Table 5.
Number of new infections produced with different interventions in each baseline scenario. The 95% confidence interval about the mean is computed using the t-distribution across 10 repetitions of each intervention.1 The numbers in parentheses are p-values from two-sample t-tests of sequential comparison of number of new infections between the testing interventions that appear in consecutive rows, within each testing scenario (i.e. column). The order of effectiveness of interventions was hypothesized a priori. Comparisons significant at the 0.05-level are in boldface.
| Model | TF1 | TF2 | LOA |
|---|---|---|---|
| BL | 738.9±20.1 | 790.2±22.9 | 955.3±21.1 |
|
| |||
| DW-1 | 738.0±10.2 (0.94) | 804.9±22.3 (0.41) | 944.1±25.7 (0.62) |
|
| |||
| GT-6 | 734.4±3.4 (0.52) | 764.9±8.6 (0.007) | 881.8±18.5 (0.002) |
|
| |||
| GT-3 | 730.1±11.6 (0.54) | 736.2±12.3 (0.002) | 866.6±10.3 (0.21) |
| IT-6 | 696.5±10.9 (0.001) | 739.2±14.3 0.77 |
618.2±35.5 (<0.001) |
| IT-3 | 704.9±21.3 (0.53) | 705.8±16.7 (0.01) | 553.6±15.2 (0.009) |
|
| |||
| BC | 689.9±10.1 (0.26) | 654.8±6.6 (<0.0001) | 517.9±10.8 (0.002) |
In the TF1 and TF2 scenarios, we assume a mean inter-test interval of 351 days and two years respectively, and the LOA scenario is set up to match 55–60% of infected diagnosed at equilibrium prevalence.1