SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Testing half the population weekly with inexpensive, rapid-turnaround COVID-19 tests would drive the virus toward elimination within weeks—even if those tests are significantly less sensitive than gold-standard clinical tests, according to a new study published today by CU Boulder and Harvard University researchers.
Such a strategy could lead to "personalized stay-at-home orders" without shutting down restaurants, bars, retail stores and schools, the authors said.
"Our big picture finding is that, when it comes to public health, it's better to have a less sensitive test with results today than a more sensitive one with results tomorrow," said lead author Daniel Larremore, an assistant professor of computer science at CU Boulder. "Rather than telling everyone to stay home so you can be sure that one person who is sick doesn't spread it, we could give only the contagious people stay-at-home orders so everyone else can go about their lives."
[...] They then used mathematical modeling to forecast the impact of screening with different kinds of tests on three hypothetical scenarios: in 10,000 individuals; in a university-type setting of 20,000 people; and in a city of 8.4 million.
[...] When it came to curbing spread, they found that frequency and turnaround time are much more important than test sensitivity.
For instance, in one scenario in a large city, widespread twice-weekly testing with a rapid but less sensitive test reduced the degree of infectiousness, or R0 ("R naught"), of the virus by 80%. But twice-weekly testing with a more sensitive PCR (polymerase chain reaction) test, which takes up to 48 hours to return results, reduced infectiousness by only 58%. When the amount of testing was the same, the rapid test always reduced infectiousness better than the slower, more sensitive PCR test.
That's because about two-thirds of infected people have no symptoms and as they await their results, they continue to spread the virus.
"This paper is one of the first to show we should worry less about test sensitivity and, when it comes to public health, prioritize frequency and turnaround," said senior co-author Roy Parker, director of the BioFrontiers Institute and a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator.
Journal Reference:
Daniel B. Larremore, Bryan Wilder, Evan Lester, [et al]. Test sensitivity is secondary to frequency and turnaround time for COVID-19 screening. Science Advances, Nov. 20, 2020; DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abd5393
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 22 2020, @04:47AM (7 children)
Thank you for making my point with maths. ;^)
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday November 22 2020, @05:26AM (1 child)
???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2, Informative) by hemocyanin on Sunday November 22 2020, @07:29AM
semi-colon to the close parens power is always funnier.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 22 2020, @05:38AM (4 children)
Umm, your point was not proven. With 7 tests you barely go over 50% chance of a false positive, so if you get a positive test then quarantine and take a new test as soon as you can. It would be up to each area to figure out how many negatives tests would indicate your positive test is false.
Or did you not consider that it takes 7 tests to have a 52% chance of getting ONE positive result?
Also, thanks for pointing out why sometimes authoritarian measures are necessary. In a pandemic requiring a 2 week quarantine is hardly the height of tyranny, but if you're worried about missing work then perhaps you should go talk to your R reps and figure out why they are giving money to large corporations instead of people and small biz?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday November 22 2020, @06:03AM (1 child)
Assuming test being taken every 2 days and assuming you need at least two negatives to counter a positive, in a covid extinct situation you'd still have 50% of the population going into isolation for at least 4 days.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2020, @10:24PM
The article talks about 1 test every 2 weeks (or half the population every week).
(Score: 2) by legont on Sunday November 22 2020, @03:08PM (1 child)
We leave in a zero tolerance society, remember? Once the infrastructure is in place, we will test for flu, hepatitis, aids and so on. Our "precious children" are still there to protect and even one "predator with a bug inside" is enough to take action.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 22 2020, @07:47PM
These are extraordinary conditions, and it bears repeating.
2-4 weeks of lockdown and quarantining of infected, then limited re-opening with full mask and social distance compliance would allow a near total re-opening with continued safety measures.
Assholes like you who treat masks like the end-times are fucking it up for everyone else. Stupid fucking kids holding huge parties then going home for large thanksgiving events are going to spread COVID to just about every community. Please, send us some more of your oppressed drivel.