additional costs incurred through the increments. These parameter combinations differs from most settings in that 4-hop provides non-negligible further benefits even for the intermediate growth rate range.
In the high growth rate region, further benefits are mostly substantially lower for 1 and 2 hops and substantially higher for 3 and 4 hops compared to 1.8, 11% false negative rates. The costs above the previous hop are positive. Increasing the number of hops beyond 4-hop provides a further benefit lower than 10.2%. Thus, the choice of the hop number will depend on the affordability of the additional costs. And, in many instances in intermediate and high growth rate regions, the principle of diminishing return for further benefits with increase in the number of hops do not hold. Thus, overall, opting for higher number of hops is more beneficial in this extreme scenario.
Test Result Turnaround Time
In most of the low growth rate region (except the 2 highest growth rates), the minimum further benefit of 1-hop is 75%, while the maximum further benefit of 2-hop is 15%, with median 8.2%. Thus, in this region there is a large separation between benefits attained by 1 and 2 hops, though the further benefit of 2-hop exceeds 10% in some instances. In the 2 instances corresponding to the highest growth rates in the low growth rate region, 2-hop becomes the clear choice, since it provides considerable additional benefit compared to 1-hop (50.3, 74.1%) and incurs considerably lower costs. Increasing the number of hops further attains negligible additional benefit. Thus, the choice can be 1 or 2 hops in the low growth rate region, with greater number of instances that may opt for 2 hops than when turnaround time was 1 day (the default scenario). Again, this phenomenon is consistent with our findings in the earlier subsection of the Results section, that for the same setting, phase B starts at the higher end points of the low growth rate region.
For the intermediate growth rate range, either 2 or 3 hops constitute a clear choice; in this, this resembles the default scenario. But 2-hop constitutes the clear choice in only 3 instances which are the lowest of the growth rates. For these, 2 hop provide considerable additional benefits (55 - 95.3%, median 81.8%) and attains considerably lower costs than 1 hop, and 3 hop provides negligible additional benefit (≤ 0.8%). For the rest of the instances, both 2 and 3 hops provide considerable additional benefits, but 3 hops incurs comparable or lower costs as compared to 2 hops. Thus, 2-hop can be ruled out. The further benefit of 4-hop is at most 7%, thus 4-hop may be ruled out by our criteria. Besides, 4-hop incurs greater costs than 3-hop. Thus, by and large, 3 hops is a clear choice in these.
In the high growth rate region, the further benefits for 5-hop is at most 10.7%, thus, 5-hop can mostly be ruled out by our criteria. The costs above the previous hop are mostly positive. Thus, 2, 3 and 4 hops may be chosen depending on the further benefits and affordability of the additional costs as for the default scenario. Note that further benefits are lower for 1-hop, mostly lower for 2-hop, comparable or lower for 3-hop, higher for 4-hop and 5-hop compared to 1 day turnaround time. For 3 days turnaround time, the principle of diminishing returns for further benefits with increase in the number of hops holds except for a few instances in intermediate and high growth rate regions.
Starting Point of Contact Tracing
First, note that the initial infection levels of 12.6%, 40% are unlikely to arise in practice and are being investigated for completeness.
For low growth rates, the trends for when the starting point is at 1.1%, 2-hop contact tracing attains a further benefit lower than 10% in all but 2 highest growth rates in the region, and may therefore be ruled out. Thus, 1-hop constitutes a natural choice in these. For these 2 highest growth rates, 2-hop attain considerable further benefits at lower costs and constitutes natural choices. Recall that in the earlier subsection we had found that these 2 points belonged to phase B. By the same yardsticks, when the starting point is at 12.6%, 1-hop constitutes the natural choice in 4 instances, 2-hop in 3 instances; 2-hop constitutes the natural choice in even more instances when the starting point is at 40%. Thus, as contact tracing commences later, the incentive for choosing 2 hops increases.
In the intermediate growth rate range, when the initial infection is 1.1%, the further benefit of 4-hop is lower than 10%, while those of both 2, 3 hops is considerable. Thus, the choice ought to be between 2, 3 hops depending on the affordability of the additional costs of 3 hops over 2 hops. For the higher values of initial infection, 5-hop attains a further benefit lower than 10%, and 4-hop mostly lower than 10% (maximum is 12.8, 10.4% for 12.6%, 40% initial infections respectively). Besides, 4-hop fetches greater costs than 3-hop in all cases. Thus, the choice would largely be between 2 and 3 hops in these cases. For 12.6% and 40% starting points, 3-hop results in greater costs than 2-hop in all cases in the intermediate region (further cost of tests and quarantine for 3-hop is respectively up to 118.5 and 125.8 for 12.6% starting point; up to 64.0 and 67.6 for 40% starting point). Thus, the choice between the hops depends on whether the additional costs incurred by a given choice of hops is affordable. Thus, if the start of the contact tracing is significantly delayed (starting points, 12.6%, 40%), the intermediate growth rate region behaves similarly as the high growth rate, and both 2 and 3 hops constitute likely choices throughout the intermediate growth rate region (the further benefit of 4 hops remains low throughout).
The high growth rate region exhibits similar trends as the default scenario. The principle of diminishing returns for further benefits with increase in the number of hops generally holds (except in one instance in the high growth rate region).
Level of Cooperation with Contact Tracing and Testing: Scenario 2
For low growth rates, as the cooperativity becomes lower, there are more cases where 2-hop provides greater than 10% further benefits. When cooperativity is 100%, the number is 0. When cooperativity is 75%, this happens for 2 highest growth rates in this range; in these 2 instances 2-hop provides 41.9%, 56.5% further benefits with lower costs than 1-hop. Increasing the number of hops beyond 2-hop provide further benefits in the range
0.6 - 3.9%. These two instances resemble those in intermediate growth rate region. When cooperativity is 50%, the further benefits of 2-hop exceed 10% throughout this region (10.7 - 25.2%, median 18.0%), and the costs are mostly lower than 1-hop. Even further benefits attained by increasing the number of hops beyond 2-hop exceeds 10% in several instances (1.3 - 17.9%, median 3.2%). Thus, as cooperativity decreases, for low growth rates, the choice can become 2 or even 3 hops in more and more instances depending on the affordability of the additional costs (note that 2-hop incur lower costs than 1-hop in most cases). When the growth rate increases, the sparsity in the network that can be traced limits the efficacy of multi-hop contact tracing. In the intermediate and high growth rate regions, for any finite number of hops, the full benefit provided by each hop substantially decreases with decrease in cooperativity. For example, 3-hop contact tracing reduces the outbreak size by 84.6 - 100.0% (median 99.8%) for 100% cooperativity, 26.1 - 95.4% (median 54.9%) for 75% cooperativity, and 3.0 - 44.9% (median 12.3%) for 50% cooperativity. Further benefits by 4 and 5 hops exceeds 10% frequently for 75%: 1) 1.7 - 19.2% (median 13.3%) for 4-hop 2) 0.5 - 17.2% (median 10.3%) for 5-hop. Incrementing the number of hops also mostly continually increase the cost. Thus, the number of hops need to be chosen between 2, 3, 4, and 5 based on the affordability of the additional costs. For 50% cooperativity, due to further decline in the efficacy of multi-hop contact tracing, further benefits of 1) 2 hops is frequently below 10%, 2) 3 hops is mostly below 10%, 3) 4 and 5 hops are below 10%. Thus, the number of hops need to be chosen based on assessment of further benefits and costs. Finally, there is no behavioral difference between intermediate and high growth rate regions for both 75% and 50% cooperativities.
References
