PCR tests

[cruising.mark.uk]

13 minutes ago, 9265359 said:

But how are you going to get an administered PCR without lying ?

 

None of the commercial companies will test you if you already have a positive LFT and neither will the NHS.

I suspect anyone who is in the position whereby they either have a PCR test and get reimbursed by their insurer for the cost of a cruise for which they will be refused boarding or don't have a PCR test and lose the whole cost of that cruise will find a way to have a PCR test.   It's not rocket science...

[Gettingwarmer]

12 minutes ago, 9265359 said:

If I remember correctly, that advice came up loud and clear as the sensible way ahead on the Megabear2 thread being quoted.  And, incidentally, following it would have avoided the problem encountered by the OP in the latest 'P&O wouldn't let me sail' thread which was closed down very shortly after it started - that individual's problem was with insurance, not with P&O, and if they had taken a PCR test the insurer would have paid.

That’s correct but the problem is the timing of the PCR test. Too early and no positive result. Leave it too late and you know you have covid and too late to have PCR as they advise they do not want positive people to attend. 

[watsonbeau]

TBH if you have to fill in the questionnaire 3 days or whatever before boarding, don’t bother with a LFT, the safest option is to organise beforehand and pay for an observed or in person PCR. As per Megabear2 advice - if it’s positive then insurer should pay up.

 

 

 

Edited November 21, 2022 by watsonbeau

[cruising.mark.uk]

5 minutes ago, Gettingwarmer said:

That’s correct but the problem is the timing of the PCR test. Too early and no positive result. Leave it too late and you know you have covid and too late to have PCR as they advise they do not want positive people to attend. 

You are absolutely right, timing is of the essence.  But, I think the window is fairly wide - I'm pretty sure my insurer will pay if someone tests positive within 14 days of sailing, so anytime between then and the day before will suffice.  And, I understand that many multi-jabbed people are asymptomatic or only have very mild symptoms that could easily be confused with a cold, so they won't know whether or not they are covid positive until they are tested.  And, a positive LFT does not mean definitively that a person is positive.  Hence, why, back when the pandemic was at its height, the advice always was to confirm (or not) a positive LFT with a PCR.

[9265359]

14 minutes ago, cruising.mark.uk said:

I suspect anyone who is in the position whereby they either have a PCR test and get reimbursed by their insurer for the cost of a cruise for which they will be refused boarding or don't have a PCR test and lose the whole cost of that cruise will find a way to have a PCR test.   It's not rocket science...

Please explain the “not rocket science” of getting an attendee PCR test without dishonestly failing to disclose you have already received a positive LFT.

[cruising.mark.uk]

2 minutes ago, 9265359 said:

Please explain the “not rocket science” of getting an attendee PCR test without dishonestly failing to disclose you have already received a positive LFT.

I think it's pretty clear if you read the whole of this thread and the others to which reference is made.   

 

I wish you the best of luck if you are ever denied boarding for Covid and don't have a positive PCR for your insurer. 

[9265359]

4 minutes ago, cruising.mark.uk said:

I think it's pretty clear if you read the whole of this thread and the others to which reference is made.   

So do you not want to say how you can get the “not rocket science” attended PCR once you have a positive LFT without being dishonest, or don’t you actually know.

[zap99]

6 minutes ago, cruising.mark.uk said:

I think it's pretty clear if you read the whole of this thread and the others to which reference is made.   

 

I wish you the best of luck if you are ever denied boarding for Covid and don't have a positive PCR for your insurer. 

Plenty of proctored tests available on the internet.

[cruising.mark.uk]

3 minutes ago, zap99 said:

Plenty of proctored tests available on the internet.

Thanks, Zap.  You beat me to it 😉

[9265359]

4 minutes ago, zap99 said:

Plenty of proctored tests available on the internet.

Why would an insurer believe an unattended remote PCR test more than an unattended LFT.

[Windsurfboy]

you must either be a saint or daft to have a test before cruise and put yourself in such difficulty. 

[terrierjohn]

36 minutes ago, 9265359 said:

Why would an insurer believe an unattended remote PCR test more than an unattended LFT.

 

Possibly because the PCR test is more accurate.

[cruising.mark.uk]

2 minutes ago, terrierjohn said:

 

Possibly because the PCR test is more accurate.

... and because it is not 'unattended', it is proctored, and therefore the test is supervised (albeit remotely) by a medical professional who sees the result and provides a certificate, i.e. doctor's letter.  That is what insurance companies need and you can't get a letter from a doctor based on a self-administered LFT.

[zap99]

1 minute ago, cruising.mark.uk said:

... and because it is not 'unattended', it is proctored, and therefore the test is supervised (albeit remotely) by a medical professional who sees the result and provides a certificate, i.e. doctor's letter.  That is what insurance companies need and you can't get a letter from a doctor based on a self-administered LFT.

Exactly that. If we were symptomatic a PCR test is first. If not symptomatic,  no test at all. Just enjoy the holiday 

 

[9265359]

6 minutes ago, terrierjohn said:

 

Possibly because the PCR test is more accurate.

They are only less likely to produce a negative result than an LFT, but as the LFT has already produced a positive result that is irrelevant. 
 

2 minutes ago, cruising.mark.uk said:

... and because it is not 'unattended', it is proctored, and therefore the test is supervised (albeit remotely) by a medical professional who sees the result and provides a certificate, i.e. doctor's letter.  That is what insurance companies need and you can't get a letter from a doctor based on a self-administered LFT.

