People across England have told BBC News they are struggling to access coronavirus tests.
Health Secretary Matt Hancock said last week that no-one should have to travel more than 75 miles for a test, after the BBC revealed some were being sent hundreds of miles away.
But dozens have now reported being unable to book a swab at all.
The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) said testing capacity was targeted at the hardest-hit areas.
A significant rise in demand for testing led the government to reduce the number of appointments available in areas of lower prevalence, to prioritise areas with outbreaks.
This in turn led to people applying for tests being directed to centres sometimes hundreds of miles away.
But last Thursday Mr Hancock pledged to put in "immediate" solutions to make sure people did not have to travel more than 75 miles, effective from last Friday.
Since then, postcodes entered into the government's booking system return a message suggesting there are no testing centres or home kits available - even if you are an essential worker with symptoms.
Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
0
Options
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
Yes, we're awful at testing but we're doing more than zero. Which was the government's initial stance: there was no need to test because we'd just get herd immunity
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
Took my son for a test yesterday, we had to refresh the site several times and it's only set up for adults. So despite putting his age in it still asks you what job he does etc.
The testing site was in a Morrisons car park and was just a bunch of people standing around.
We followed the guidebook within the test kit but had some questions. The staff didn't actually know what the guidebook said and questioned what we did despite following the guidance.
Wife needs a test now and is still refreshing the page.
Took my son for a test yesterday, we had to refresh the site several times and it's only set up for adults. So despite putting his age in it still asks you what job he does etc.
The testing site was in a Morrisons car park and was just a bunch of people standing around.
We followed the guidebook within the test kit but had some questions. The staff didn't actually know what the guidebook said and questioned what we did despite following the guidance.
Wife needs a test now and is still refreshing the page.
Do they have a job category of "Being A Massive Constant Pain In The Ass, But I Love Him Anyway"?
Cause that's what appears to be a child's job nowdays, at least from people I know with kids.
At least when I was growing up, we got shipped off to camps, or extended sleepovers, or just full days out.
Can't imagine how much more of an intolerant shit I would have been if I was constantly at home during childhood.
+3
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited September 2020
so presumably the reason boris said nothing last night is that the call he had to convince mps was a bizarre failure
one highlight from the reliably peculiar michael fabricant:
But when the Zoom call attended by 256 MPs suddenly broke off after twenty minutes, the online forum descended into chaos as MP Michael Fabricant started singing Rule Britannia, clutching a piece of paper with the words already printed out.
one highlight from the reliably peculiar michael fabricant:
But when the Zoom call attended by 256 MPs suddenly broke off after twenty minutes, the online forum descended into chaos as MP Michael Fabricant started singing Rule Britannia, clutching a piece of paper with the words already printed out.
Wait, they can't prep for the major international relations move of the decade for the country they lead but they're so patriotic they need to make sure they have the anthem printed out so they can spontaneously sing it?
one highlight from the reliably peculiar michael fabricant:
But when the Zoom call attended by 256 MPs suddenly broke off after twenty minutes, the online forum descended into chaos as MP Michael Fabricant started singing Rule Britannia, clutching a piece of paper with the words already printed out.
Wait, they can't prep for the major international relations move of the decade for the country they lead but they're so patriotic they need to make sure they have the anthem printed out so they can spontaneously sing it?
...all real patriots can never remember more than one verse of their anthem, and get through the subsequent verses by going ‘ner hner ner’ until they reach an outcrop of words they recognise, which they sing very boldly to give the impression that they really had been singing all the other words as well but had been drowned out by the people around them.
Yes, we're awful at testing but we're doing more than zero. Which was the government's initial stance: there was no need to test because we'd just get herd immunity
Indeed, the first wave peaked with probably 1-2 hundred thousand infections a day. Currently, the UK probably has 10000 infections a day. We also have no idea what the onset shape of the first wave was, because the UK was pretty much testing exclusively in hospitals, and even that wasn't universal.
It is safe to say that you are doing far more to suppress transmission now than the last time you had 10000 cases and rising, but, its very likely also true to say that anything less than a strictly implemented rule of 6 won't be enough.
Yes, we're awful at testing but we're doing more than zero. Which was the government's initial stance: there was no need to test because we'd just get herd immunity
Indeed, the first wave peaked with probably 1-2 hundred thousand infections a day. Currently, the UK probably has 10000 infections a day. We also have no idea what the onset shape of the first wave was, because the UK was pretty much testing exclusively in hospitals, and even that wasn't universal.
