Testing yourself regularly

Consider that not everyone can or want to afford spending money on taking tests as often as you. We did have a policy where I work for where the only way your ID badge would work to enter the the workplace, you had to get tests every two weeks at the clinic the employer paid to set up. Now you have to be fully vaccinated or have an official exemptions to enter. The folks not vaccinated that have exemptions still have to test for free regularly.

we are provided boxes of Lateral Flow tests by the NHS and we test twice a week which is the recommended frequency for both fully vaccinated and unvaccinated people. We are fully vaccinated since April and still test - all have been negative as we are very careful.

I think your thoughts are great, and if I were traveling now, I would certainly be semi-quarantining and using self tests for the two weeks prior to my trip...and during my trip (well, not the quarantining part). I think anyone who is traveling abroad should have sufficient funds for the testing, otherwise, financially speaking, they should be saving their money for the future.

We babysit our preschool age grandchildren separately, for a total of 2 or 3 days per week. If we've gone somewhere that worries us or have a cold, etc., we do get the PCR test at the pharmacy, which has been free. However, I think I will look into getting a couple of these tests to have in. At some point, CVS might start charging us.

Thanks for this, Stan. I wasn't aware of the self testing kits.

Jazz+travels, yes I get that. Not for everyone. But if I was about spend big bucks on a trip to Europe, I wouldn't want to find out at the last minute that I was positive. I'd take a $12.50 home test sometime before the three day window starts just to know more in advance. At the least you'd have time to get a PCR done before caught in the time trap. Even more so for the return trip.

Wray, we have several brands available over the counter in our local pharmacies, Amazon, and even some supermarkets. QuickVue is one I've used. They're just not the ones that offer online proctoring, or for those like BINAX Now, you dont have to do the proctoring. Its instant self-testing like the pregnancy test kits. I've taken tests after public events, and before family get togethers, etc.

Test availability and cost for home kits; potentially cost, plus urging by authorities to not test unless you exhibit symptoms for administered tests, are the main reason around my area.

Plus, I suppose it is a practical example of Schrodinger's Cat Dilemma, you are neither Positive or Negative until you crack that lid, and the unknown may be more comforting than the known unless you are visibly ill.

I think the more interesting question is if testing were not required to fly, and you do two tests, one shows positive, the other negative, how do you proceed? I think a number of people would be hesitant to test at all before leaving, unless required, just to avoid the dilemma.

Testing 72 hours could be enough time if you pay more for a fully refundable trip like most recommend here. I do agree that when traveling abroad you should be required to test regularly and being fully vaccinated is not enough. In France I took one test to get a certificate good for 3 days in order to attend a concert and then 5 days later the test to fly back.

Paul, yes that makes sense for *administered * tests, as they dont want people to clog the medical system. But I guess some people dont want to know until they're having to cancel their flight.

we are fortunate where I live to have free testing by our county and so I can get either a rapid or PCR test very easily. It has been great throughout the entire pandemic just to test regularly.

Before our latest Greek Isles cruise, I was able to get both the PCR and rapid test at the same time, so I had plenty of backup in case the negative PCR test was needed. And I had assurance that I was covid free before Ieft.

Here in Germany schools are using the self-test kits to test students and staff regularly (twice weekly), vaccinated or not. Testing was daily at the start as kids returned from the summer holiday. This added layer of safety has been important for peace of mind for teachers, students, and families, and it isn't hard. Positives are sent home and required to quarantine until a PCR confirms if it is actually positive (and until it is negative, obviously).

But I think test kits are cheaper here, and for schools they are provided. I agree, though, that self-testing is a great way to both stop the spread, travel or not.

I think excessive testing gives people a false sense of security. Just because u text negative on a Monday doesn't mean u will test negative the next day or day after.
I prefer to be as safe as I can. I'm vaccinated and wear my mask. Hopefully that betters my chances. No guarantees either way. As long as I'm out and about I'm at risk. I accept that risk and am thrilled to be in Switzerland now as opposed to sitting alone in my house where I could be at a much lower risk.

I'm vaccinated and wear my mask. Hopefully that betters my chances.
No guarantees either way.

But self-testing gives you yet another layer of information and protection, to yourself or to others. I don't think the OP's message is an "either...or", it's already presumed that one would be vaccinated and would adhere to public health measures like wearing a mask and keeping distance from people...in addtion to testing. Testing in the travel context is meant to give more predictability (and sanity) to the person embarking on a trip. I don't see how it can be a bad thing, unless one changes their behavior completely and lets their guard down thinking that tests are enough (that's exactly how so many staff in the former White House got a positive reading, they exclusively relied on testing).

I find it curious when people say that the place they are traveling to is "safer" than where they are, so their trip is a great idea. The problem is that their presence (from a less safe area) makes the people in the safer area more at risk - so it's not a given that those people the traveler comes in contact with are better off. The focus on "me" is, I think, a type of blinder.

If I was going on any trip overseas that was important to me, I would do a hard quarantine/ isolation before the trip to minimize any chances of things going south. No, you can't control everything, but you can try to minimize risk when possible and not too costly.

Good points, Agnes. Plus the need to keep in mind that visitors to a "safer" country or area are likely having more contact with strangers, spending more time in restaurants or transit systems, generally exposing themselves and others, more than at home. So likely a greater risk of getting infected, or passing an infection to others, when traveling than when living a more structured life in your hometown.

Thanks for this post, Stan. I think I'll look for a home test before my upcoming trip, just to reduce the chance of an unpleasant surprise on the eve of departure.

But I guess some people dont want to know until they're having to cancel their flight.

Whether you test positive three days before your trip or a week before, wouldn't you have to cancel either way?

Consider that not everyone can or want to afford spending money on
taking tests as often as you.

Come to Texas I guess. They are free..... just assumed the rest of the country was the same...