Isn't the point of the test to help you determine whether you and those you've come into contact with need to isolate?
You have to if you want an inhaler or something for a cough. Teachers alone are gonna use up a lot of tests for every bug they get. May as well close schools in December. I'm guessing everywhere will be Tier 3 But Definitely Not A Lockdown by then anyway.
If you're unwell and not sure about getting tested, have a look at the questionnaire on the NHS 111 website. I had a sore throat and felt ropey a couple of weeks ago and went through the questionnaire. It didn't recommend a test and was reassuring as it seemed pretty thorough.
I did a couple on the NHS. Ultimately if you have one of the 3 symptoms (a new or continuous cough, temperature, loss of taste or smell) then you have to get a test. So if you're someone that uses an inhaler, they automatically hit the big red button.
Here's the TL;DR on that - I'm on my phone right now, so forgive the brevity. All this is total crap. That aisle was closed off in that supermarket by the police so they could investigate a raid that took place this morning. The Tesco Twitter rep definitely shouldn't have told her that it was closed because it was non-essential; Tesco have since clarified in their apology that this Twitter reply was a canned statement that was sent in error. Whether the person in the original tweet was actually told IN STORE that they can't buy period products is impossible to verify, but I'm gonna go with my gut on this one and suggest that it is highly unlikely that any member of staff actually said this to her face to face.
Did anyone else take a test for the Covid antibody research? I got a letter saying I'd been randomly chosen and it was asking if I'd be prepared to do a self test. The kit came with a pricker, the testing strip thing and some steri wipes and the test reagent. Came back negative for Covid 19 antibodies in my case. It was like a pregnancy test kit with the results. With coloured lines in a window. The letter said the test wasn't accurate enough on an individual level to indicate whether you had antibodies or not, so I struggled making sense of how the test could be useful in their research??
Without reading the paper to see what the testing methodology is, I think it'd be impossible (or extremely difficult for us lay-people) to infer what hypothesis they're testing in this research.
It sounds like they're simply testing the willingness of the masses to blindly follow instructions even when detailed to cause physical harm to oneself. Probably in readiness for future instructions of a more grievous nature (The Grand Lemming Plot v2.1, perhaps...).
That test would be worthless then. Mind you, given the rampant shady dealings of the Government in awarding Covid related contracts that unfortunately isn't even surprising.
It was a study conducted by Imperial College London but had the Dept. of Health and Social Care logo on it so guessing they were funding it. Once you completed the test you had to go online, complete a survey and give the test results. Nothing out of the way or unexpected in the survey. Just asking about health and any symptoms etc.
True enough, not sure why Northerners backed them. Ah hang on, it was that Brexit grooming. Pyramid schemes, no fun to live in.
G-man - please prevent me from doing an internet faux pas and just clarify what that DM tweet's purpose is? I can't tell where the dig is aimed and Metcalfe's quote is making me want to say things I'll regret. EDIT: Having read it for a fifth time, I'm going to assume the dig is aimed at the DM and by extension that d1ckhead Metcalfe. But in a non-advocating-the-DM way, they're just reporting what has been said (for a change). Metcalfe should be the target and people espousing the same belief. I think.
Always a safe bet. The DM is, as always, spinning things in an editorial fashion rather than doing plain reportage. I mean, we all do it, but the DM tends to take things a little too far - when it's not making things up out of whole cloth, that is - and in a direction with which I personally disagree. Compare and contrast: "DON'T DO IT BORIS!" with: "Medics, Business Chiefs, MPs Warn of Second Lockdown Dangers" The second is reportage - assuming, that is, medics have actually warned of any such thing. The first is editorialisation: The DM is literally, in big bold letters, telling Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson not to put the country in lockdown. It's taking a side, and you never take a side outside op-ed. Unless you're a gutter rag propaganda outlet for billionaires posing as a paper of the people, anyway. The same story could also be headlined: "PRET FOUNDER THINKS 'A FEW THOUSAND' OLD PEOPLE SHOULD DIE TO KEEP PRET OPEN!" Yet, for some reason, it is not. You can see the same editorialisation in the subhead, too: talking about "PM's gloomy experts" as a nudge to ignoring what they say 'cos they're just miserable and deliberately bigging-up the worst-case outcome. Not that they're miserable because they keep telling the PM how to maybe not have the highest number of deaths per capita in the world and he keeps ignoring 'em...
Elsewhere... Tweet— Twitter API (@user) date At the start of this I predicted we would top the number of deaths attributed to the 1968 flu pandemic. If the second wave is even half as bad as those figures, I'll be very sadly right - and for it not to be that bad, we'd need a competent and selfless government. Hah.
