The reason that distinction is important is that screening is (or was, back in May when the UK was trying to roll it out nationally) waaaaaaaay less accurate, w/ best case scenarios @ 70% accuracy, and too many false negatives.
-
-
Replying to @NiallOSuill
I think screening may be more accurate now, but I am unsure. The screening recommendation was from Luke O'Neill, who said that anyone who screened positive could then get a PCR test.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AdmiralHip @NiallOSuill
In an ideal world everyone should just get tested right away, and I am unsure why this wasn't just planned from the start.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AdmiralHip
I think the reason is that it runs into huge logistical/financial problems very quickly. If we're testing everyone, how often? Where does testing take place? Who pays? It could very quickly exasperate problems rather than relieving them
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NiallOSuill @AdmiralHip
Example: screen everyone, on campus, once/week, €50 cost. 30k staff + students = €1.5m/week for tests alone (w/o staffing costs). 1000s travelling into campus on days w/ no f2f teaching to get tested. Even 1% false positive = 300 asymptomatic w/ guards let down
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NiallOSuill
Yeah, it would cost that much. But it just needs to be done. And this all needs to be done with 100% mask compliance. Anyone who can't wear a mask or refuses to then needs to be accommodated with online learning, same for anyone who needs to lipread.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AdmiralHip
I'm not sure it does *need* to be done (although I think they're right to explore it). Spending millions a week on a strategy that hasn't been proven to work anywhere, and might actually increase transmission, seems an odd priority when you can spend on what *has* been effective
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NiallOSuill
I'm not sure it would increase transmission, if it was done safely, and as long as other protocols are met. But ultimately I think students and staff just need to the PCR tests, period. But from what I read, tests are being priced higher than they need to be also.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AdmiralHip @NiallOSuill
And I'm sure college is spending money on the other stuff but since they haven't really told anyone anything it's hard to know what they have spent money on specifically.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AdmiralHip @NiallOSuill
Also, the older screening programme was to ID antibodies, whereas I think the screening done on campus would be more accurate to ID cases and then they would get an HSE test. That is the impression I got from this:http://www.universitytimes.ie/2020/09/widespread-testing-in-trinity-could-cost-e1m-per-year-says-luke-oneill/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
But without more specifics on what the screening actually is, it's hard to say for sure.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.