According to the research study, based upon mathematical modeling, rapid-testing three-quarters of a citys population every three days slashed the number of those ultimately contaminated by 88%, “adequate to drive the epidemic towards termination within six weeks.”
” These quick tests are contagiousness tests,” Michael Mina, a teacher of epidemiology at Harvard and coauthor of the research study, stated in a press release. “They are very reliable in detecting COVID-19 when people are infectious.”
Increasing the schedule of “low-cost, quick tests” is among the crucial strategies under consideration by President-elect Joe Biden, Politico reported Friday.
Have a news suggestion? Email this press reporter: email@example.com
Something is filling.
Frequent and mass fast screening for COVID-19 could make a large dent in the pandemic within six weeks, a brand-new study claims.
” Our huge picture finding is that, when it pertains to public health, its better to have a less sensitive test with results today than a more delicate test with results tomorrow,” stated Daniel Larremore, a computer science professor at Colorado University Boulder and lead author of the research study.
Testing 75% of a citys population every 3 days would reduce infections by 88%, “adequate to drive the epidemic towards termination within six weeks.”
Mass rapid-testing for COVID-19– specifically of those individuals showing no signs of infection– might bring an end to the pandemic within 6 weeks, claims a new study by scientists at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health and the University of Colorado Boulder.
Released November 20 in the peer-reviewed journal Science Advances, the study suggests that quick tests, although less trustworthy, might enable public health authorities to count on more targeted interventions, instead of economy-wide lockdowns, if deployed on an enormous scale.
Fast tests are low expense and can return results in a matter of minutes, rather than the days related to the lab range. If half the United States population were checked weekly, with those who evaluate favorable separating from the rest, the impact would be enormous, scientists said.
” Our broad view finding is that, when it pertains to public health, its better to have a less sensitive test with results today than a more delicate test with results tomorrow,” Daniel Larremore, a computer science teacher at CU Boulder and lead author of the study, said Friday. “Rather than telling everybody to stay home so you can be sure that one individual who is sick doesnt spread it, we could give just the infectious people stay-at-home orders so everyone else can tackle their lives.”
Go to Business Insiders homepage for more stories.