9 ms·

It's beyond me why potential alternatives to lockdowns and restrictions in general are hardly ever discussed. I understand that games like this one have to be

It's beyond me why potential alternatives to lockdowns and restrictions in general are hardly ever discussed. I understand that games like this one have to be based on actually available data and models. Still, testing and efficient track & trace schemes could be (have been) a huge factor in preventing COVID-19 spread. For example, if everyone took a rapid antigene test twice a day, we'd be able to track new infections very quickly and before those can spread any further. If implemented properly, with such a scheme we perhaps could even do without any additional measures (other than vaccination, that is), incur merely a fraction of the current costs, and still keep the numbers of deaths and severe cases much lower than they are with the blunt instrument that is blanket lockdowns.

ianlevesque 5y ago
You think the people refusing to get vaccinated are going to take a rapid antigen test?
- BjoernKW 5y ago
  Well, those people perhaps aren't happily complying with lockdown measures either. It's a matter of how such a scheme would be implemented. One could imagine working with incentives, for example. Alternatively, being able to produce a valid, up-to-date test result at any time could be made mandatory. This might seem draconian but it's a lot less so than unending lockdowns and the perspective of continued social distancing.
  - helge9210 5y ago
    That looks like false dichotomy. You can lift lockdowns and not have forced medical procedures at the same time.
    - BjoernKW 5y ago
      Of course you can but there will be trade-offs. Those procedures (tests, vaccinations) can be entirely voluntary (as they are right now). However, then you could be facing a situation where not enough people get vaccinated or tested for curbing the spread of the virus. Societies will have to decide if they’re fine with the consequences that entails. Personally, I think that lockdowns and any other mandatory measures should be lifted once everyone’s vaccinated who wants to be vaccinated. Others - and societies as a whole - might disagree, though, which from my point of view would be a major problem, especially if continued lockdowns then are still considered the only viable alternative.
tbarbugli 5y ago
Rapid tests took long time to reach the market, pandemic was already big when they became available at scale. I also think most people would not agree with getting tested so often (I would not). Track and trace was introduced and failed in most countries.
- BjoernKW 5y ago
  Rapid tests have been available since autumn last year at least. They're a lot easier and cheaper to produce than vaccines, for example. Producing and supplying them at scale is just a matter of demand. Most countries just didn't bother to buy them early on. It's true that getting tested frequently is invasive, quite literally so. We seem to forget too easily, though, that lockdowns and the civil rights restrictions that come with them are much more invasive (albeit perhaps not that literally in most cases). Yet, we still put up with those. > Track and trace was introduced and failed in most countries. That's because most countries made a half-arsed attempt at best, sometimes hampered by largely imaginary privacy requirements. The main concern with the track & trace apps available in the EU, for example, was to supposedly comply with GDPR and local privacy laws, rather than protecting people from contracting and spreading a disease. This is why these apps were expressly designed to only store data in a decentralised fashion, which effectively kept local health authorities from using that data to do their job. The funny thing is: In terms of GDPR, there of course is nothing that keeps you from storing such data on a server (much less so even, if you're a government agency) as long as you have the user's consent and explicitly state how that data will be used.
jpeloquin 5y ago
> For example, if everyone took a rapid antigene test twice a day, we'd be able to track new infections very quickly and before those can spread any further. Cornell University used on-campus labs to PCR test students up to 3 times per week, and that level of surveillance testing mostly kept things under control. There's a talk on YouTube explaining how they used models to choose the necessary frequency of surveillance testing within subgroups [0]. I thought it was an encouraging example of models and data driving policy to actually solve the problem at hand. So yes, there's evidence that surveillance testing works, and it doesn't even need to be as frequent as 2x daily. Testing is also important because we won't necessarily always get a working vaccine as quickly as we did this time. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqrFgYzhyPI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqrFgYzhyPI
shusaku 5y ago
I wouldn’t say this isn’t discussed, I’ve heard a lot of people (including epidemiologists) mention the idea. Early in the pandemic there seemed to be some optimism for a new future where everyone can check for colds/flu/etc from home before going out. There was some country in Eastern Europe that mailed everyone a test right? I remember reading that it didn’t end up reducing cases, so maybe that soured people on the idea.
- BjoernKW 5y ago
  The Czech Republic at one point tested the whole population, which helped with temporarily reducing the number of new infections IIRC.

ianlevesque 5y ago

You think the people refusing to get vaccinated are going to take a rapid antigen test?

