PCR Test Vs Flight Cost - Is It Worth It?

BangkokBreakfast on 15/10/2021 - 22:08
Last edited 16/10/2021 - 11:57

I recently booked flights to Fiji in December 2021 for approx $500 each return with Jetstar.

Both Australia and Fiji require PCR tests before you fly. PCR tests for travel are not covered by Medicare and are done at Pathology clinics for $140-$300 depending on test type and result speed.

Fiji clinics charge approx 350FJD ($226) the PCR test required for return back to Australia.

The cost of PCR tests alone add anywhere between $1500-$2000 for a family of 4!

Should travel insurance or private health insurance help cover this if it is the new norm? Would you still travel / holiday with these additional costs? Why can I get a free test practically anywhere locally but none are valid for travel?

Interested to get opinions.

Poll Options

  • 7
    Yes, still worth it
  • 42
    No way
Travel

Comments

  • Stewardo on 15/10/2021 - 22:28
    +4

    Sydney Airport test is $150
    Nadi is $300 fjd or $195aud
    Expensive compared to flights yes, but if you can’t afford it, you probably shouldn’t be going overseas at this point, anything could change.

  • meowsers on 15/10/2021 - 22:48
    +5

    It depends on how badly you want to travel? This is the new reality. Either pay or stay home.

  • Kangal on 15/10/2021 - 22:53
    +1

    Google Maps and Street View suddenly don't look so shit…

    • CheapskateQueen on 15/10/2021 - 23:56

      nature screensavers are all the rage

  • parcus on 15/10/2021 - 23:03
    +1

    It's a good point and I feel as though a lot of people who haven't travelled overseas recently don't fully appreciate this cost, too expensive as it stands and rules out quick cheap recreational trips unfortunately even as quarantine requirements end

    Hopefully as we get closer to Christmas and the new year they start dropping this requirement for fully vaxxed passengers at least

  • pharkurnell on 15/10/2021 - 23:52

    You wanna travel, you pay… thats how life works.

    You may wanna also check what travel insurance covers/doesnt cover these days when overseas

  • CheapskateQueen on 16/10/2021 - 00:02

    how long is the holiday and how many people?

    honestly, after the last 2 years, a holiday is well needed. if you're going for a week I'd treat the $500 as part of the in built flight cost. if you're a family of 4 or 5, obviously that becomes a lot more expensive and a different scenario. if you're going for 3 days, again, different story.

    but it's like paying more to fly out during peak season/ holidays. if you wanna go, you have to pay

  • Trance N Dance on 16/10/2021 - 00:11
    +3

    Should any insurances cover it? No.
    Will it deter me from travelling? No.
    I'd just consider it as part of the cost of the entire holiday/trip. If it pushes the total cost up to become too high then no trip, if it's still a reasonable total, I'll still go.

  • holdenmg on 16/10/2021 - 05:22

    Hi,

    PCR Tests might be replaced by Rapid lateral flow Covid tests by then.

    I don't know what they cost. I understand they may be cheaper (but less reliable) than PCR.

    ,,,or maybe not
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/12/calls-for-inqu…

  • Stopback on 16/10/2021 - 08:05

    Travel insurance costs 100 at least.

    I agree it's expensive.

    But cheaper then going on a flight with a covid case

    If the pandemic has taught me

    Can't wait for a perfect time

    If you want to go on holiday just go

    Most of us will die with some inheritance

  • EightImmortals on 16/10/2021 - 10:05
    -4

    Are you vaccinated?
    I thought you had to be vaccinated to be allowed on a plane now?
    So if you've submitted to the jab why do you also have to do PCR testing?

    • Trance N Dance on 16/10/2021 - 14:33

      Because even when vaccinated you can still have covid (with milder symptoms) and/or carry it.

      • EightImmortals on 16/10/2021 - 16:22
        -7

        So the vaccine doesn't work then?

