Testing for tracing or testing just for treating? A comparative analysis of strategies to face COVID-19 pandemic

  1. Ricardo Knudsen

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

There is some consensus in Europe and Asia about high testing rates being crucial to controlling COVID-19 pandemics. There are though misconceptions on what means an effective high testing rate. This paper demonstrates that the rate of tests per detected case (Tests/Case) is the critical variable, correlating negatively with the number of deaths. The higher the Tests/Case rate, the lower the death rate, as this predictor is causally related to contact tracing and isolation of the vectors of the disease. Doubling Tests/Case typically divides by about three the number of deaths. On the other hand, the per capita testing rate is a poor predictor for the performance of policies to fight the pandemics. The number of tests per 1,000 inhabitants (Tests/1,000) tends to correlate positively with the number of deaths. In some cases, high levels of Tests/1,000 just mean an epidemic that ran out of control, with an explosion of cases that demands high testing rates just to confirm the diagnosis of the seriously sick. This study also demonstrates that an early tracing strategy, with a high level of Tests/Case, reduces combined costs of testing and hospitalization dramatically. Therefore, the common claim that tracing strategies are unaffordable by poorer countries is incorrect. On the contrary, it is the most adequate, both from the economic and humanitarian points of view.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.01.20119123v4 on medRxiv
  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.01.20119123v3 on medRxiv
  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.01.20119123v2 on medRxiv
  4. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.01.20119123: (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

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Data for the tropical and southern hemisphere countries were obtained directly from the “Our World in Data” website.
    Data”
    suggested: None
    Choice’s criteria were as for northern countries, with two differences: Regression analysis was made with the statistical software Minitab 18.
    Minitab
    suggested: (Minitab, RRID:SCR_014483)

    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.

  5. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.01.20119123v1 on medRxiv