Using random testing in a feedback-control loop to manage a safe exit from the COVID-19 lockdown

  1. Markus Müller
  2. Peter M. Derlet
  3. Christopher Mudry
  4. Gabriel Aeppli

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

We argue that frequent sampling of the fraction of infected people (either by random testing or by analysis of sewage water), is central to managing the COVID-19 pandemic because it both measures in real time the key variable controlled by restrictive measures, and anticipates the load on the healthcare system due to progression of the disease. Knowledge of random testing outcomes will (i) significantly improve the predictability of the pandemic, (ii) allow informed and optimized decisions on how to modify restrictive measures, with much shorter delay times than the present ones, and (iii) enable the real-time assessment of the efficiency of new means to reduce transmission rates.

Here we suggest, irrespective of the size of a suitably homogeneous population, a conservative estimate of 15’000 for the number of randomly tested people per day which will suffice to obtain reliable data about the current fraction of infections and its evolution in time, thus enabling close to real-time assessment of the quantitative effect of restrictive measures. Still higher testing capacity permits detection of geographical differences in spreading rates. Furthermore and most importantly, with daily sampling in place, a reboot could be attempted while the fraction of infected people is still an order of magnitude higher than the level required for a relaxation of restrictions with testing focused on symptomatic individuals. This is demonstrated by considering a feedback and control model of mitigation where the feed-back is derived from noisy sampling data.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.09.20059360: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.04.09.20059360v2 on medRxiv
  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.04.09.20059360v1 on medRxiv