Good question i would imagine both but think about this scenario...

Good question i would imagine both but think about this scenario where it doesn't matter if your showing signs or not you are going to get tested regardless.

Your going on a flight and before that flight you have to get tested and you have the choice to go on plane A with AT1's test or Plane B with (i wont mention) test.

Lets say there are 10 people wanting to board each Flight A and flight B who are Positive:
- 1 of them contracted the virus 2 days ago and are showing no signs.
- 9 of them contracted the virus 10 days ago again and are showing no signs.

Flight A using AT1's test picks up:
- o of the infected passengers who contracted the virus 2 days ago as AT1's test "is most accurate immediately after the onset of symptoms" which studies shows typically happens after day 5-6.
- 8 of the 9 that contracted the virus 10 days ago as AT1's test only has 88.4% sensitivity and "is most accurate immediately after the onset of symptoms" which studies shows typically happens after day 5-6.

So flight A has 2 infected passengers onboard.

Now flight B uses (lets call it) the Gold Standard.
Based on information to date put out by the Company its test has been validated to have picked up all positive cases at the time of validation and also the ability to pick up very low viral load levels meaning it can pick up the virus very early on from day 1-2.
- All 10 infected people were able to be identified as having the virus and were not allowed to board.

AT1's test did an excellent job of picking up the majority of cases but unfortunately its that 1 or 2 that got onto that plane that then infected another handful of people who then went home after that flight and infected their family and so on and so on. Hence my comment regarding these tests with low sensitivity being useless in completely stopping the spread.

I know which flight id rather be on.