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.
It doesn't seem like it's a prick test, I think we've moved past seriology tests but if that is what it is then it wouldn't be effective, I agree. Close contacts though break down in a university setting. Even with cohorts or whatever they are doing, it will break down.
-
-
It's hard to tell from the email. They call it screening then they call it a non-invasive test. The virus has been demonstrated to be stable in saliva by a team in the US, so is it a saliva swab? Who would be doing the screening other than the HSE? Definitely need more info there
-
But again if the screening ends up not being effective for IDing clusters in general, then they shouldn't be spending their money on it and should be doing PCR tests.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.