It is safe to say that you are doing far more to suppress transmission now than the last time you had 10000 cases and rising, but, its very likely also true to say that anything less than a strictly implemented rule of 6 won't be enough.
The rule of six wouldn't do anything no matter how strictly it's adhered to.
Instantaneous group size limits achieve nothing.
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
edited September 2020
I really hope they get strung up for the contracts thing. It's so bloody obvious but I barely see it mentioned in the papers, and most people I talk to aren't even aware it's going on.
I really hope they get strung up for the contracts thing. It's so bloody obvious but I barely see it mentioned in the papers, and most people I talk to aren't even aware it's going on.
No bid contracts that don't at least get a sign off from Parliament should be illegal.
If there's only one company that can do what the government needs it to do, then it should be able to stand up to scrutiny, and members should at least be able to be held accountable for their votes.
Yes, we're awful at testing but we're doing more than zero. Which was the government's initial stance: there was no need to test because we'd just get herd immunity
Indeed, the first wave peaked with probably 1-2 hundred thousand infections a day. Currently, the UK probably has 10000 infections a day. We also have no idea what the onset shape of the first wave was, because the UK was pretty much testing exclusively in hospitals, and even that wasn't universal.
It is safe to say that you are doing far more to suppress transmission now than the last time you had 10000 cases and rising, but, its very likely also true to say that anything less than a strictly implemented rule of 6 won't be enough.
The rule of six wouldn't do anything no matter how strictly it's adhered to.
Instantaneous group size limits achieve nothing.
Keeping group sizes small is a key part of infection control, and can absolutely be enough to limit the number of tests needed for sufficient control and monitoring to keep the virus from spreading. It is not necessary to live as a hermit to be doing your part.
Yes, we're awful at testing but we're doing more than zero. Which was the government's initial stance: there was no need to test because we'd just get herd immunity
Indeed, the first wave peaked with probably 1-2 hundred thousand infections a day. Currently, the UK probably has 10000 infections a day. We also have no idea what the onset shape of the first wave was, because the UK was pretty much testing exclusively in hospitals, and even that wasn't universal.
It is safe to say that you are doing far more to suppress transmission now than the last time you had 10000 cases and rising, but, its very likely also true to say that anything less than a strictly implemented rule of 6 won't be enough.
The rule of six wouldn't do anything no matter how strictly it's adhered to.
Instantaneous group size limits achieve nothing.
Keeping group sizes small is a key part of infection control, and can absolutely be enough to limit the number of tests needed for sufficient control and monitoring to keep the virus from spreading. It is not necessary to live as a hermit to be doing your part.
Yes, but if you're in a group of 6 today and in a different group of six 15 minutes from now, etc there isn't that much benefit from reducing group sizes. You're getting the same effect just slower.
Yes, we're awful at testing but we're doing more than zero. Which was the government's initial stance: there was no need to test because we'd just get herd immunity
Indeed, the first wave peaked with probably 1-2 hundred thousand infections a day. Currently, the UK probably has 10000 infections a day. We also have no idea what the onset shape of the first wave was, because the UK was pretty much testing exclusively in hospitals, and even that wasn't universal.
It is safe to say that you are doing far more to suppress transmission now than the last time you had 10000 cases and rising, but, its very likely also true to say that anything less than a strictly implemented rule of 6 won't be enough.
The rule of six wouldn't do anything no matter how strictly it's adhered to.
Instantaneous group size limits achieve nothing.
Keeping group sizes small is a key part of infection control, and can absolutely be enough to limit the number of tests needed for sufficient control and monitoring to keep the virus from spreading. It is not necessary to live as a hermit to be doing your part.
Yes, but if you're in a group of 6 today and in a different group of six 15 minutes from now, etc there isn't that much benefit from reducing group sizes. You're getting the same effect just slower.
Same effect just slower can absolutely be enough! If 1 person out of 30 is infected, and you (uninfected person) mingle with 5 subsequent groups of 6 people then you may be infected in the exposure to the sick person but will not infect others. Contact tracing the situation will require far less tests, and be more effective.
Sequential activities are stupid yes, but they are vastly better than massive activities.
In reality a "rule of 6" properly implemented would be, "socialize with up to 6 people indoors, only once per day. Household members included for total numbers, but don't count as your one socialization a day"
But, even just a general rule of 6 might be enough. The r0 in the UK is something like 1.2 or something, a small improvement might be enough to get things back in line.
I doubt there are thirty Tories left who are willing to risk losing the whip, which is both a damning indictment of the Tories and a measure of the grovelling loyalty test Johnson now turns each big vote into.
