How much are you willing to pay for lateral flow tests?

Because Covid may be symptomless but you will still be infectious. I always test before visiting anyone vulnerable and hope they will show me the same courtesy.

Today I have spoken to two people who have tested positive but have no symptoms. It would have been courteous to maintain the requirement to self-isolate if you test positive.

Avoiding contact with others, when you test positive, for most would be common sense. But there are some lacking in that department; I doubt they took, or would take, notice of restrictions. We saw many acting that way during the height of the pandemic.

Anyone with Covid symptoms needs to be cautious to protect others, at least. That is when and why you should test. Covid has not gone away.

Thanks for that information, Em. It makes a material difference to the tenor of the Introduction to this Conversation which now needs to be revised. It is predicated on the basis that care home visitors will not be able to take a free test. If visitors can test before they set off and then ask for a replacement test kit before departure they can carry on seeing their relatives as frequently as they would like without anxiety and distress over the costs.

@gmartin – Good day, George.

In view of Em’s and my comment above I think some revision of the Intro is required to clarify the arrangements and provision for lateral flow tests for visitors to care homes.

Regards.

Yes, this must be verified. I don’t know the source myself. Em has obviously done some research but mentioned that guidance details were overlapping and undergoing change,

I was hoping this Guidance on Care Home Visiting issued by the DHSC and updated on 24/02/22 would deal with LTF test for visitors but I could not see any relevant information —
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/visiting-care-homes-during-coronavirus/update-on-policies-for-visiting-arrangements-in-care-homes

Many people have behaved responsibly throughout the pandemic and tested to protect family, friends and others when they needed to, whether through feeling ill or visiting vulnerable people. I believe they will continue to test, both from social responsibility and self-preservation, even when they will have to buy tests.

As around 80% of the UK population over 5 are now fully vaccinated the need to do more than occasional tests is unlikely, so the cost of keeping a few in the cupboard should not be great, unlike when testing was, for some, a regular routine. Keeping them free would be likely to lead to unnecessary stocking of tests at considerable cost to the UK, currently with its finances in a parlous state.

The question arises as to how to make kits, that may cost a few pounds, available to those who genuinely cannot afford them. Perhaps there should be a subsidised charge.

I wonder what these kits really cost to produce, and why we have to buy them from China (at least, that is where mine originate). Perhaps someone can tell us what the Government pays for them.

Chris – I fully agree with you.

Given that working people will soon be paying higher National Insurance contributions, and that pensioners and various other categories of patient are entitled to various reliefs and concessions under the NHS, it seems unnecessarily retributive to charge for lateral flow tests while coronavirus remains on the loose.

Nobody takes these tests for the fun of it so putting any obstacle in the way of people acting responsibly and helping to protect the community is a political blunder in my view. The cost of continuing to supply the test kit free of charge – maybe on collection only from pharmacies instead of by first class post – is but a pin-prick in the budget of the NHS relative to all the other costs. And if it saves just one more person from spending time under intensive care or from losing their life it is well worth it.

If this is to be believed, testing costs are not trivial https://inews.co.uk/news/covid-tests-how-much-cost-free-lateral-flow-pcr-testing-limit-plans-explained-1473529

I’d be interested to know just how many take lateral flow tests and whether, if they test positive, they then self isolate. I suspect many are now much more relaxed about Covid – certainly fewer are wearing masks, sanitising, social distancing. Presumably partly down to being fed up with an abnormal life but no doubt mainly because of confidence in the vaccination programme success and the dwindling severity of the virus.

Having just seen Em’s comment about care homes and free tests for visitors, and John’s comment, I am disappointed that this Convo intro may not have been properly researched. I want to see Convos presented in a fair and balanced way, not designed to lead contributors n a particular direction. But if the care home information was only published after the Convo launch I will happily withdraw this comment.

The fewer that are taking the tests the less cost there will be in supplying the kits. I expect responsible people will act responsibly and not demand them unnecessarily or stockpile them. It would not be difficult to control their issue if abuse were to occur.

I am glad that Em has corrected the misinformation about provision for care home visitors as that will relieve many people of an unnecessary worry.

I shall shortly be attending the physical meetings of local organisations and will take a test beforehand, but I am concerned that other participants will not do so because they would have to pay for the test kits.