BjoernKW 5y ago
Well, those people perhaps aren't happily complying with lockdown measures either. It's a matter of how such a scheme would be implemented. One could imagine working with incentives, for example. Alternatively, being able to produce a valid, up-to-date test result at any time could be made mandatory. This might seem draconian but it's a lot less so than unending lockdowns and the perspective of continued social distancing.
- helge9210 5y ago
  That looks like false dichotomy. You can lift lockdowns and not have forced medical procedures at the same time.
  - BjoernKW 5y ago
    Of course you can but there will be trade-offs. Those procedures (tests, vaccinations) can be entirely voluntary (as they are right now). However, then you could be facing a situation where not enough people get vaccinated or tested for curbing the spread of the virus. Societies will have to decide if they’re fine with the consequences that entails. Personally, I think that lockdowns and any other mandatory measures should be lifted once everyone’s vaccinated who wants to be vaccinated. Others - and societies as a whole - might disagree, though, which from my point of view would be a major problem, especially if continued lockdowns then are still considered the only viable alternative.

tbarbugli 5y ago

Rapid tests took long time to reach the market, pandemic was already big when they became available at scale. I also think most people would not agree with getting tested so often (I would not). Track and trace was introduced and failed in most countries.

BjoernKW 5y ago
Rapid tests have been available since autumn last year at least. They're a lot easier and cheaper to produce than vaccines, for example. Producing and supplying them at scale is just a matter of demand. Most countries just didn't bother to buy them early on. It's true that getting tested frequently is invasive, quite literally so. We seem to forget too easily, though, that lockdowns and the civil rights restrictions that come with them are much more invasive (albeit perhaps not that literally in most cases). Yet, we still put up with those. > Track and trace was introduced and failed in most countries. That's because most countries made a half-arsed attempt at best, sometimes hampered by largely imaginary privacy requirements. The main concern with the track & trace apps available in the EU, for example, was to supposedly comply with GDPR and local privacy laws, rather than protecting people from contracting and spreading a disease. This is why these apps were expressly designed to only store data in a decentralised fashion, which effectively kept local health authorities from using that data to do their job. The funny thing is: In terms of GDPR, there of course is nothing that keeps you from storing such data on a server (much less so even, if you're a government agency) as long as you have the user's consent and explicitly state how that data will be used.

jpeloquin 5y ago

> For example, if everyone took a rapid antigene test twice a day, we'd be able to track new infections very quickly and before those can spread any further. Cornell University used on-campus labs to PCR test students up to 3 times per week, and that level of surveillance testing mostly kept things under control. There's a talk on YouTube explaining how they used models to choose the necessary frequency of surveillance testing within subgroups [0]. I thought it was an encouraging example of models and data driving policy to actually solve the problem at hand. So yes, there's evidence that surveillance testing works, and it doesn't even need to be as frequent as 2x daily. Testing is also important because we won't necessarily always get a working vaccine as quickly as we did this time. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqrFgYzhyPI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqrFgYzhyPI

shusaku 5y ago

I wouldn’t say this isn’t discussed, I’ve heard a lot of people (including epidemiologists) mention the idea. Early in the pandemic there seemed to be some optimism for a new future where everyone can check for colds/flu/etc from home before going out. There was some country in Eastern Europe that mailed everyone a test right? I remember reading that it didn’t end up reducing cases, so maybe that soured people on the idea.

BjoernKW 5y ago
The Czech Republic at one point tested the whole population, which helped with temporarily reducing the number of new infections IIRC.