There is more than one type of test. You aren't going to find the answer you're looking for.

Just got my results back last night on shift from my 8th test since this debacle started, have to test every week now at work, all negative, with two types of tests, company paying a bundle as I work in a mine and my area alone has over 1200 people getting tested every week. Plus a firm doing them.

Some have been positive for others the first go, others like my self no positive yet, the majority are this way.

If you refuse the test at work, you go home till you provide proof you are negative with your own test from ?

That only happens once before people line up here at work, they are not pocket change to pay !!

Free testing sites in surrounding countries but at local clinic $10 with insurance.

So as I thought somebody is getting Rich

Getting rich off from or because of government is the American way.

Someone has to pay the nurse or phlebo to draw the sample, maybe a courier to transport it,lab tech to run the test, need the reagents and the collection kits to do the testing, the machines to run them on aren't cheap(we had to get new machinery to do it here, and the supplies are getting low.

I paid $99. They told me my government would refund me within 60-90 days with the Cares Act.

This was September 2.


Guess What? THEY LIED!

If I dont have to pay for it out of my pocket its free.
I dont care who else the bill goes to.Some rich guy can pay for it with his taxes.

Here it depends on how fast you want results. 2-5 days free. 24 hours $275. 2 hours $350.

Who exactly do you think is getting rich? And how?

In case its not clear, I’m suggesting you use some common sense before jumping to conspiracy theories.

no conspiracy theories, just curious how my taxes are being spent, in other words 100 x 1 million = 100 million sort of thing

This is a wildly flawed understanding of the science. Here's a better explanation. No offence, but saying "the accuracy of the test goes down" is not really a true statement. It doesn't get less accurate, the test is never the issue, the issue is with the interpretation of the test being less accurate, but the test is not less accurate.

PCR tests search for fragments of the virus. Like viral dust. PCR can magnify/multiply this dust to a point where you can measure it against everything else.
If there's a certain amount of Covid "dust" then we ASSUME you have or had Covid.
But it doesn't mean that you do have it, or that you ever had it, or that you ever will. It only means you tested positive for Covid dust, and enough covid dust that the government ASSUMES you Covid is present.

imagine finding a molecular fragment of a flake of dandruff in a forest and saying "yep, humans live here".....

Here's the problem.... A) The tests NEVER uncover an ACTUAL infection (they aren't meant to). So they NEVER prove that you were, are, or will be sick, and B) They have made the count threshold SO LOW that everyone with barely any amound of "covid dust" on the test counts as a positive. THATS the inaccuracy, they made the threshold so low.

Picture this... A PCR test is a nasal swab. Let's take that swab out, and wave it around inside a hospital covid testing centre, then swab a nose that has been inhaling covid hospital testing centre air for a couple hours waiting, then pull out the wet swab and wave it around the hospital air again, THEN put it in a tube.

DO YOU think that's a good test? Because it's NOT and DOCTORS AGREE.

If you look at your government information, you will see that PCR testing IS NOT USED FOR DIAGNOSTIC PURPOSES
IT IS ONLY USED FOR DATA

In a diagnostic situation you can't rely on a PCR because a PCR doesn't prove that you're sick or ever were... You need a live culture to prove you have an active virus (which they down' offer because it takes time, so they go PCR and guess that you're sick) OR an antibody test would prove that you had it.

BUT PCR IS NONDIAGNOSTIC

So they can make anyone with any amount of covid dust on their pcr swab a positive covid case, without knowing if it's active or ever was.


PLUS, they count "probable covid cases" as "covid cases" for stats........ A "probable covid case" is anyone that travelled, or has "covidlike symptoms"......well.......covidlike symptoms are pretty common in the fall an winter. NO WONDER WE HAD A SPIKE, because they cound "covid-like cases" as "probable covid cases" and "probable cases" count as "covid cases"

HEre is proof from New York Times, Google/California, and Canada. StatsCan does this too, it's national in all western nations. Check ANY CHART YOUVE READ, look at the fine print, you've being lied to directly through data manipulation. They are only testing dead people for dust, and claiming it was the active ingredient in their death without knowing it.

It's all a disaster... Furthermore, 1 case at any business can LEGALLY be defined as an "outbreak"

So an outbreak could be 1 person, that is a covid case. a covid case could be someone with covid-like symptoms............ None of it is scientific or medical, if you look at ANY AND ALL of the information on earth about PCR tests you will learn, exactly what i just told you.

PCR tests are used for things like ring worm in dogs. because you are taking a skin scraping, it's likely the shed "dust" of the worms on the dogs skin that you scrape was from themselves, so you assume they have worms and give them drugs.... But when you are swabbing the air and a nose that is breathing that air, then you are less likely to be getting a sampling of what is actually inside a human body.

PCR tests for dust.
"covid case" doesn't mean what you think it does.... Even a "confirmed case" only means that their PCR was positive, meaning they have dust.


********Don't confuse this for meaning the disease doesn't exist, i had it, it exists, but the spread and danger is not what it appears......... They tihnk you're too stupid to read the fine print, all they did was alter some definitions..... "probable covid cases" count as "covid cases" for example.....

Is the question how much is the actual cost to test a person or how much out of pocket for a person to get tested? Also buy the nature of your post you mean monetary cost to the individual not actual systemic cost?