I mean, breaking International law and getting away with would actually be "a sign of strength", unfortunately I don't see it happening. In a round of the old 27 v 1, the odds are a bit one sided.. Especially if the one is punching himself in the face all the time
I doubt there are thirty Tories left who are willing to risk losing the whip, which is both a damning indictment of the Tories and a measure of the grovelling loyalty test Johnson now turns each big vote into.
I doubt Boris will withdraw the whip this time. Especially not thirty plus. He cannot afford an unstable government right now and I don't think he can call another electon without labour support.
The proposed amendment is a neat bit of political maneuvering
It doesn't remove the problematic provisions from the bill, but it does add an additional parliamentary vote to be held in the event that the government proposes to use them
So:
- It pre-empts the argument that they need to be there just in case
- There is no real risk that the government couldn't secure a majority to vote for their implementation in extremis (provided the circumstances are genuinely extreme)
- "Parliamentary sovereignty"
- Ultimately it's an opportunity to kick the can down the road in a way that may not be fatal to the current negotiations
+1
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
I mean, breaking International law and getting away with would actually be "a sign of strength", unfortunately I don't see it happening. In a round of the old 27 v 1, the odds are a bit one sided.. Especially if the one is punching himself in the face all the time
'Getting away with it' is the problem. The EU can impose all sorts of penalties on the UK for doing this, but there's nothing the EU can do to actually stop the UK. So I'm not sure that the usual sorts won't just glom onto the UK breaking the withdrawal agreement as being awesome and totally ignore (or just get angry at the EU) any of the penalties that result.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
0
Options
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
The proposed amendment is a neat bit of political maneuvering
It doesn't remove the problematic provisions from the bill, but it does add an additional parliamentary vote to be held in the event that the government proposes to use them
So:
- It pre-empts the argument that they need to be there just in case
- There is no real risk that the government couldn't secure a majority to vote for their implementation in extremis (provided the circumstances are genuinely extreme)
- "Parliamentary sovereignty"
- Ultimately it's an opportunity to kick the can down the road in a way that may not be fatal to the current negotiations
I still doubt the EU will be fine with it even in this form.
The proposed amendment is a neat bit of political maneuvering
It doesn't remove the problematic provisions from the bill, but it does add an additional parliamentary vote to be held in the event that the government proposes to use them
So:
- It pre-empts the argument that they need to be there just in case
- There is no real risk that the government couldn't secure a majority to vote for their implementation in extremis (provided the circumstances are genuinely extreme)
- "Parliamentary sovereignty"
- Ultimately it's an opportunity to kick the can down the road in a way that may not be fatal to the current negotiations
I still doubt the EU will be fine with it even in this form.
Indeed, the promise of a vote is meaningless when the party that proposed it also has a massive majority to push anything through.
The proposed amendment is a neat bit of political maneuvering
It doesn't remove the problematic provisions from the bill, but it does add an additional parliamentary vote to be held in the event that the government proposes to use them
So:
- It pre-empts the argument that they need to be there just in case
- There is no real risk that the government couldn't secure a majority to vote for their implementation in extremis (provided the circumstances are genuinely extreme)
- "Parliamentary sovereignty"
- Ultimately it's an opportunity to kick the can down the road in a way that may not be fatal to the current negotiations
I still doubt the EU will be fine with it even in this form.
Probably true
To a certain degree it would be a fig leaf, since parliament can, in principle, vote to breach a treaty at any time. So, framing it this way would render the relevant clauses redundant since they would become a statement of the obvious.
That does cause issues with respect to the requirement for good faith, though
Tweeter is some random person with the relevant clip.
Good old Ed wiping the floor with Johnson.
Assuming this bill passes this is all almost worth it to see how utterly miserable Johnson is.
Wow Boris looks pathetic in this. He really doesn't want to be PM anymore does he? I can't imagine any other pm having this reaction to a challenge like that.
In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.
+4
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
He and Trump are really cut from the same cloth, aren't they?
Posts
Coronavirus testing system 'falling over'
The testing site was in a Morrisons car park and was just a bunch of people standing around.
We followed the guidebook within the test kit but had some questions. The staff didn't actually know what the guidebook said and questioned what we did despite following the guidance.
Wife needs a test now and is still refreshing the page.
Do they have a job category of "Being A Massive Constant Pain In The Ass, But I Love Him Anyway"?
Cause that's what appears to be a child's job nowdays, at least from people I know with kids.
At least when I was growing up, we got shipped off to camps, or extended sleepovers, or just full days out.
