Updating testing code

[andrew-phillips-1]

Previously the second term could be negative and hence result in lowering of testing rate before 2009. I hope this takes care of it ?

[LoveleenB-M]

Do we need 'initial_rate_1sttest' (set to zero) and the zeros here at all rate_reptest =' 0.0000' + ...

[ValentinaCambiano]

Do we need 'initial_rate_1sttest' (set to zero) and the zeros here at all rate_reptest =' 0.0000' + ...

I do think we need initial_rate_1sttest to be set to zero. This is a new parameter, right?
I agree that the "' 0.0000'" in the "rate_reptest =' 0.0000' + ..." could be removed

[LoveleenB-M]

Initial_rate_1sttest is an old parameter which at one point was something other than zero but we changed it to zero a few years ago. It is used here:

	rate_1sttest = initial_rate_1sttest + (min(caldate{t},date_test_rate_plateau)-(date_start_testing+5.5))*an_lin_incr_test;

Since it is zero, I don't think we need it but perhaps I'm missing something.

[ValentinaCambiano]

Initial_rate_1sttest is an old parameter which at one point was something other than zero but we changed it to zero a few years ago. It is used here:

	rate_1sttest = initial_rate_1sttest + (min(caldate{t},date_test_rate_plateau)-(date_start_testing+5.5))*an_lin_incr_test;

Since it is zero, I don't think we need it but perhaps I'm missing something.

No, it all makes sense, agree with you!

[jennifersmith203]

I think it all makes sense to me too. We need rate_1sttest to be set to something in the period 2003.5 to 2009 so I would favour keeping initial_rate_1sttest in and set to 0 (i.e. as is suggested in the PR) rather than hard-coding the value....hope I have understood the conversation correctly! Agree the 0.0000 can be removed.

[andrew-phillips-1]

Thanks. Maybe we can confirm changes to this and approval on our call on Thursday.