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
-
-
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
I think my larger point it that the most effective proven strategy to reduce transmission is rapid targeted (i.e. 100s, not 1000s) PCR tests for symptoms + all close contacts, rather than mass prick-test screening, which might work but hasn't to date
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NiallOSuill
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AdmiralHip @NiallOSuill
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
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AdmiralHip
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...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NiallOSuill
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Which is useful for identifying past trends (like seeing the asymptomatic spread before mass testing was introduced), but not good for IDing clusters I don't think.
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.