Abstract
Background Wrong Covid-19 prevalence measurement can cost lives or economic output. A number of countries offer random Covid-19 tests and report daily positivity rates. However, since virus testing has to be voluntary, all tests done in the field, even if supposedly random, suffer from selection bias, which is not limited to having a representative sample, and thus cannot be corrected by the usual methods. The issue is that people who feel they have symptoms (or other reasons to suspect they have Covid-19), are more likely to volunteer to get tested, and testing stations cannot readily correct this by oversampling.
Methods We used a controlled, incentivized online experiment with over 600 subjects of all ages in a European country.
Results People under 30 with symptoms are 1.532 times more likely to test when there is no waiting time, compared to those without symptoms. This figure increases to 2.882 when there is a short wait of 5-15 minutes; 4.423 with a 15-30 minute wait; 15.5 with a 30-60 minute wait and 38 with a 1-2 hour wait. The ratio for 30-50 year-olds rages between 1.517 for no wait and 16 for a 1-2 hour wait. For over 50-year-olds, the ratio ranges between 1.708 and 11.333.
Conclusions “Random” tests in the field inflate infection figures by many times. We suggest ways to correct the bias of the testing stations and a cleaner way to sample the population to avoid the bias altogether. Our methodology is relevant to Covid-19 and to any other epidemic.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The 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All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I 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).
Yes
I 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.
Yes
Data Availability
The data used in this study were collected via surveys. We can make them available upon reasonable request
