Search

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. Author Summary: Mathematical models of COVID-19 have played a key role in informing governments across the world. While mathematical models are informed by our knowledge of infectious disease dynamics, they are ultimately developed and iteratively adjusted by the researchers and shaped by their subjective opinions. To investigate what modelling is able to add beyond the subjective opinion of the researcher alone, we compared human forecasts with model-based predictions of COVID-19 cases and deaths submitted to the so-called German/Polish Forecast Hub (which collates a variety of models from a range of teams). | We found that our human forecasts consistently outperformed an aggregate of all available model-based forecasts when predicting cases, but not when predicting deaths. Our findings suggest that human insight may be most valuable when forecasting highly uncertain quantities, which depend on many factors that are hard to model using equations, while mathematical models may be most useful in settings like predicting deaths, where leading indicators with a clear connection to the target variable are available. This potentially has very relevant policy implications, as agencies informing policy-makers could benefit from routinely eliciting human forecasts in addition to model-based predictions to inform policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]