Deutsch
 
Hilfe Datenschutzhinweis Impressum
  DetailsucheBrowse

Datensatz

DATENSATZ AKTIONENEXPORT

Freigegeben

Zeitschriftenartikel

Comparing human and model-based forecasts of COVID-19 in Germany and Poland

MPG-Autoren
/persons/resource/persons288683

Hain,  Habakuk
Research Group of Synaptic Nanophysiology, Max Planck Institute for Multidisciplinary Sciences, Max Planck Society;

Externe Ressourcen
Es sind keine externen Ressourcen hinterlegt
Volltexte (beschränkter Zugriff)
Für Ihren IP-Bereich sind aktuell keine Volltexte freigegeben.
Volltexte (frei zugänglich)

journal.pcbi.1010405.pdf
(Verlagsversion), 3MB

Ergänzendes Material (frei zugänglich)
Es sind keine frei zugänglichen Ergänzenden Materialien verfügbar
Zitation

Bosse, N. I., Abbott, S., Bracher, J., Hain, H., Quilty, B. J., Jit, M., et al. (2022). Comparing human and model-based forecasts of COVID-19 in Germany and Poland. PLoS Computational Biology, 18(9): e1010405. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010405.


Zitierlink: https://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-000C-6D14-4
Zusammenfassung
Forecasts based on epidemiological modelling have played an important role in shaping public policy throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. This modelling combines knowledge about infectious disease dynamics with the subjective opinion of the researcher who develops and refines the model and often also adjusts model outputs. Developing a forecast model is difficult, resource- and time-consuming. It is therefore worth asking what modelling is able to add beyond the subjective opinion of the researcher alone. To investigate this, we analysed different real-time forecasts of cases of and deaths from COVID-19 in Germany and Poland over a 1-4 week horizon submitted to the German and Polish Forecast Hub. We compared crowd forecasts elicited from researchers and volunteers, against a) forecasts from two semi-mechanistic models based on common epidemiological assumptions and b) the ensemble of all other models submitted to the Forecast Hub. We found crowd forecasts, despite being overconfident, to outperform all other methods across all forecast horizons when forecasting cases (weighted interval score relative to the Hub ensemble 2 weeks ahead: 0.89). Forecasts based on computational models performed comparably better when predicting deaths (rel. WIS 1.26), suggesting that epidemiological modelling and human judgement can complement each other in important ways.