Please sign in to post.
Posted by
5497 posts

I doubt it. The standard is the PCR test. These look like their results would be no more accurate or reliable than other current rapid tests. Especially skeptical that they didn't mention their reliability witn non symptomatic subjects. Might be fine for domestic use to rule out cases before proceeding to the PCR.

Posted by
6113 posts

The rapid tests have generally been found to lack the accuracy of the 48 hour PCR test.

The quick test has been approved by the Canarian government, but the airlines flying there are demanding proof of the full PCR test before boarding, which is what the mainland Spanish government require. If this is anything to go by, no airlines won’t recognise it unless accuracy improves.

Posted by
9025 posts

It seems unreasonable to expect third-parties to accept as valid, results for which there is no guarantee or control over who the actual sample came from (i.e., no chain-of-custody) if taken at home. Done at the airport, maybe.

Posted by
2156 posts

I hope the airline’s don’t go the home test route. Even if they were reliable it would be too easy to cheat.

Posted by
407 posts

"The rapid tests have generally been found to lack the accuracy of the 48 hour PCR test."

Just a correction, While it might take 48 hours to get a result in some cases, the PCR test itself takes between one and six hours depending on analyser. Our 95% Turnaround time on a normal day is around 14 hours.