Oliver, I’m with you; no way I would undertake these tests on someone – and I am reasonably sure it’s not in the 1st Aid Course! If you have a nurse on-site, maybe! I was under the impression that most of these kits are DIY – well, having seen my wife swabbed twice before being allowed to attend hospital appointments, I know what I would be saying if someone wanted me to do that twice a weak! (yes, I’m a wimp!)

As discussed on this site, there is the question of accuracy – with both false positives and negatives. So you may be excluding people who could work – and allowing people in who are carriers.

I have already had issues in my workplace when reminding people to socially distance that they say, “O, it’s OK, I have had the virus. “  I can just see it with these kits – “O, it’s OK. I tested negative, so I don’t need to follow the rules.” But of course, testing negative at 9.00 in the morning does not mean that you have not contracted the virus by 10.00 in the morning.

I’m still to be convinced of the value of these kinds of tests – does it show?

I must admit I am one of those with a very strong gag reflex for anything nearing the back of my throat.

Having seen reports of "accidents" with the swab breaking and getting stuck I will not be rushing to any location where admittance is based upon being tested particularly given the reports of horrendous waiting times for the Ambulance Service at present.

Roundit - Do you have any links to report of swaps breaking please? I am involved in the delivery of LFTs  and this would be of interest.

Thanks

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-54561788

Admit it is not the "typical" testing point but with my reflex and the fact these things can break.

Other items:

June 2020 a US 64 year old had an endoscopic recovery of a brken swab from their stomach

July 2020 a Saudi child underwent surgery to remove a broken swab

As to non-qualified people taking the swabs from others:

When you do a standard home test, you get a leaflet which after telling you how to swab yourself, also tells you how swab an adult or a child who is unable to do this themselves. 

I appreciate the replies and it will certainly help me to strengthen my recommendation. I personally do not see the urgent need on site to resort to introducing testing but I feel I can better articulate that now given som eof the additional advice you have given. Much appreciated by all. 

The number and variety of routes by which a person can be exposed to SARS-Cov-2 and become colonised, possibly then infected, make me question the real benefits of the test. It only tests what is in (not on) the body and may thus return a negative result whereas at the time of testing that person's hands (or clothing) might be contaminated (colonised). Following the test the person transfers the virus to where it can gain access to the respiratory system with subsequent infection, albeit probably initially asymptomatic. Even without that they may actually transfer the virus to objects which others handle. There is increasing evidence that what I call the 'indirect' route, i.e. via fomites, is somthing the significance of which has not been properly reconised. They could be completely clear but during the day handle one or more objects that are fomites and thus become colonised/infected. These fomites could then be a source of transmission of the virus to others who handle them.

Unfortunately there does not yet appear to be a simple, quick test to establish whether a surface has become contaminated with the virus, so for me testing the person could well be considered highly selective and the interpretation questionable, potentially misleading

Essentially we are faced with a working environment where the hazard (SARS-Cov-2) could be present without our knowing if, or where, or when. Instead of spending time on testing perhaps more attention to how it might spread within our workplace and how we can minimise this would be more productive. How we achieve minimisation of spread will vary from working environment to working environment. There are no 'silver bullets' here!

https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2021/01/15/colas-rolls-out-weekly-covid-rapid-testing-for-staff/

Weekly

Site operational staff

Hope this ones a miss-print "£25m a test"

Fogging the cabs of vehicles

Edited by user 15 January 2021 12:34:35(UTC)  | Reason: it was a miss-print now says £25 a test

You can train people to give the test however the Clinical Governance structure needs to be in place i.e. your are supervised ultimately by a qualified Doctor...you can be trained to undertake any test such as this as a 'Technician' some people call it different things...but to expect somone untrained to take that on and to administer it can be prelude to simple assault charges if they don't follow the procedures for (and understand) the types and acknowledgement of simple things like consent...the test is and confidentiality rears its head again...my advice...'run forest run'..far away from this....

if you are doing it in your work place today...I hope you professional indenity cover extends to medical procedures..  :)

Post #18. The test is not classed as a clinical procedure and the sampling is done by the person who is being tested. I have undergone these tests several times now and for both the quick test and the lab test. Consent is said to have been given when the person being tested hands over the sample or if an NHS test when the form giving personal details is completed. There is no need for a doctor to supervise - look at all the testing stations being run by the army, the NHS or local councils, no doctors anywhere. Post #19. Not sure who advised you on the test but the nasal part of the test is carried out by reaching up the nasal passagel until you feel a slight obstruction. This is when the top of the nasal passage is reached. It is not the back of the throat. I have a deviated septum and haven't had a problem by using the nostril on the clearer side as only one sample is required from the nose and two from the tonsil area of the throat.

Edited by user 18 January 2021 15:20:26(UTC)  | Reason: Formatting