Can't imagine how much more of an intolerant shit I would have been if I was constantly at home during childhood.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/boris-zoom-call-failure
one highlight from the reliably peculiar michael fabricant:
Wait, they can't prep for the major international relations move of the decade for the country they lead but they're so patriotic they need to make sure they have the anthem printed out so they can spontaneously sing it?
Once again, There's a Pratchett Quote For That:
Slightly less relevant, but also: New thread title?
It rings a bell, have we had it before?
Steam | XBL
Indeed, the first wave peaked with probably 1-2 hundred thousand infections a day. Currently, the UK probably has 10000 infections a day. We also have no idea what the onset shape of the first wave was, because the UK was pretty much testing exclusively in hospitals, and even that wasn't universal.
It is safe to say that you are doing far more to suppress transmission now than the last time you had 10000 cases and rising, but, its very likely also true to say that anything less than a strictly implemented rule of 6 won't be enough.
Wife has developed a bad cough and a temperature.
Can't even select drive through tests on the government website. She's applied for a home test but they'll let us know if she's been successful?!?
So this "world beating" system doesn't inspire much confidence.
Meanwhile im off work until we know otherwise.
The rule of six wouldn't do anything no matter how strictly it's adhered to.
Instantaneous group size limits achieve nothing.
Not holding out much hope for my family's test results.
But this pretty much sums up or government's approach to Covid, as an excuse to make their mates loads of money:
No bid contracts that don't at least get a sign off from Parliament should be illegal.
If there's only one company that can do what the government needs it to do, then it should be able to stand up to scrutiny, and members should at least be able to be held accountable for their votes.
It's totally cool to break laws in ways you find acceptable, everyone!
That's a proper legal opinion, that is.
lmao. if you're "undermining" deep enough, you start going up again
Keeping group sizes small is a key part of infection control, and can absolutely be enough to limit the number of tests needed for sufficient control and monitoring to keep the virus from spreading. It is not necessary to live as a hermit to be doing your part.
Ahh, I see you're familiar with our 'Australia style' hole digging.
Yes, but if you're in a group of 6 today and in a different group of six 15 minutes from now, etc there isn't that much benefit from reducing group sizes. You're getting the same effect just slower.
Same effect just slower can absolutely be enough! If 1 person out of 30 is infected, and you (uninfected person) mingle with 5 subsequent groups of 6 people then you may be infected in the exposure to the sick person but will not infect others. Contact tracing the situation will require far less tests, and be more effective.
Sequential activities are stupid yes, but they are vastly better than massive activities.
In reality a "rule of 6" properly implemented would be, "socialize with up to 6 people indoors, only once per day. Household members included for total numbers, but don't count as your one socialization a day"
But, even just a general rule of 6 might be enough. The r0 in the UK is something like 1.2 or something, a small improvement might be enough to get things back in line.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I think that's why Geoffrey Cox saying he won't support the bill is significant
It would be ludicrous to argue that he, of all people, was an embittered remainer (though that doesn't mean they won't try)
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I doubt Boris will withdraw the whip this time. Especially not thirty plus. He cannot afford an unstable government right now and I don't think he can call another electon without labour support.
It doesn't remove the problematic provisions from the bill, but it does add an additional parliamentary vote to be held in the event that the government proposes to use them
So:
- It pre-empts the argument that they need to be there just in case
- There is no real risk that the government couldn't secure a majority to vote for their implementation in extremis (provided the circumstances are genuinely extreme)
- "Parliamentary sovereignty"
- Ultimately it's an opportunity to kick the can down the road in a way that may not be fatal to the current negotiations
'Getting away with it' is the problem. The EU can impose all sorts of penalties on the UK for doing this, but there's nothing the EU can do to actually stop the UK. So I'm not sure that the usual sorts won't just glom onto the UK breaking the withdrawal agreement as being awesome and totally ignore (or just get angry at the EU) any of the penalties that result.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54148974
Given the way that 2020 has been going so far, do we really want to chance that?
I still doubt the EU will be fine with it even in this form.
Indeed, the promise of a vote is meaningless when the party that proposed it also has a massive majority to push anything through.
Probably true
To a certain degree it would be a fig leaf, since parliament can, in principle, vote to breach a treaty at any time. So, framing it this way would render the relevant clauses redundant since they would become a statement of the obvious.
That does cause issues with respect to the requirement for good faith, though
Tweeter is some random person with the relevant clip.
Good old Ed wiping the floor with Johnson.
Assuming this bill passes this is all almost worth it to see how utterly miserable Johnson is.
Wow Boris looks pathetic in this. He really doesn't want to be PM anymore does he? I can't imagine any other pm having this reaction to a challenge like that.