I think you hit the nail on the head here regarding the widespread use of the quick but less accurate tests. They are probably the best tool we have to get back to “normal” as long as they are used right, and not misused. I think the fear about how people will interpret the results is probably why they will not be used as quickly as they should be.
The problem with the daily self administered saliva test is that it is dependent on students actually using it every day and then doing the right thing and staying home if it’s positive. But, if the test is done at a lab, the school know it’s been done and knows if it’s positive.
True story: my sister works in a hospital. Back in March, the hospital was taken the temperatures of all employees when they got to work before they could enter the building. This resulted in big backups at the doors at certain times during the day. Someone decided it would be better to have all employees take their temperatures at home before they came in and enter it into an app. My sister said that many people in her department never took their temperature. They just signed on the app and entered a number. They varied it up and down a little so it looked real, but always in the acceptable level. If hospital employees are faking results like this, you expect college students to honestly take the test and enter results every day?
If you cannot rely on an honor system or honor code, then require that the strip be licked and shown to a college employee who then enters the student’s ID number into a system recording the result. Then have the students badge in to any buildings or events.
Recent-enough negative result associated with ID => entry.
No recent-enough result associated with ID => lick the strip so that an college employee can indicate it on the student’s ID.
Recent-enough positive result associated with ID => deny entry, tell student to keep away from others.
In other words, it can be used as an entry enforcement that is more effective than checking for fevers (which misses asymptomatic spreaders entirely and catches symptomatic people only after a few days of presymptomatic spreading).
Still better than the slow lab testing that allows days of presymptomatic or asymptomatic spreaders unknowingly giving the virus to many other people before being noticed.
So you can display your results on your phone. If each test strip had the student ID number, students could upload a photo of the negative test each morning, and a barcode would be automatically sent to their phone. No barcode, no entry to school buildings, sports practice, club meetings, events etc.
I’m looking for a path towards the least suffering from the virus, and from the economic and social effects of fighting it.
The Abbott Binax Now test requires a prescription and can only be administered by a healthcare provider, so unfortunately it’s not an answer for very frequent testing. Plus, at $5 per test wholesale (higher retail) it would get expensive fast for daily testing. It’s really frustrating that cheap paper at-home tests of contagiousness could be available if only the FDA would approve them.
There are phone-based apps that could keep people honest. For example, show the strip to the phone before it’s been used, then show again after it shows negative. This can be made to work.
This was posted today on MIT’s covid site, in their faq’s about a new testing site on campus:
What ever happened to the idea of take-home Covid-19 testing? Is that still a possibility?
Yes, it could still happen. Take-home, unobserved Covid-19 testing is still in the works and pending FDA approval. Once we are approved for take-home use, we will let you know and share information about who is eligible, how it will work, and where you can pick up and drop off your testing kits. Unfortunately, we don’t know when that might happen.
Or show the strip in your mouth with the other end showing the number on the strip, then show the strip afterward with the number and the color indicating the result.
@Bella723 , I know those facts about Abbott’s Binax Now and actually posted about them in the “Inside Medicine” thread. My point was that the technology to give students proof of a negative Covid self-test is already available and could be used to allow/block access to public spaces.
Great news!! What percentage of classes are in person?
According to its Covid-19 FAQ page, 50% of Wesleyan classes are being taught in-person. This may help explain why the campus is operating at over 80% capacity with 2500 students occupying college-owned housing.
I totally disagree. Its easy enough to enforce (do the strip test on the spot) and its not ‘bad behavior’ - its called living life.
GWU enrollment dropped 17%. It will be interesting to see how other schools have been impacted and what this does to admissions this year and next.
https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/george-washington-university-enrollment-drops-17
Sorry for the hit and run post yesterday. I actually went in to the office! Wild. Here’s the UW-Madison cumulative info from Aug 23:
https://smartrestart.wisc.edu/dashboard/
They are logging about 194 positives/day and have a 9.2 percent positive rate, which suggests they aren’t testing nearly enough.
I know you are all trying to come up with ways to make students accountable for daily at home testing, but some of these ideas are really out there. Take multiple pictures and show the code while its in your mouth? Restrict access to buildings if you don’t have the proper picture on your phone? Who do you think is going to be doing all this surveillance? Are universities going to be hiring people to check all the pictures on the phones of all 20k students that go to the school on a daily basis? Are they going to block off building entrances and have guards posted at the one entrance that’s open to inspect everyone’s phone? How long will it take to inspect the phone of every student that has to get in the building for a 10:00 lecture. My son’s school schedules classes 15 minutes apart and that includes walking time. You can’t then spend a half hour in line waiting for someone to look at your phone so that you can get into the building. These type of solutions may work to police kids at small LACs, but will not work for large publics.
UIUC uses an app to allow/lockout access to all on campus buildings. And yes, people are stationed at doors to check your app. Most classes are remote so foot traffic is down but the system is there and working. Undergrads tested twice a week. Grad students and faculty were just switched to once per week.
Their 7 day positivity rate is .52%
As of early July they have run 295,000 tests.
How long does it take to scan a bar code on a phone? Before Covid, our high school restricted entry to certain doors and the kids had to show ID. They all get in (and out and in again) just fine during the day.
Universities could set up stations where you can scan your barcode in the morning, and get a wristband as your pass for the day. Hiring people to make sure everyone has a bracelet has to be a lot cheaper than the cleaning (hygiene theater) we are doing alone.
The schools that are succeeding in preventing viral outbreaks (at enormous financial and social cost) are of course free to continue with their methods. But creating a bubble, PCR testing everyone twice a week, or having a diagnostic lab on campus, is not realistic for most schools, especially most public schools and K-12 schools. I am just trying to see a path forward for them.
Our students are supposed to have an app on their phone with a green dot if they are good to go for the day (good = completed covid questionnaire). We’re supposed to check it when they come in the classroom.
I have not been doing this.
@ElonMomMD - When we toured GWU last fall the tour guides told us of the school’s plans to lower enrollment by 20% in the next few years. So they planned to decrease their numbers. Granted not sure if the 17% rate the first year was in their plans!
Here’s an article (Published PreCovid ) that explains some of the reasons for such.
Ahh…I see my mistake. I was only looking at the on-campus testing numbers.