So, that's the testing half of the numbers. What about the tracing part? Is there some way to quantify the tracing? I've been thinking about it, and have found nothing but anecdotes.
One of the challenges is that effectively it's a system with feedback. Like, if you do good tracing, then the virus doesn't spread, which means that there are fewer "high risk" people to test, which means your per capita test rate can be low.
This is an interesting discussion, because pretty well everyone accepts after the first explosion of cases, South Korea got the pandemic under control with test and track. So it would be interesting to have something quantitative that supports or contradicts the "track" part of the thesis.
I guess one of the other things to keep in mind--which is obvious but tends to be ignored because people are too busy creating things like the 10 Commandments--is that multiple different strategies might work. Like, maybe "masks + handwashing + a culture that does these things when told to" is as effective at stopping the virus as "test + track + lock up people who were exposed".
the raw testing numbers per capita are not particularly meaningful, imo. the ability to effectively test and trace is more related to the number of tests compared to the infected population.
another important variable is the speed with which test results are available. slow tests are much less effective. this thread is useful in illustrating.