Dr. Cillian De Gascun:

To reiterate what Dr. Glynn said, we have no resistance to antigen testing as a matter of principle. At the moment we have the most accurate, specific and sensitive test in real time, namely, PCR, and we have available testing capacity. Is there a role for a less sensitive and specific test? Yes, there may well be. It is primarily recommended at this point in time for use in low and middle-income countries where access to PCR is not readily available. It is also not routinely recommended for use in the screening of asymptomatic individuals purely because the test performance is not yet proven.

We continue to keep antigen tests under review and will start evaluations on the island within the next couple of weeks. It is a component of the testing armoury that could be used in an outbreak setting. The reduction in sensitivity with antigen testing needs to be compensated for in some way. The way that can be done is through frequency of testing, that is, retesting the same individual on a repeat basis, or by the amount of tests that are carried out. For example, if 20 or 30 individuals who are sick in an outbreak setting are tested, it is very unlikely that there will be false negatives in all of those individuals. Another way to compensate is by retesting an individual with PCR. At this point in time, antigen testing will not supplant PCR. As I said, it is complementary and, as Dr. Glynn said, we look forward to the day that we can use it as an adjunct to our existing testing strategy.

Rapid tests are available across our hospital laboratory network and in the community laboratories for use on an as-required basis. For example, in the situation where somebody is admitted to hospital and needs to go to emergency surgery and needs a SARS-CoV-2 test before he or she can have that surgery, rapid testing is available. Rapid testing in the community is, generally speaking, not routinely indicated in the community. If people follow the guidance-----