SHARE
COPY LINK

TRAVEL

Covid tests: Passenger left stranded at Copenhagen Airport after ‘terrible mistake’

A passenger travelling from the UK to China has told The Local how he was left stranded in Copenhagen airport because of confusion around his obligatory Covid-19 tests.

Covid tests: Passenger left stranded at Copenhagen Airport after 'terrible mistake'
A photo of a deserted, late-night Copenhaen Airport, provided to The Local by the passenger in question. Photo: supplied

Stephen Huang, a Chinese national, works as a research analyst for a financial services firm. He has lived in the United Kingdom for 14 years.

Earlier this week, his planned trip to visit his family in China was cancelled after he received conflicting Covid-19 test results during a layover at Copenhagen Airport.

He told The Local he has not seen his wife and two children, one of whom was born in 2020, since October last year.

“I booked my flight in April, paying £1,500 as there are currently no direct flights from the UK to China. The cost was three times the cost during the pre-Covid period. There was no other option as I had to meet my wife and my two kids (aged) five years and ten months,” Stephen told The Local. 

The Local has seen copies of Stephen’s boarding cards, stamped negative and positive Covid-19 test results from Copenhagen Airport, and QR code issued by the Chinese Embassy in Copenhagen.

“I arrived at Copenhagen airport on May 18th. The previous day I was required to be tested in London for both PCR and antibody [blood test, ed.], and both results were negative,” he said. 

“Once at Copenhagen airport, I was required to be tested again for PCR and antibody, this time with the local institution Airport Doctor, organised by the airline, at a cost of €375. I waited for about 4-5 hours and received my results, both were negative,” he explained.

The certificate, seen by The Local, includes the stamp and signature of Airport Doctor’s testing staff. It shows a negative test result. The Local has also seen the test results from London.

“It was a huge relief and I texted my wife literally saying that ‘nothing can go wrong from here’. About 30 minutes after I sent my results to the Chinese embassy, I received their green QR code which is required to board the flight (to Shanghai),” Stephen said.

“However, not long before departure I was given another set of results and the personnel for Airport Doctor claimed that they made a ‘mistake’ with my previous results and the new certificate is the correct one. In the new certificate, it shows I tested positive for the IgM antibody, this contradicts with their previous certificate and the test result I received in London,” he said.

Stephen said he had “no confidence” in what he was told because “they issued, signed and stamped two certificates with contradictory results.”

READ ALSO: Brits held at Gothenburg airport after being denied entry into Sweden

By the time it had presented Stephen with the new result, the Covid-19 test service provider had already contacted the Chinese embassy to withdraw his green QR code, required to board the ongoing flight to Shanghai, he said.

“This is obviously devastating as it means I can no longer board the flight and months of preparation is gone,” he explained.

“I (then) received a call from the Chinese Embassy in Denmark explaining that they did not understand what had happened and suggested that I ask Airport Doctor to run another antibody test. They could re-issue a green QR code if the results (were) negative,” he continued.

This transpired to be impossible because Airport Doctor personnel were no longer to be found at their stations, ostensibly having left work.

Stephen said he had been poorly treated by both the testing firm and the airline, adding he had filed complaints with both. He also told The Local that, after contacting Airport Doctor, the company contacted him and apologised for issuing two certificates. It put this down to a “clerk error”. The Local has seen a copy of the correspondence.

Airport Doctor also told Stephen that its chief doctor has spoken to SAS and the Chinese Embassy in Copenhagen about the matter. It also wrote that its tests suggested he has been vaccinated against Covid-19. Stephen has not received the Covid-19 vaccine, however.

The Local has contacted Airport Doctor to request comment.

A spokesperson with SAS said the company sympathised over the situation and noted it does not have a preferred partner for coronavirus testing at Copenhagen Airport. 

“We don’t have a preferred partner for Covid tests and the tests that passengers (take) are a contract between the passenger and the service provider,” Alexandra Lindgren Kaoukji, acting head of media relations for SAS in Denmark, told The Local.

Airport Doctor is the only test provider approved by the Chinese Embassy for tests valid for travel to China, Lindgren Kaoukji said.

“This scenario is of course very unfortunate circumstances for the passenger. It’s challenging times we are in with the pandemic still ongoing but we try to constantly develop solutions making it easier for our passengers to travel,” she added.

Stephen called the conduct of Airport Doctor and SAS “highly unprofessional and irresponsible.”

“After making the terrible mistake of giving me two certificates, (they) clearly did not provide a convincing explanation and wasted valuable time” when another test could have been arranged, he said.

“I do not understand how the validity of an issued, signed and stamped certificate can be omitted by mere words,” Stephen added.

“The airline offered no help regarding my situation. As a result, I was left alone at the airport with no access to food nor accommodation. I could not leave the terminal as I had no Schengen visa. Luckily, I managed to book another flight back to London, paying another £475. I will be required to self-quarantine for another 10 days after arriving in the UK, which further delays my plan of going back to China,” he said.

Stephen estimated that, given the expected costs of booking a new trip, additional testing and the flight back to London, the episode could leave him with an overall bill of as much as £10,000.

Editor’s note: At the request of Stephen, we have not used his real name but a nickname. Stephen’s identity is known to The Local.