I have been arguing for years that the NHS should become a preventive service rather than reliant on corrective action at enormous expense and with mixed results. This is a good example of one small step that could have been taken along that path.

Isn’t this rather like relaxing all restrictions, the point at which this should be done? I suspect the benefit vs. harm argument could be used – is more benefit to be gained by using the money for testing for other purposes, against the harm that might be caused by untested people being on the loose? I wonder what evidence exists that shows the benefits of testing in the current environment and at what point, if not April 1st, free testing should cease, or will it go on for ever?

I think a good use for saved money would be to allow annual routine health checks, for people of a certain age perhaps, face to face with a doctor, where not only could they have routine checks but the opportunity to raise issues that they might never otherwise get round to. That might reveal some developing problems at an early stage when treatment is more effective and less expensive, and relieve a potential burden on hospitals.

I agree, Chris. It is the false signals that I am concerned about. The end of all the anti-Covid measures is not a ‘now or never’ question. A more gradual change is appropriate and my view is that the population has shown remarkable and unexpected cooperation with the vaccination campaign and deserves a continuation of the free testing safeguard, not indefinitely, nor indiscriminately, but for reassurance and as a public health benefit.

I am sure that if the dispense of testing kits was put in the hands of one of the competent logistics organisations the administrative and distribution costs could be greatly reduced. UK manufacture could also be beneficial as orders could be called off closer to demand and production rather than having excess stocks in transit all round the globe.

At present we have over10k in hospital, the latter likely to be a significant underestimate with fewer people testing. Covid is still with us. It is a significant cost to make free tests available but the cost of hospitalisation and treatment of the more serious cases is not insignificant.

We have invested in the drugs that have made a worthwhile improvement in the survival rate of those that have been hospitalised and the vaccination programme.

I asked above about this figure, and whether it represents people in hospital where Covid was the reason for their admission, or whether they were in hospital for another reason and happened to test positive for Covid. Until someone resolves this we do not know how many of those 10702 people would be there anyway, so cannot ascribe a cost to Covid on that basis.

There are undoubtedly many people in the community who are Covid positive, whether they have tested or not. A recent small event I was to attend had 4 people pull out who had tested positive before the day, but were not showing any signs of illness and would be unlikely (hopefully) to need hospital treatment.

Having people infected with Covid in hospital is a risk for staff and other patients even if they do not require treatment for the condition. A good friend who had been self-isolating since the start of the pandemic despite not being vulnerable had to go into hospital with kidney stones, became infected during his stay and suffered as a consequence. Tin my opinion, testing is important to protect the elderly and those who would be at risk of serious consequences if they were infected.

I had to go into hospital for a short procedure last week and I was told to test myself two days beforehand and on the day. I was very happy to comply.

That was not the point being questioned. It was simply whether all 10702 patients in hospital were there because they had Covid, or for other reasons.

I did not refer to your comment, Malcolm. I was agreeing with the comments made by Chris, supported by John.

Here it is said that 30% of people admitted to hospital listed as with Covid are actually there for another reason, and not particularly ill with Covid. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/nhs/index.html

I think it was around about the turn of the year when it was realised that the daily mortality statistics reported in the media were misleadingly giving the number who had “died of Covid” included people who had died of other conditions but “with Covid” and the reports were amended to make that clear although no specific breakdown was given. It possible that there had been an amount of mis-recording of the cause of death in the UK since the start of the coronavirus epidemic.

I don’t know how true it is, but I heard a report some time ago that deaths in care homes were recorded as Covid because care homes could claim money for the ‘clean-up’.

I am not sure that is plausible. The cause of death is determined by a doctor and although it is possible for the doctor to be compromised by affiliation to the care home I doubt many would stake their professional career on the false recording of deaths. Where there was uncertainty over the principal cause of death, it might have been convenient to record Covid as the reason perhaps. I still doubt it happened on a large scale and expect that the majority of care home deaths were correctly attributed to Covid-19.

I don’t know what special money was available for the ‘clean up’. Most care home residents would have been funded either by a local authority, from their own funds, or by family and any special charges would have been added to the final bill. Maybe I am naïve, but, despite all the things one hears about care home managements, I don’t think they are institutionally dishonest. Given what they have gone through I would absolve them of any general unjustified criticism.