# Asymmetric limits on timely interventions from noisy epidemic data

## TL;DR

The paper shows that noisy epidemic data make it harder to decide when to start interventions than when to relax them, suggesting proactive actions may be needed.

## Contribution

The study quantifies how case under-reporting and ascertainment delays asymmetrically affect decision-making during epidemic growth and decline.

## Key findings

- Case under-reporting and delays add delays to hitting case-based thresholds during growing epidemics.
- Noise reduces confidence in transmissibility estimates during growth but has limited impact during decline.
- Surveillance data provide weaker support for initiating interventions than for relaxing them.

## Abstract

Deciding on when to initiate or relax an intervention in response to an emerging infectious disease is both difficult and important. Uncertainties from noise in epidemiological surveillance data must be hedged against the potentially unknown and variable costs of false alarms and delayed actions. Here, we clarify and quantify how case under-reporting and latencies in case ascertainment, which are predominant surveillance noise sources, can restrict the timeliness of decision-making. Decisions are modelled as binary choices between responding or not that are informed by reported case curves or transmissibility estimates from those curves. Optimal responses are triggered by thresholds on case numbers or estimated confidence levels, with thresholds set by the costs of the various choices. We show that, for growing epidemics, both noise sources induce additive delays on hitting any case-based thresholds and multiplicative reductions in our confidence in estimated reproduction numbers or growth rates. However, for declining epidemics, these noise sources have counteracting effects on case data and limited cumulative impact on transmissibility estimates. We find that this asymmetry persists even if more sophisticated feedback control algorithms that consider the longer-term effects of interventions are employed. Standard surveillance data, therefore, provide substantially weaker support for deciding when to initiate a control action or intervention than for determining when to relax it. This information bottleneck during epidemic growth may justify proactive intervention choices.

Deciding when to initiate or relax interventions during emerging infectious diseases is challenging due to uncertainties in epidemiological data. Here, the authors show that two sources of surveillance noise, case under-reporting and ascertainment delays, impede timely decision-making asymmetrically, highlighting that standard surveillance data are less reliable for triggering interventions than for relaxing them, and thus may justify proactive measures.