Drs. Fauci & Birx plan Reopen The Economy In As Little As One Month



Drs. Fauci and Birx, you are working tirelessly and heroically to combat Coronavirus. Everyone thanks you. But you are ignoring the obvious way to actually save American lives and livelihoods. It’s PCR-based household-group testing. The protocol, developed via Cornell’s Operations Research professor, Peter Frazier, can contain and kill Covid-19 in one month!

Dear Drs. Fauci and Birx,

You are working tirelessly and heroically to fight Coronavirus. I and hundreds of hundreds of thousands of other Americans thank you for your efforts. Yet I find myself totally confused as to why you are ignoring the obvious and sure way to eliminate the scourge of Covid-19 in simply one month.

The solution is PCR group-household testing of all American households every week. Doing so will require walking only 6 million tests per week, which is eminently and imminently feasible. Group testing was once developed by economist Robert Dorfman during WWII to test for syphilis in military recruits. It's used routinely to test blood donations. It's also been used in PCR checking out of animals. Its sensitivity to Covid-19 has been clearly established by Israeli scientists.

Testing all American households each and every week won't just save the economy, which is actually at death's door. It will save tens of thousands of lives. Compared to what you two are effectively sanctioning — every state opens up while paying lip service to your, at best, hopeful pointers — bulletproof group testing is a godsend.

PCR group-household testing entails combining (mixing together) household samples and performing a test on the combined mixture. Given the new FDA-approved Rutgers University saliva test, all household contributors can spit into a single container and deliver or mail that container to a test-collection site with a filled out label detailing all contact records of all household members.

Suppose at the testing facility, the samples from 62 households are combined together and tested. Further, assume the combined pattern tests negative. In this case, we can clear 155 people (assuming 2.5 human beings per household) with a single test! That's a 155 to 1 efficiency factor relative to checking out each person separately!

If a household exams negative, each household member would be notified to go to their local pharmacy to get hold of a green wristband coated to change to purple after one week. After one week, everyone in the household would provide a new pattern and be re-group tested.

This system is voluntary. But if you choose to have your household examined and receive your green wristband, you'll be approved by your employer to return to work, by your instructors and professors to return to school, and by proprietors to enter their restaurants, shops, cafes, etc. You'll also be allowed to general the beach, attend concerts, go to the movies, ... .

Any household that tests positive will be required through the local board of health to quarantine in place for two weeks and then be re-tested. Households that do not voluntarily get tested will be free to come and go as they wish. But without their green bracelets, they will have a challenging time entering into workplaces and other establishments. Employers who employed the untested could face legal liability. The same holds for any commercial enterprise serving the public who lets someone onto their premises without a green bracelet. Moreover, no one will eagerly enter into a restaurant, board an airplane, attend a college lecture, head to the mall, or go back to work unless they can see with their own two eyes that anybody they are encountering is sporting a green bracelet.

Is there something magical about the quantity 62? Yes. It's the optimal number of households to be included in a single take a look at according to a carefully worked out protocol developed by using Cornell University Professor of Operations Research, Peter Frazier, and his colleagues. (Note, under Frazier's protocol, the optimal group measurement changes by the week with the long-run optimal measurement stabilizing around 40.)

Professor Frazier’s protocol has two great advantages. In the process of doing the group-household testing, it identifies, with no greater tests, precisely those households that are positive. It also handles false negatives, assumed, very conservatively, to run at a 30 percentage rate (ignoring intra-household correlation), via repeat testing. The repeat testing ensures that after 4 weeks virtually 100 percent of these wearing a green bracelet will, in fact, have correctly examined negative in their most recent test.

Why is a 30 percent false poor rate very conservative? First, because it’s at the high give up of the studies out of China. Second, many of the false negatives may reflect inexperienced pattern takers who didn't properly swab the very back of subjects' noses. With saliva testing, there is a ways less chance of collecting an mistaken sample. Third, by combining the saliva of all family members in one sample, the probabilities that the entire household sample will check negative when at least one household member is positive is a good deal smaller than 30 percent. The reason, which Frazier’s protocol incorporates, is correlation. If one household member is infected, the chances are good that different members are infected. Moreover, they may have enough viral load collectively, whereas personally they may not.

Professor Frazier's protocol will release 96 percentage of the American public back into the economy in just one month. Thereafter, this share rises. Moreover his protocol works whether the true nationwide prevalence quotes is high or low. (We still have no idea about the country wide prevalence rate, but would quickly research in the process of group testing all U.S. households.) Remarkably, the protocol can obtain the same four-week release rate with six million assessments regardless of whether the degree of prevalence is greater or lower than Frazier’s assumed 1 percent.

Surprisingly, cities or states with higher prevalence require fewer, no longer more tests. Intuitively, the higher the prevalence, the larger the share of households firstly quarantined for the two weeks assumed for the disease to run its course. Yes, fewer green bracelets would be issued in the first three weeks, but by means of week four, 96 percent or more of households would be returned to doing their normal activities.

How does PCR group-testing relate to antibody screening, now available, and antigen testing, which may become available? The pleasant estimates, based on the current allegedly sketchy antibody testing, indicates that from three percent to 17 percent of the population has, through now, contracted Covid-19. Even 17 percent is miles away from what is needed for herd immunity, particularly about 66 percent. Going from a 3 percent to a sixty six percent share of the population that’s survived Covid-19 entails another 800,000 deaths. Going from a 17 percentage survivor rate to a 66 percent price entails another 180,000 deaths. Hence, anyone counting on herd immunity to save the day is countenancing an massive number of additional Covid-19 deaths.

If we can come up with an antibody test it truly is highly reliable and that shows that the antibodies are shielding against reinfection, such individuals would receive bracelets that completely stay green or turn to purple only after a few months. This would reduce the requisite number of assessments needed to return 96 percent of the populace to normal life within 4 weeks. We'd need roughly 5 million, not 6 million tests per week. As for antigen tests, they are, to my knowledge, much less accurate than PCR tests. Nor, as I understand it, can antigen tests be carried out on a highly efficient group basis.

Can we behavior 6 million group PCR tests each week? Yes! We're now jogging close to 2 million tests per week. Ramping up to 6 million checks per week should be easy. Our country built B-24 bombers in fifty three minutes in WWII and cargo ships in four days. Germany will shortly be testing 4.5 million human beings per week. Scaled by our relative populations, that's 18 million tests per week in the US.

The trouble is not getting to a reasonable number of checks in short order. The question, Drs. Fauci and Brix, is whether you are going to make proper use of these tests by testing everybody — the healthy as well as the sick. That means, to repeat, testing all households each and every week and providing negative household participants with green turning-to-red bracelets. This should be your, the President’s, and the governors’ sole game plan.

Full insurance and live updates on the Coronavirus

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post