rs10

That's more than one Q!

Until there are tests whose results would be considered authoritative that could be done in addition to the existing guidelines on Covid testing, then doing the accepted tests is likely to detract from the already limited capacity available, thence skewing the populations at the top of the priority list.

On that basis guidance to employers is to provide Covid-secure workplaces. "Secure" is of course not an absolute but means "relatively safe".

If an employer were to try to enforce some other testing on their workforce, they would probably be on very dodgy ground.

P

Test valid soley at time taken (and within the limitations of accuracy of the chosen method), so between then and the results.......

Employers do not typically pay to test every employee for any other transmittable disease so why ths one in particular?

Workplace testing as a "precaution" is very obvioulsy far from proprtionate - if the risk was that significant then all work would be shut so need to test.

ECDC guidance on antigen tests...

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/options-use-rapid-antigen-tests-covid-19-eueea-and-uk

Thanks to all for responding to my question.  In answer to some of the questions - the organisation is looking at the testing to keep the business operating as working from home is not operationally effective, a private testing company with PCR laboratory resources is one of the options based on-site to administer the covid antigen testing.  I guess the question to why the employer is looking at testing specifically for COVID is because of the impact it is causing locally, nationally and globally.

The question I have is what is the employer hoping to achieve with the testing? The test is merely a snapshot of the situation at the time the test is made. A test taken the next day could reveal a quite different picture. Given that most of those who will be tested will also have exposure away from the workplace someone who is negative today could be colonised by tomorrow (and in any case the swab test does not detect all possible colonisation with the virus) and whilst still asymptomatic be spreading the virus undetected. They may then lose the colonisation without becoming infected so that a further test would still show them as negative.

Testing is not an easy alternative to ensuring a high standard of management of potential transmission of the virus within the workplace. Bear in mind that a no time will anyone be able to state with any confidence whether there are one or more potential donors among the workforce nor who they are, so a prudent employer would surely assume any one of their employees might be a donor. The system in place should thus be one where everyone is directly involved in preventing the transmission of the virus assuming that anyone they come into contact with is a potential donor. How one develops a system that minises the transmission requires a detailed understanding of both direct and indirect transmission routes, whether these are to be found in their workplace and if so how they can be managed.

Originally Posted by: chris.packham

The question I have is what is the employer hoping to achieve with the testing? The test is merely a snapshot of the situation at the time the test is made. A test taken the next day could reveal a quite different picture. Given that most of those who will be tested will also have exposure away from the workplace someone who is negative today could be colonised by tomorrow (and in any case the swab test does not detect all possible colonisation with the virus) and whilst still asymptomatic be spreading the virus undetected. They may then lose the colonisation without becoming infected so that a further test would still show them as negative.

Testing is not an easy alternative to ensuring a high standard of management of potential transmission of the virus within the workplace. Bear in mind that a no time will anyone be able to state with any confidence whether there are one or more potential donors among the workforce nor who they are, so a prudent employer would surely assume any one of their employees might be a donor. The system in place should thus be one where everyone is directly involved in preventing the transmission of the virus assuming that anyone they come into contact with is a potential donor. How one develops a system that minises the transmission requires a detailed understanding of both direct and indirect transmission routes, whether these are to be found in their workplace and if so how they can be managed.

We've had a situation where a new starter tested positive but Asymptomatic.  He only had a NHS test as his partner had a positive one.  He then isolated and we decided that we would introduce weekly testing.  The problem we would have, is that if someone infected our core office where everything is run from, it would cripple our business as no-one would be able to go in to work.  If we spot a positive test in house then we can handle it and monitor the rest of the staff more closely.  In a bigger corporation where there is cover for roles then it wont be as much of an issue, but for us its better this way.

The tests are also less sensitive than an NHS test, which could flag you as infectious when you're on your last day or so, which would mean another 10 days, these tests are more usable and business friendly.