
doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3911825 , 10.1371/journal.pone.0265207 , 10.1101/2021.04.26.21256094 , 10.25358/openscience-8227
pmid: 35302989
pmc: PMC8932588
handle: 20.500.12030/8242
doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3911825 , 10.1371/journal.pone.0265207 , 10.1101/2021.04.26.21256094 , 10.25358/openscience-8227
pmid: 35302989
pmc: PMC8932588
handle: 20.500.12030/8242
Background Various forms of contact restrictions have been adopted in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Around February 2021, rapid testing appeared as a new policy instrument. Some claim it may serve as a substitute for contact restrictions. We study the strength of this argument by evaluating the effects of a unique policy experiment: In March and April 2021, the city of Tübingen set up a testing scheme while relaxing contact restrictions. Methods We compare case rates in Tübingen county to an appropriately identified control unit. We employ the synthetic control method. We base interpretations of our findings on an extended SEIR model. Findings The experiment led to an increase in the reported case rate. This increase is robust across alternative statistical specifications. This is also due to more testing leading initially to more reported cases. An epidemiological model that corrects for ‘more cases due to more testing’ and ‘reduced testing and reporting during the Easter holiday’ confirms that the overall effect of the experiment led to more infections. Interpretation The number of rapid tests were not sufficiently high in this experiment to compensate for more contacts and thereby infections caused by relaxing contact restrictions.
330, ddc:320, Science, Quarantine/methods, Germany/epidemiology, 610 Medizin, 610, COVID-19 Testing, Mass Screening/methods, Germany, 610 Medical sciences, 320 Political science, Humans, Mass Screening, COVID-19/epidemiology, ddc:610, ddc:330, 330 Wirtschaft, Q, R, COVID-19, 320, 330 Economics, Quarantine, Medicine, 320 Politik, Research Article
330, ddc:320, Science, Quarantine/methods, Germany/epidemiology, 610 Medizin, 610, COVID-19 Testing, Mass Screening/methods, Germany, 610 Medical sciences, 320 Political science, Humans, Mass Screening, COVID-19/epidemiology, ddc:610, ddc:330, 330 Wirtschaft, Q, R, COVID-19, 320, 330 Economics, Quarantine, Medicine, 320 Politik, Research Article
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 4 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
