RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Debiasing Covid-19 prevalence estimates
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.01.10.21249298
DO 10.1101/2021.01.10.21249298
A1 Sotiris Georganas
A1 Alina Velias
A1 Sotiris Vandoros
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/03/2021.01.10.21249298.abstract
AB Timely, accurate epidemic figures are necessary for informed policy. In the Covid-19 pandemic, mismeasurement can lead to tremendous waste, in health or economic output. “Random” testing is commonly used to estimate virus prevalence, reporting daily positivity rates. However, since testing is necessarily voluntary, all “random” tests done in the field suffer from selection bias. This bias, unlike standard polling biases, goes beyond demographical representativeness and cannot be corrected by oversampling (i.e. selecting people without symptoms to test). Using controlled, incentivized experiments on a sample of all ages, we show that people who feel symptoms are up to 33 times more likely to seek testing. The bias in testing propensities leads to sizable prevalence bias: test positivity is inflated by up to five times, even if testing is costless. This effect varies greatly across time and age groups, making comparisons over time and across countries misleading. We validate our results using the REACT study in the UK and find that positivity figures have indeed a very large and time varying bias. We present calculations to debias positivity rates, but importantly, suggest a parsimonious way to sample the population bypassing the bias altogether. Our estimation is both real-time and consistently close to true values. These results are relevant for all epidemics, besides covid-19, when carriers have informative beliefs about their own status.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive fundingAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethics approval was given by the Economics Research Ethics Committee of City, University of London. Approval date: 9/12/2020. Code: ETH2021-0749.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe data used in this study were collected via surveys. We can make them available upon reasonable request