        After all, the main premise was that it was supposed to protect recipients from contracting and spreading the thing. And if it doesn't work then why the current obsession with coercing as many as possible to submit to it?

        • Trance N Dance on 17/10/2021 - 01:02

          It does work, just not in the way everyone thinks it does (full immunity and never suffer from the disease). The way that the vaccine was originally developed was to reduce the impact of the disease on the body (ie reduce severity) and reduce the possibility of transmission. The aim was to minimise the impact of the disease so that we wouldn't overwhelm the healthcare system.
          Basically in the event you do get it after being vaccinated, the symptoms that you'll suffer hopefully won't be any worse than a normal cold and with the right precautions you won't transmit it to anyone else either. Compared to say needing a hospital bed and being able to spread it via everything you touch.

          • EightImmortals on 17/10/2021 - 08:59

            @Trance N Dance: Yes I've noticed the story evolving over the last 12 months but what you said is just using more words to admit the injections don't work. It still doesn't explain why the injected can't board a plane without 2 PCR tests unless the injections do not stop you from catching and spreading the thing. So we've gone from being forced to submit to the injection to prevent covid to "Well it doesn't really work so you have to have more shots because the thing that didn't work the first 2 times will definitely work the third, fourth, fifth, sixth? time. Also, it wasn't the injections aim to 'flatten the curve', that was why they locked us up for 2 weeks, 2 years ago. Remember the '2 weeks to flatten the curve' mantra? We fell for that one too…

            Here's a nice short clip on the devolution of injection efficacy.

            https://tinyurl.com/jj2y4c8w

            So the promise of being able to fly on planes once injected has been reneged on as well, now you need 2 shots AND 2 PCR tests and then pray you don't get a false positive at the airport or after all that you STILL wont be able to get on the plane (or the return flight). Personally I wouldn't be planning any flights but each to their own.

            • Trance N Dance on 17/10/2021 - 09:51

              @EightImmortals: How about clarifying the definition of "work" first.
              You're defining "work" as 100% immune and never to get the disease or spread it. If that's the definition you want to work with then of course the current covid vaccine doesn't work. This was never the goal of these vaccines from the beginning.
              You should get a tetanus booster every 10 years, does that mean the tetanus vaccine doesn't work either? The flu vaccine doesn't guarantee 100% not getting sick either, does that mean the flu vaccine doesn't work?

              The goal was to develop a vaccine that would reduce and minimise detrimental health effects and hospitalisations. By this definition, the vaccination works. Developing a vaccine for either this realm (Riboviria), Kingdom (Orthornavirae) is extremely difficult hence why the aim was never to develop a vaccine that provides full immunity in the first place. Also one of the reasons why we don't have a flu vaccine that isn't required to be topped up every year.

              Speaking of the flu, mutations are one reason why the various covid vaccines won't give us 100% immunity going forward. The vaccines that we do have might have given us 100% immunity against the original strain of covid for all we know (not that we will because that strain is no longer around) but because of the mutations the efficacy may be reduced and may possibly continue to reduce as the virus mutates. So whatever that scaremongering clip you linked to, all it does is scare people into thinking that the covid vaccines are pointless and useless, which is not true.

              Just like the flu vaccine where you don't have 100% immunity against the new strains of influenza but reduces the severity of the flu, same goes for the covid vaccines. Given the choice of chancing it with covid and taking a vaccine that has a (rough figures used to give an idea) 90% chance of not making me sick, 95% chance of not making me severely sick and 99% chance of not going to hospital; I'll take the vaccine any day of the week.

              As for those sub-14 circuit breaker or flattening the curve lockdowns. I never really saw a point to them as they never covered the general 14 day incubation period. But when we don't have a vaccine to help keep infections down and stop the spread, they are an effective tool to reduce impact to the community as a whole when used correctly (which IMO is in 15+ day blocks, but that's just political and economical suicide so a compromise is made).

