‘She’ll be right’ doesn’t hold sway
Opinion: Until the happy day arrives when epidemiology can return to being boring again, we’re all learning more than we ever wanted to know about pandemics.
Alas, there is so much to learn. For example: last week’s furore about rapid antigen testing kits (aka RATs) skated right past the question of what are antigens, and why and when should we be testing for their presence?
According to the World Health Organisation, the usual PCR nasal swab is looking for the presence of the genetic material of the virus itself.
The rapid antigen test, however, is looking only for the antigens, which are the proteins on the outer shell of the virus. It’s a less intrusive, less sensitive test, and less reliable. At best, it is a useful early red light for PCR follow-up.
For some time, National’s leader Christopher Luxon has been touting the necessity of having RATs readily available here.
Weirdly, he has consistently cited Australia as an example of superior planning.
In fact, the rollout of rapid antigen testing across the Tasman has been a colossal political shambles over the limited availability and affordability of test packages that tend to run to about A$50 for a five-pack kit.
Amid reports of price gouging, stockpiling, socially unequal access and empty shelves in Aussie chemists and supermarkets, the Morrison government has been slammed for its poor planning on this issue. Last week, Australia’s competition watchdog began to investigate reports of price gouging, and scalping by the resellers who cleaned out the initial stocks.
Luxon’s position on RATs is consistent with National s penchant for treating Australia as an alternative universe supposedly superior to what our allegedly inept government is doing.
What has also been consistent about National’s stance has been its advocacy for a profit incentive to be inserted into the diagnostic process. Again, this is despite evidence from Victoria and New South Wales that a ‘‘leave it to the market’’ approach will result in a law-of-the-jungle battle for access to test kits, with the wealthy being at an obvious advantage.
New Zealand appears intent on doing it differently.
By rationing rapid antigen tests and initially restricting them to frontline workers in health, MIQ facilities and essential industries, the Ardern government aims to avoid the dogeat-dog outcomes seen in Australia.
Clearly, something more than those old Kiwi standbys ‘‘ Let the market decide’’ and ‘‘She’ll be right.’’ is required.
To date, it remains unclear whether National supports the need for government to (a) conserve its stock of these tests, (b) subsidise them for those unable to afford the price tag, and (c) distribute them to disadvantaged members of the community and to poorer regions of the country. Presumably, a limited number of free kits will be made available to those left vulnerable by dint of age and preexisting conditions.
Finally, the antigen test models vary in their efficacy and mode of operation. Therefore, shouldn’t Medsafe be required to approve the test kits to prevent cowboys from getting in and peddling their wares to a desperate public?
Who knew that epidemiology, and the policy issues around it, could get so complicated?