Even a minor reduction in the reproductive number will have a significant effect on the number of daily cases. This illustrates the importance of the reproductive number and the magnitude of the potential effects of increasing early isolation of people with COVID. Modelling shows that in Australia the reproductive number increased from around 1 to 1.5 over the course of December 2021, and daily reported COVID cases increased from around 1,000 to over 30,000. The expected benefits of early isolation are difficult to quantify, but it can only help to constrain the spread of COVID and the number of people infected by each person with COVID (the reproductive number). ![]() But even with low prevalence, it’s still highly likely to be cost-effective. The less COVID circulating, the less effective a policy of free rapid antigen tests for all would be. If only 100 of 10,000 users have COVID, the corresponding value is $2,052. This allows us to compare alternative scenarios.įor example, if only 500 of 10,000 users of government-funded rapid antigen tests had COVID, 232 more people would isolate early and the cost per additional earlier isolating person with COVID would be $328. The costs of these people isolating only after developing symptoms would likely be far higher than the extra $52,000 spent on tests.ĭividing the $52,000 by the 464 earlier isolating cases gives us an estimate of the cost to the government per additional earlier isolating person with COVID – $112. Rapid antigen tests are less effective in people with no symptoms, so they wouldn’t catch everybody in the group who’s COVID-positive.īut the net effect is preventing an additional 464 people from infecting more people, thereby reducing costs to the economy of further infections. Providing free rapid tests for 10,000 people would cost the government $100,000, but spending less on PCR tests (which are about $150 each) reduces the additional costs to the government to around $52,000. In the group where everyone had access to free rapid antigen tests, the model estimates this policy would result in successfully isolating an additional 464 people early, compared with a group in which 20% purchased their own rapid antigen tests. (The real-life proportion who would be willing and able to buy a rapid antigen test is impossible to know, given the current shortage.) What did we find? ![]() Let’s also assume 2,000 of the 10,000 would buy rapid antigen tests if not government-funded. Assume 1,000 out of 10,000 users have COVID, and that a rapid antigen test costs $10. Let’s say a group of 10,000 people get free rapid antigen tests funded by the government. Jon Karnon and colleagues, Author providedĪ key parameter is the proportion of people who use a rapid antigen test who have COVID. A ‘decision tree’ showing the testing pathways for people without COVID symptoms, but who might have COVID.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |