• out of stock

Testsealabs COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Test Cassette Nasal 20 Count $154.99 Delivered @ Costco (Membership Required)

950

Testsealabs Covid 19 Antigen Test Cassette Nasal 20 Count $154.99 delivered

Mod: High Sensitivity - TGA

Related Stores

Costco Wholesale
Costco Wholesale

closed Comments

  • What's the TGA sensitivity? How much does it cost to become a Costco member?

    • +25

      You sound like a panic toilet paper buyer

      • +5

        Where's the joke in comparing TP hoarders with people looking these substantial tests?

      • +1

        Panic toilet paper buyers don't ask questions, they just buy

        • Do I need this much toilet paper? Who cares! Just buy!

      • and you sound like a ghost account user posting anti-vax/anti-covid content
        what a shocker.

  • +1

    High sensitivity (90%), $60 p/a

    • +2

      $60 p/a

      $60 per annum?

      • +6

        He’s replying to zzzman

      • …is the Costco membership fee.

        • Yeah, I didn't link it with the previous comment and wasn't sure if it was referring to something I didn't know.
          ¯_(ツ)_/¯

    • Get ABN number and apply for a business account instead for $55/a

      • Or share a membership with a friend staying on the same address 😬

        • +1

          Or even better, get ABN, apply for$55 membership and share with someone from different address (I guess you can? For your business partner)

  • +3

    Maybe we should have a rule this should be posted with any RAT deal?

    https://www.tga.gov.au/covid-19-rapid-antigen-self-tests-are...

    • +14

      And also a link to a peer review study so we all know that sensitivity is not accuracy.

      • I feel like you could post a link to a jellyfish study and most people here would accept whatever you say about it

        • +4

          The world has become a real life Southpark.

        • Well there's a species that has been proven to be immortal, so there's that.

  • +2

    oo(p)s

    • +1

      This was posted seven minutes before your comment… it’s almost as if they’re either wasn’t any stock? Hoarders?

  • OOS

  • Wow OOS lol

  • that was fast

  • +3

    RATBargained

  • +3

    Ordered 1 then share with friend and already OOS

  • +1

    It states Delta compliant but is silent re Omicron…. will it detect Omicron?

    • Does it also detect the IHU variant? Just because there's no reported cases doesn't mean we don't already have it.

      • +1

        Absolutely. It will also detect the Omega strain as long as you keep it above 90 and supply it with 1.21 gigawatts..

    • -3

      It will detect common cold flu omicron delta alpha and the lot but would t tell you which one lol

      • +1

        Not for common cold

        • -2

          really don't think it has exclusive selectivity on COVID virus, possibly more accurate based on sensitivity to concentration.

  • +7

    These were 179 at Costco last week. Amazing they dropped the price!

    • +3

      Hmmmm…

      National Cabinet noted the Commonwealth will prohibit price gouging of and the non-commercial export of RATs, similar to actions taken earlier in the pandemic relating to essential goods such as masks, other PPE and hand sanitiser. As was the case previously, price gouging will be defined as supplying or offering to supply essential goods at a price that is more than 120% of the initial purchase price (a 20% markup) and penalties for not complying with this direction will range up to five years imprisonment or $66,000.
      https://www.pm.gov.au/media/national-cabinet-statement-62

      • +1

        Well another site was selling the exact same thing for $239. So $179 was already a good price.
        https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/675899

      • +1

        I purchased a click and collect for 4 tests for $75 ($18.75 a test) (we were desperate) but managed to find them half that price closer to me and got those instead

        I have not collected the order but the company will not cancel and refund me, do you reckon I could use the above as ammunition to get my money back? $18.75 a test seems insane now.

    • +1

      I agree! Pick these up in store for $179.99 making it $9 a pop. This is $7.75 each delivered. Good deal :)

      • If the price online was dropped because it had more than a 20% markup - then the in store price should be even cheaper again.

    • +7

      Apparently they like $3 per test before hit to Australia.

      • +1

        I can confirm that this is true, also some other brands as low as $2 per test.

        • Great! Where? Who? How?

          • +1

            @ThePasserby: Pharmacy that I work at, currently no stock from supplier :(.

            • +8

              @mrtee: Wholesale cost is irrelevant. What’s the margin on your other medical products?

              • @ajole: I'm just an employee there and our cost price (delivered) is about $2-3 per RAT unit depending on brand. This is what I see on our stock ordering system.

  • +12

    Looks like the RATs are the new Graphics cards these days.
    Scarce, overpriced with scalpers on the hunt…

    Can they be used for mining?

    • +11

      I can confirm these are extremely effective for mining nose candy

      • +2

        new crypto SNOT launching soon….to the moon!

        • +1

          After losing some money on BTC, maybe it is time to get into the next crypto.

          • @t25: i wonder if jv's gonna start flogging their comments as NFTs..

    • Is it a mini? That's all I need to know.

  • +7

    Lets hope government cracks down on this crap and shuts down businesses making ANY profit from selling them.

    • +4

      That's how you make sure that no one will bother selling them.

      • +4

        Plenty of stores sell products at or below cost price to bring customers through the door.
        Pharmacy would benefit from this

        • No they wouldn't. Not when demand exceeds supply.

          • @spaceflight: Yes they will? Are you even following the conversation?

            In DMFD's hypothetical world, sellers are mandated to sell it at 0-profit, which means if people want to buy it, customers will STILL be forced to go to these stores because they don't have any choice in locations

            • -1

              @Blitzfx:

              Yes they will?

              No they won't

              Are you even following the conversation?

              I am. Thanks for checking.

              In DMFD's hypothetical world, sellers are mandated to sell it at 0-profit

              I know

              which means if people want to buy it, customers will STILL be forced to go to these stores because they don't have any choice in locations

              And how exactly would pharmacies benifit from that?
              They are selling a product that's in demand. People are going there because they want that product, and only that product.
              Sure some occasional people might pick up some Butter Menthols however that's not going to make money for the pharmacy.

              Selling a product without any profit means they are loosing money. They aren't breaking even, they are loosing money.

              • +1

                @spaceflight:

                People are going there because they want that product, and only that product.

                what? no, not guaranteed 100% of people

                Sure some occasional people might pick up

                You just pointed out the exact marketing strategy that is frequently used at many retailers. They are making SMALLER profit than if they were allowed to make profit off the RAT, but it's not-zero which is still better than not selling it at all.

                Selling a product without any profit means they are loosing money. They aren't breaking even, they are loosing money.

                Everyone here is assuming hypothetical sensible policy of NET-zero profit.

                • -1

                  @Blitzfx:

                  You just pointed out the exact marketing strategy that is frequently used at many retailers. They are making SMALLER profit than if they were allowed to make profit off the RAT, but it's not-zero which is still better than not selling it at all.

                  No I didn't. Because loss leading is generally not the practice of selling a product at cost (which is what DMFD is suggesting). It is the practice of selling a product below a minimum margin. There is still a profit being made on the 'loss' product.

                  That our not the same as

                  government cracks down on this crap and shuts down businesses making ANY profit from selling them.

                  Which is selling are cost.

                  Everyone here is assuming hypothetical sensible policy of NET-zero profit

                  That's literally what has been suggested.
                  Are you even following the conversation?

                  • +1

                    @spaceflight: I didn't mention loss leading anywhere and neither did DMFD. By smaller profit , RAT [$0] + gumdrop [$1]

                    Pharmacy would benefit from this

                    +

                    No they wouldn't. Not when demand exceeds supply.

                    Literally false.
                    Getting their hands on RAT stock is guaranteed a customer into their store. That's potential sale. Store would benefit from this. Supply is irrelevant.

                    • -1

                      @Blitzfx:

                      I didn't mention loss leading anywhere and neither did DMFD. By smaller profit , RAT [$0] + gumdrop [$1]

                      Minus transaction fees, labour cost of ordering in RATs, labour cost of unpacking RATs and putting them on a shelf, extra staff wages due to demand on RATs, receipt paper, paper bag for purchased items, opportunity cost of stocking RATs to sell at no profit when another profitable product could be placed on the shelf instrad and so on.

                      Pharmacy would not benefit from this.

                      Your also massively overestimating the profits on a small impulse purchase.

                      Literally false.

                      No it isn't.

                      Getting their hands on RAT stock is guaranteed a customer into their store.

                      That doesn't translate into profits when everyone is there only because they want an item that's being sold at cost.

                      That's potential sale. Store would benefit from this. Supply is irrelevant.

                      No the store will not benifit because selling something at true cost costs money. That means that are losing money.

                      Yes supply is relevant but I am not taking only about supply. As I said demand exceeds supply, that's called exceeds demand. Feel free to read an economics textbook and educate yourself.

                      • +1

                        @spaceflight:

                        Minus transaction fees, labour cost of ordering in RATs, labour cost of unpacking RATs and putting them on a shelf, extra staff wages due to demand on RATs, receipt paper, paper bag for purchased items, opportunity cost of stocking RATs to sell at no profit when another profitable product could be placed on the shelf instrad and so on.

