> 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.
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