9873210 wrote:Julian wrote:9873210 wrote:
It's a measure of effort, not results.
I tentatively disagree. I can't unequivocally disagree because you don't define what "result" you are disappointed in but if you mean some level of suppression of the pandemic in the UK, either cases or deaths, then testing is a necessary but not sufficient effort in order for test/trace/isolate to have any downward effect on the cases which ultimately should put downward pressure on deaths as well. I haven't gone back and done a forensic analysis of the previous posts on this thread but I have the impression that none of those people praising testing was necessarily also saying that all of the other parts of the test/trace/isolate system are equally impressive. To criticise the effort expended on testing as wasted in terms of case suppression is a bit like saying that Samsung wasted its effort manufacturing my new TV because it is unable to receive any TV broadcasts when that failure to deliver its hoped-for results is because I haven't bothered to plug it into an aerial and scan for TV stations.
- Julian
Tests are useful, but neither necessary nor sufficient.
With low levels of cases trace and isolate can work without testing. The advantage of trace, isolate and test (unfortunate acronym) is that it significantly reduces the amount of isolation required. But the number of tests needed here is tens to a hundred times the number of case, which at least in August when things were more or less under control is far less than the number of tests actually done.
Using testing as the primary screen for test, trace and isolate requires far more tests than were actually done, something close to testing the entire potentially exposed population several times a week.
To me the best thing about testing seems that results were always timely (in a couple of days). Contrast this with the US were many tests results took longer than a week, at which point they are utterly useless. It is clear to me that testing should be LIFO rather than FIFO, so that if labs are overwhelmed you still get some useful results instead of no useful results.
I get what you are saying (and no disagreement re sufficiency)
but...
In the low case count circumstances you describe timely testing is still required for confirmation/rejection of cases and (especially given the pre/asymptomatic issues surrounding covid) screening of contacts
- and for surveillance in general
so testing would still be necessary
- but you wouldn't need to be doing anywhere near 1% of the population per day; if you were you'd probably be wasting energy and resources which could be better spent elsewhere
which leads a bit to the salient point made in:
zico wrote: There's been a lot of evidence that people in high-density housing and with low-paid manual jobs are much more exposed to Covid. We also know that these people are less likely to get Covid tests - in many cases, because they can't afford to self-isolate if they tested positive. If these groups continue to be exposed to Covid, then eventually they'll pass Covid onto the groups with higher risk of death from Covid - as you said, the elderly and those with co-morbidities
it is most beneficial from a reduction of spread perspective if people isolate while waiting for results
and if they then test positive
so if you want an
effective test scheme: use the money not spent on the tests you don't need to make the ones you are doing more useful
along the lines of:
- get the case count low
- compensate people if they lose income due to seeking a test
- compensate them if they test positive
- rinse and repeat - to keep the case count low
much more satisfying to complete the game than grind out a meaningless high score crushing simple mobs
- sd