 

Supervised by a “medical professional” that’s amusing. 

 

Anyway it is irrelevant as insurers policies don’t refer to such tests then, but actually require a report from your own GP. 

[cruising.mark.uk]

1 minute ago, 9265359 said:

Anyway it is irrelevant as insurers policies don’t refer to such tests then, but actually require a report from your own GP. 

I'm sure you are right, in which case I can't help you anymore, and - as I said earlier - best of luck to you.

 

Just for info, though, my insurer was more than happy with the letter I got from the ship's doctor giving the date of my positive onboard PCR test when I caught Covid on a cruise in May / June.  

[9265359]

4 minutes ago, cruising.mark.uk said:

Just for info, though, my insurer was more than happy with the letter I got from the ship's doctor giving the date of my positive onboard PCR test when I caught Covid on a cruise in May / June.  

And so a completely and utterly different scenario to the one you postulated  - an in-person test performed by a qualified doctor and not something done remotely and supposedly supervised by ‘medical professionals’. 

[rhino29]

8 hours ago, 9265359 said:

No that wasn’t what happened during the pandemic (which hasn’t actually ended).

 

If an LFT showed a positive result you certainly didn’t then go book a PCR test, so requiring someone to get up close to you in order to perform a PCR test and likely infecting them.

You couldn't be more wrong
Until 11th Jan this year if you tested positive on an LFT it was followed up with a PCR
Here's a BBC web page all about it

Covid: PCR not needed after positive lateral flow under new plans - BBC News

But feel free to keep acting like you're the expert

Edited November 21, 2022 by rhino29

[terrierjohn]

2 hours ago, 9265359 said:

And so a completely and utterly different scenario to the one you postulated  - an in-person test performed by a qualified doctor and not something done remotely and supposedly supervised by ‘medical professionals’. 

Do you have hard evidence that these tests are not accepted by insurance companies, or are you just relying on the text on an insurance policy?

Since insurance companies always defer to their interpretation of the policy terms, its possible that they may accept a proctored test from a reliable testing service.

[cruising.mark.uk]

5 hours ago, terrierjohn said:

Do you have hard evidence that these tests are not accepted by insurance companies, or are you just relying on the text on an insurance policy?

Since insurance companies always defer to their interpretation of the policy terms, its possible that they may accept a proctored test from a reliable testing service.

Spot on.  If they are relying on text on an insurance policy, they may want to change insurers.  How would anyone ever claim against travel insurance when on a cruise, if their insurance company requires a letter from their own GP to justify a claim (unless people take their GP with them whenever they cruise!)? 

Here's an extract from my Admiral policy documents:

Covid-19 - what our travel insurance covers
Our travel insurance now covers you for certain events related to Coronavirus (COVID-19), as long as you have a medically approved positive Covid-19 test from a registered medical practitioner and your cover is active at the time of the event.

 

I may have said this before, but it's not rocket science, is it?

[9265359]

3 hours ago, cruising.mark.uk said:

Here's an extract from my Admiral policy documents:

Covid-19 - what our travel insurance covers
Our travel insurance now covers you for certain events related to Coronavirus (COVID-19), as long as you have a medically approved positive Covid-19 test from a registered medical practitioner and your cover is active at the time of the event.

The problem is the remote tests are not carried out by a registered medical practitioner, but by you and they are then processed in a laboratory. Not the same thing at all as your insurance requires. 

 

[terrierjohn]

1 hour ago, 9265359 said:

The problem is the remote tests are not carried out by a registered medical practitioner, but by you and they are then processed in a laboratory. Not the same thing at all as your insurance requires. 

 

Evidence please that these tests are not acceptable, otherwise it is only your interpretation, which with all due respect is no better than mine.

[zap99]

1 hour ago, terrierjohn said:

Evidence please that these tests are not acceptable, otherwise it is only your interpretation, which with all due respect is no better than mine.

I would give up on this one John. 🤐

[9265359]

3 hours ago, terrierjohn said:

Evidence please that these tests are not acceptable, otherwise it is only your interpretation, which with all due respect is no better than mine.

 

Well the evidence was the clear requirement set out in the insurance policy! 

 

If someone wants to gamble that their more liberal interpretation will result in a refund of thousands of pounds, then go for it. But the reported experience of people making claims with insurance companies is they do tend to be sticklers for what it says in order to avoid paying out.

[cruising.mark.uk]

5 hours ago, 9265359 said:

The problem is the remote tests are not carried out by a registered medical practitioner, but by you and they are then processed in a laboratory. Not the same thing at all as your insurance requires. 

 

As your favourite search engine will tell you, the whole idea of 'proctored tests' is that you conduct one, witnessed remotely by a registered medical practitioner.  That practitioner also witnesses the result and then provides you a letter.  That is no different from the letter that you will get from your GP or any other medical practitioner.  So, exactly the same thing my insurance requires. 

 

You asked how one gets a PCR test.   I, and others, have told you and other threads provide other options.  You are clearly the expert on 'proctored' tests (despite the evidence that suggests you don't have any idea what they are), so perhaps you could enlighten us by telling us why they are now a 'thing' if they don't serve any useful purpose?  The primary function of them is to provide fit to fly / fit to cruise certificates, which are also only accepted by airlines, cruise lines and national authorities if they use an approved testing method and are certified by a medical professional.  I have used them successfully for that purpose.  So, why do you think they won't be acceptable to an insurer?  Have you phoned your insurer and asked them?  Or do you know better than your insurer as well?