Member comments

  1. Feel so sorry for this person. Rapid tests such as the ones done at airports are not as accurate as tests which are done in the laboratory, so he more than likely had a false positive.
    As for the company packing up and leaving before the flight left is also unfortunate – but the company having realised they made a potential mistake, should have arranged a re-test before ringing the Chinese embassy, perhaps they will put that down to another ‘clerical error’.

Log in here to leave a comment.
Become a Member to leave a comment.
For members

COVID-19 TESTS

Which Covid-19 self-tests should you buy (and avoid) in Denmark?

Many are turning to Covid-19 self-tests as Denmark phases out its government-run rapid test centers—but recent research demonstrates that not all self-tests are created equal.

Which Covid-19 self-tests should you buy (and avoid) in Denmark?

A study conducted by researchers across the major Danish hospitals, universities, and government agencies (including the State Serum Institute, Denmark’s infectious disease agency) examined the sensitivity of 46 rapid tests produced by 23 manufacturers. Some tests failed miserably, detecting only about 3 percent of positive cases, while others detected over 90 percent.

Why so many brands of rapid tests in Denmark?

While the United States only gave emergency use authorisation to three manufacturers of Covid self-tests (Ellume Limited, Abbot Diagnostics and the Quidel Corporation), the Danish government took a different tact. In Denmark, at-home Covid tests only need instructions written in Danish, a clear and easy-to-read result, and the CE mark—a label that indicates the manufacturer believes its product meets European Union standards for health and safety.

However, there are no independently-verified guarantees about the tests’ accuracy, and that’s led to a market swamped with defective products.

The study, which is currently undergoing peer review for publication in the Journal of Clinical Virology, has spurred Danish politicians to demand more oversight of rapid tests.

Independent member of parliament Liselott Blixt, the former health spokesperson for the Danish People’s Party, has suggested that tests with less than 50 percent sensitivity be removed from the market, broadcaster DR reported.

Blixt said that as a major purchaser of quick tests, it’s high time the government examined the quality of the tests.

“This could be money out the window,” she told DR. “We spend millions on these tests, including for schools, so of course we need to know how they work.”

Peder Hvelplund, health spokesperson for the left-wing Red Green Alliance (Enhedslisten), agrees that more regulation is necessary.

“It is crucial that we get a national control of it so that it is not up to the market, and so it is not consumers who are left in the lurch,” he told DR.

Winners of the study

To determine the real-world accuracy of each rapid test, the researchers tested 200 volunteers who had received a positive PCR result in the previous 72 hours, as well as 200 volunteers who were believed to be Covid-free as a control. Researchers followed the sampling instructions provided by the manufacturers for each of the 46 tests, for a total of about 3,800 test subjects (each participant used multiple tests).

The researchers concluded that the top 17 rapid antigen tests included in the study were significantly better than the bottom 29. But since most of the tests the study analysed are intended for professional use and can’t be purchased by members of the public, here’s a shortlist of what you can actually buy.

  • Flowflex SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Tests, produced by ACON
    • The study indicates that that Flowflex detects about 94 percent of positive Covid cases.
    • We found the Flowflex test available at med24.dk (125 kroner for a 5 pack) and Dollarstore.dk (25 kroner per test).
  • COVID-19 Antigen Detection Kit, by DNA Diagnostics
    • According to the study, the DNA Diagnostics kit detects about 91 percent of positive Covid cases.
    • DNA Diagnostics’ official distributor in Denmark is tepotesten.dk. As of writing, you can get a pack of 20 tests for 320 kroner.

A self-test by Chinese manufacturer Wondfo also scored above 90 percent sensitivity, but it’s unclear where they’re available for sale in Denmark.

What tests to avoid?

The worst-performing self-test in the study was Wantai’s SARS-CoV-2 Ag Rapid Test (Colloidal Gold) when used with saliva samples. The study authors concluded that nasal samples, rather than throat or saliva samples, can more reliably detect Covid-19.

What about the home-tests sold at Matas, Normal and my neighbourhood apotek (pharmacy)?

There were a handful of notable omissions from the list of self-tests included in the study, including Newgene Bioengineering’s COVID-19 Antigen Detection Kit and Boson Biotech’s Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test Card—if you’ve snagged tests from Matas, Normal or your local apotek, they’re likely Newgene or Boson.

Uffe Vest Schnieder, a researcher at the Copenhagen University Hopsital Hvidovre’s Department of Clinical Microbiology and the study’s lead author, did not immediately respond to a comment request from The Local as to why two of the most readily available self-tests in Denmark weren’t included in the study.

Last year, Danish pharmacology news outlet Dagens Pharma reported that manufacturers included in the study were asked to contribute 400 tests and 150,000 kroner to offset the cost of health professionals visiting participant’s homes to conduct the tests. That’s the equivalent of about $22,838.

It’s unclear if contributions were collected per test included (with a total of 46 tests in the study, that would amount to 6.9 million kroner) or per manufacturer (with 23 manufacturers, that would be 3.5 million kroner). Boson Biotech did not immediately respond to inquiries from The Local Denmark about whether they had been invited to participate in the study.

SHOW COMMENTS