                        lol all that is all assumed to be compensated, like aus post does for pickup at non-aus post locations.
                        Your entire argument is based on semantics instead of arguing the intention of the no-profit comment which is to go above and beyond the the price gouging that is going on.

                        Feel free to read a linguistics book and educate yourself on English comprehension and context

                        • -1

                          @Blitzfx:

                          lol all that is all assumed to be compensated,

                          No it isn't, because stopping business "making ANY profit from selling them" means selling at cost.

                          You are assuming there is a zero accounting profile however we can't calculate accounting profit as accounting profit is calculated to be
                          Accounting Profit = Revenue – Explicit Cost

                          And we do not know the explicit cost of selling each RAT because that will vary from sale to sale

                          Your entire argument is based on semantics

                          No it isn't.

                          instead of arguing the intention of the no-profit comment

                          I never said anything about the no profit comment.

                          I was replying to your stupid comment that said

                          Pharmacy would benefit from this

                          Which as I have said, no they will not benifit from selling a product at cost.

                          which is to go above and beyond the the price gouging that is going on.

                          Forcing stores to sell things for no profit will not stop price gouging.

                          Feel free to read a linguistics book and educate yourself on English comprehension and context

                          Actually you should add that to your economics reading. Maybe even add a book on common sense too.

                          • +1

                            @spaceflight:

                            No it isn't, because stopping business "making ANY profit from selling them" means selling at cost.
                            Your entire argument is based on semantics and you're literally arguing it lmao

                            Which as I have said, no they will not benifit from selling a product at cost.

                            lol sure kid.

                            Forcing stores to sell things for no profit will not stop price gouging.
                            yeah and 1+1 = 3. That's some retarded logic

                            I'm more inclined to believe I'm right when CVS, Rite Aid and Walgreens have done exactly what I've described, on good and services where demand > supply, and not some random on ozbargain spouting retarded bullshit

                            • @Blitzfx:

                              I'm more inclined to believe I'm right when CVS, Rite Aid and Walgreens have done exactly what I've described, on good and services where demand > supply,

                              Oh you think they are doing that because they want to?
                              They sold test kits "at cost" because of an agreement reached with the American government.
                              They did not sell them and make no profit.

                              Your doing a great job at showing how stupid your logic and lack of thought process is.

                              and not some random on ozbargain spouting retarded bullshit

                              You describe yourself well.

                              • @spaceflight:

                                They sold test kits "at cost" because of an agreement reached with the American government.

                                Which makes first and second statement still true, so policy and agreements make it feasible, and subsequently your first retarded comment false.
                                Also, they volunteered. Government didn't force them to, and can't force them to do it. So yes, they wanted to do it

                                You describe yourself well.

                                lol. equivalent to nou when you got (profanity) rekt with real world examples of it working.

      • Lol no it isn't, you understand loss leaders?

        • Do you understand loss leaders?

          No you don't because selling below cost is not how loss leader strategies typically work.
          Generally a loss leader is sold below its minimum profit margin, not normally below cost.

          There is no business rationale to sell a product where demand exceeds supply at reduced profit margins

    • +9

      Are you asking for the Australian government to not have businesses profit from these?! Have you heard Scotty's thoughts on this exact matter lately?

    • +7

      They shouldn’t have been sold to begin with. The fed gov already has infrastructure and systems in place to distribute bowel cancer screening kits, so it’s nothing new really.

    • +3

      “Stitch up” lol. They totally would have refunded you the cost of the membership… despite the fact they sell other things than rapid antigen tests 🤦🏻‍♂️ Costco has awesome service.

      • +1

        I did the same, I hit them up for a refund on the chat but was a risk for me I was just going to take. I dont have one that local to me (gold coast) or i woulda just kept it for now.

    • +10

      This is Erlich, hello. I am gone but Jian-Yang is a very good friend and very smart.

  • Can you pay for and create a Costco members account online in real-time? Or do you need to head in to store to finalise/confirm membership before you can use it online? Thanks,

    • Nope

      • +1

        Thanks… was that a nope to the first or second part of my message? I see my mistake now.

  • +8

    hehehe teste labs

    i'll slam the door on myself as i leave, thanks.

    • +10

      Vaccine isn't even a cure? Doesn't it just minimise risk of hospitalisation, etc?

      • -3

        So they say, you need a booster every 3 months otherwise we hit Pfizer profit so please get your booster every 3 months and kill your ability of your T cells to fight even the mildest flu lol

Login or Join to leave a comment