The recent spike in new infections have prompted other EU countries to implement travel restrictions for Luxembourg residents. Most recently, Germany declared Luxembourg a risk zone. Luxembourg residents travelling to Germany will have to quarantine for at least 14 days upon arrival and inform local health authorities of their stay.
These alarming developments have, as Jean-Paul Bertemes of science.lu points out, given rise to numerous theories circulating on social media. Countless users have argued that it would be best for Luxembourg to reduce testing as this would, as a consequence, reduce new infection numbers and reduce the risk of more countries banning Luxembourg residents from entering. According to Bertemes, this stance "leads to the false assumption that the new infections would not exist if we did not detect them... or to the bizarre idea that it's possible to reduce the number of new infections by testing less."
The key goal, Bertemes argues, should not be to embellish statistics or artificially reduce the number of artificial cases. Instead, it should be to reduce the risk of the virus spreading uncontrollably "and overloading our healthcare system." The assumption that less testing leads to fewer travel restrictions is therefore problematic - for several reasons.
Less testing, in the long term, can only lead to an increase in new infections, says Bertemes. If Luxembourg decided to test less, more (asymptomatic) patients can infect large parts of the population and make contact tracing efforts virtually impossible. Without contact tracing and extensive testing, the situation would risk spinning out of control and, in that case, Luxembourg would also risk being slapped with further travel restrictions.
There is clear evidence that virus transmission has again increased in recent weeks. Bertemes for instance cites virus traces found in Luxembourg's sewage systems, and the increase of patients displaying symptoms. Large-scale testing allowed health authorities to detect 38% of the total amount of new infections between 7 and 12 July. 62% were found because patients already displayed symptoms. A key point worth emphasising: 41% of the individuals that tested positive were already in quarantine when they received the positive test result. In other words, extensive testing and contact tracing has allowed Luxembourg to place these individuals into self-isolation before they could infect others.
Bertemes concludes that the argument to test less misses the point. Only testing and contact tracing can keep the pandemic under control - and safeguard our personal freedoms in the long term. New infection rates give an indication of the current presence of the virus but do "not represent a key value indicator." The key indicator, he argues, remains the number of patients in intensive care.