              • EightImmortals on 17/10/2021 - 10:03

                @Trance N Dance: Firstly, your explanation doesn't comport with what we have been told over the last 12 months. If you watched the short clip I posted you would have seen the claims made were that the injection was 100% effective against covid. It wasn't and is isn't.

                Your point about mutations is valid and I watched a round table discussion yesterday with some doctors and scientists who made the point, that they are injecting people with something that was designed to fight something else and that natural immunity is FAR superior in protecting against reinfection and infection against mutations.

                Either way people are submitting to these things on the basis of blatant lies…was my main point.

                • Trance N Dance on 17/10/2021 - 11:07

                  @EightImmortals: Dr Fauci's statements at the beginning of those clips are still valid based on the numbers presented at the time those claims were made. It just so happens that things changed.
                  In the context of the US, they had access to the Pfizer vaccine early on when the main strains were the original and maybe the first major mutation. Clinical trials showed that those who were given the Pfizer vaccination developed a strong immunity response. If they were any other vaccine the clinical trials showed data that it was acceptable to consider the vaccine to be 100% effective. Conditions quickly changed from there, not only did we see mutations but other vaccinations such as Moderna and AstraZeneca came to market with clinical trial numbers that did not show 100% effective immunity. As a totality vaccination efficacy as a "percentage number" across the board dropped over time because of changing variables.

                  • EightImmortals on 17/10/2021 - 11:18

                    @Trance N Dance: And yet they are still forcing people to submit to it?

                    Anyway, that's all I have to saying the issue for now. Was just curious about the flying thing really.

                    Cheers

                    • Trance N Dance on 17/10/2021 - 12:38

                      @EightImmortals: No one is forcing anyone to submit to anything. The vaccination is just strongly advised to prevent adverse outcomes, just like any other vaccine.

                      • EightImmortals on 17/10/2021 - 12:56
                        -1

                        @Trance N Dance: Sorry mate. If it was a case of 'We suggest you take the vaccine or you might catch a bad disease' then you would have a point. But the fact that it is a case of "Submit to our injection or you CANNOT fly and you CANNOT work and you CANNOT enter shopping centres and you CANNOT leave your house etc etc then IT IS FORCED by defacto and the outcomes are not those of natural health outcomes but one of state violence. Or as Chairman Mao famously put it 'persuasion from the barrel of a gun'.

                        • Trance N Dance on 17/10/2021 - 13:25

                          @EightImmortals: Flying is a privilege not a right. There are other methods of travel. You can't travel at the moment because you're not vaccinated? Then wait until health and safety mandates lift. You choose not to vaccinate then you're choosing to wait.

                          No one is barring you from working (just because it's not the job you WANT doesn't mean you can't work), employers have a responsibility to provide a safe working environment and that includes safety from a highly contagious disease. If you want to choose to not vaccinate then you're choosing to not work until safety mandates are over.

                          At the moment no one is preventing you from entering shopping centers.

                          At the moment no one is preventing you from leaving your house within reasonable reasons. As for the lockdowns, everyone was prevented from leaving their house vaccinated or not.

                          You choose not to vaccinate, others can choose not to associate with you.

                          The opposite is also applicable. By choosing not to vaccinate and forcing others to live with it, you're defacto forcing others to expose themselves to risk of adverse affects.

                          If you're in NSW, the argument of force vaccination has been ruled not to be the case by the NSW Supreme Court and the state under the Public Health Act is able to mandate certain restrictions such as lockdowns in face of a public health emergency.

  • ihbh on 16/10/2021 - 10:38
    +2

    Should travel insurance or private health insurance help cover this

    Travel insurance covers uncertainties, not certainties.

    If it did cover certainties, the insurance premium would be existing premium (say $100), plus $500 PCR costs = say $600. Would you be happy to pay for travel insurance (or a policy that covers PCR tests) then?

    PS: You don't seem to understand insurance: insurance = no free lunches.

  • dylo on 17/10/2021 - 06:51

    You play, you pay. I don't see why Medicare should be funding PCR tests for travel overseas.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join