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.
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.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I have no idea, but am working on the assumption of a prick test b/c it's the only screening test I've heard of w/ near-instant results, which is what O'Neill is proposing. His suggestions, anytime I've heard them, are sensible in theory but super vague in practice...
-
Hmm, hard to say then. PCR tests can have a day or two turnaround if the testing facilities are fast and efficient as far as I know. But seriology tests were shown to be ineffective months ago. They can only say that you may have been sick at some stage rather than right now.
- Show replies
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.