Sample-based random testing for better data

Issues that I would like to discuss:

Sen. Leila de Lima was not allowed, by the majority of her peers in the Senate, to participate in their online meetings, or teleconferenced plenary sessions, even if the Supreme Court has clearly ruled (in the case of Trillanes v. Pimentel, G.R. No, 179817, 27 June 2008) that the limitation in the practice of profession only applies in a situation where the person deprived of liberty has to go out of the detention facility, which would not be the case with Senator De Lima.

Then there is the closing down of ABS-CBN by the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) because Solicitor General Jose Calida threatened to sue the NTC if it did not do so, in clear defiance of the wishes of the House of Representatives. Calida is supposed to be the tribune of the people (not the President), and the NTC is, administratively, one of his clients. Since when does a lawyer threaten his own client?

These topics are dear to my heart. But the first order of priority in these times is public health, and what would happen to us 110 million Filipinos, should there be a botching up of the plan (IATF Resolution 30) to ease the quarantine measures and reopen the economy. So first things first.

In this connection, Dr. John Wong has very reassuring PowerPoint slides showing that “the curve has flattened” as shown by the increase in the number of days to double the reported confirmed cases of COVID-19. That is certainly data-based. Scientific. Except that that information was already available to us as of two and a half weeks ago (divulged by the UP COVID-19 Pandemic Response Team on April 20). Let’s get our acts together, folks.

But aside from that, there is a problem: The best available data (official) may be biased downward. And why is that? Dean Orville Solon of the UP School of Economics (UPSE) offers an explanation. The official data are based on the hospitalized, and the dying. So, (1) people who may be positive but are asymptomatic are not hospitalized, and therefore not counted (in New York City, that percentage is 20 percent); (2) for financial or geographical reasons, very large segments of the population may have no access to hospitals/medical care (and even with symptoms, they just don’t show up). And let us not forget, a major factor is the number of tests done—and try as we might, we have only 23 test labs (we had only 17 last month), compared to Vietnam’s 110 and Thailand’s 93.

There is still another problem: The data were analyzed comparing NCR and areas outside of NCR. But NCR has 16 cities (and one municipality), and the average for NCR hides the disparities between them that may call for different decisions. In other words, what is needed are data on the local (as opposed to regional) level, the best being down to the barangay level.

Everything boils down to the need for better data, better information. And this is where the UPSE gives its very highly value-added contribution: Use sample-based random testing to find out what is happening to the population—either community-based (LGUs) or sector-based (company or industry) testing. By this method, the community/sector can be surveilled to see what is happening with COVID-19. (Note: the present “mass testing” is (a) diagnostic testing—to see whether you are sick or not, and (b) is very expensive).

Sample-based random testing provides an evidence-based method of determining where, when, or how serious the next wave of the pandemic will be. Make no mistake, there will be a next wave, no ifs or buts about it.

And that, to me, is the fatal flaw of IATF 30: It does not mention sample-based random testing at all. The Senate recently passed Resolution No. 377, introduced by Sen. Joel Villanueva, that specifically asks the IATF to consider this proposal of the UPSE, but there seems to be no response as yet.

Will they consider it? We all must hope so. Otherwise, there goes the botch, resulting in both a weakened population and a weakened economy. But in the meantime, Dean Solon says, the IATF/DOF could at the very least provide the guidelines/protocols that local governments/companies/industries should follow if they want to do it on their own. It costs the national government nothing, it will definitely go a long way to ensuring the safety and health of the people while reopening the economy, and it will provide better and more unbiased information for a national database.

[email protected]