(Private) Coronavirus antibody test

Is this legit? £89 is a lot of money, but if you have the disposal income does not seem like a bad way to spend it.

ColinTat said:

Website looks similar to one's used by Pyramid schemes.  Looks unreliable.

I've just purchased 10 

This is where I read about it 

https://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/18441478.first-to-market-covid-19-antibody-testing-kit-98-accuracy-launched-chepstow-firm/

I've ordered 2*

Bit unnerving reading their sales info though

"These are supadupa tests!!! - Dr Southall"

"Guaranteed great success!!!- Professor Nimer" 

;-)



*Genuinely have ordered a couple.  We are pretty sure that my wife had it back in March and it's been bugging us as to whether she did.  

A lot of money of course but do more than that on a night out.  

Regardless, if tests came back positive will still carry on as if we hadn't as there is no guarantee of immunity or no reinfection (despite the positive and promising early South Korean study) but it will give a certain level of psychological reassurance and comfort.

Will let you know how it goes.

ColinTat said:

Website looks similar to one's used by Pyramid schemes.  Looks unreliable.

https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/forthwithlife.co.uk

Should be legit. As to whether the test is wholly reliable as Bobmunro points out is another issue but looks a bona fide company and hasn't just sprung up overnight.  

Chizz said:

Knowing (with a degree of uncertainty) that you have antibodies for the current version of the coronavirus isn't worth the risk of the danger caused by a false positive. 

I'd avoid it and simply assume I don't have antibodies.

It's down to personal preference I suppose.

As long as you don't let a positive (false or true) alter your behaviour then there is no risk. Even testing positive for the virus itself, rather than this positive antibody identification shouldn't alter mindset or behaviours. Admittedly that would take some discipline but I don't suppose those asymptomatic people like Idris Elba and others with mild symptoms who have been tested positive and recovered walk around with a false sense of confidence that they are immune now as there is yet the scientific basis to ascertain that.

If you get a 98% proof test like this that gives you a positive and you rely on that to ignore the guidance and potentially risk the health of yourself and others then there's not a lot can be done and those kind of people will probably be a risk to themselves and others regardless of a test.

A positive test would affirm that my 99% assumption that my wife probably had it is likely 99.99% and would give a sense of psychological comfort in that respect even if it was somewhat placebic.


Paradoxically a negative (even false negative) would perhaps inspire even further caution than we currently take as subconsciously we think she has already had it and by proximity the rest of us must have had if so.