IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/oxford/v36y2020isupplement_1ps14-s37..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A workable strategy for COVID-19 testing: stratified periodic testing rather than universal random testing

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew Cleevely
  • Daniel Susskind
  • David Vines
  • Louis Vines
  • Samuel Wills

Abstract

This paper argues for the regular testing of people in groups that are more likely to be exposed to SARS-CoV-2, to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and resume economic activity. We call this ‘stratified periodic testing’. It is ‘stratified’ as it is based on at-risk groups, and ‘periodic’ as everyone in the group is tested at regular intervals. We argue that this is a better use of scarce testing resources than ‘universal random testing’, as has been recently discussed globally. We find that, under reasonable assumptions and allowing for false negative results 30 per cent of the time, 17 per cent of a subgroup would need to be tested each day to lower the effective reproduction number R from 2.5 to 0.75, under stratified periodic testing. Using the same assumptions the universal random testing rate would need to be 27 per cent (as opposed to 7 per cent as argued by Romer (2020b)). We obtain this rate of testing using a corrected method for calculating the impact of an infectious person on others, and allowing for asymptomatic cases. We also find that the effect of one day’s delay between testing positive and self-isolating is similar to having a test that is 30 per cent less accurate.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew Cleevely & Daniel Susskind & David Vines & Louis Vines & Samuel Wills, 2020. "A workable strategy for COVID-19 testing: stratified periodic testing rather than universal random testing," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 36(Supplemen), pages 14-37.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:oxford:v:36:y:2020:i:supplement_1:p:s14-s37.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/oxrep/graa029
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Abel Brodeur & David Gray & Anik Islam & Suraiya Bhuiyan, 2021. "A literature review of the economics of COVID‐19," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(4), pages 1007-1044, September.
    2. Broughel, James & Kotrous, Michael, 2020. "The Benefits of Coronavirus Suppression: A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Response to the First Wave of COVID-19," Working Papers 10632, George Mason University, Mercatus Center.
    3. Ely, Jeffrey & Galeotti, Andrea & Jann, Ole & Steiner, Jakub, 2021. "Optimal test allocation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    4. Anna Kristina Witte & Janina Grosch & Beate Conrady & Lena Schomakers & Marcus Grohmann, 2022. "Free PoC Testing for SARS-CoV-2 in Germany: Factors Expanding Access to Various Communities in a Medium-Sized City," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-16, April.
    5. Galiani, Sebastian, 2022. "Pandemic economics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 269-275.
    6. Scott Duke Kominers & Alex Tabarrok, 2022. "Vaccines and the Covid-19 pandemic: lessons from failure and success [‘Many Say They’re Confused About Whether, When to Get Second Booster’]," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 38(4), pages 719-741.
    7. Cameron Hepburn & Brian O’Callaghan & Nicholas Stern & Joseph Stiglitz & Dimitri Zenghelis, 2020. "Will COVID-19 fiscal recovery packages accelerate or retard progress on climate change?," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 36(Supplemen), pages 359-381.
    8. de Mello-Sampayo, F.;, 2024. "Uncertainty in Healthcare Policy Decisions: An Epidemiological Real Options Approach to COVID-19 Lockdown Exits," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 24/01, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:oxford:v:36:y:2020:i:supplement_1:p:s14-s37.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/oxrep .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.