Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rolan7]

Can't you just go get 2 or 3 self-tests at the supermarket / pharmacy?
I mean, they're somewhat less reliable than the official health service ones, but their inaccuracy can be counteracted by bulk use.
Take 3 tests, trust the majority result.
If it's positive, still go for the official one, if negative, be at ease.

They've been out in my area (semi-urban North Carolina) for at least a week.  Of all the "All the shelves are empty!!" scares I've heard from my parents, repeated without verification from their favorite news sources, *this* one actually happened.  It surprised me because my Walgreens had a prominent display of them a few weeks ago, but now nothing more than a rehearsed "We're out of stock".

I eventually got a spare test from a family friend and it came up negative, but by that time I was feeling almost 100% again so I don't know if I survived Omicron or not.  Could have just been a false negative anyway.  I was pretty much self-quarantined anyway, from everything being closed or uncomfortably crowded for a sick Rolan, but it's frustrating not to know.

[Starver]

Is that perhaps because people have been stocking up with three times the tests they think they'll need?

(Tragedy of the commons, or a version thereof.)

[scriver]

Third times the charm!

Spoiler: Test thee for covid! (click to show/hide)

Honestly here they claim the shortage is because "people take more than they need" but in till they can actually show any kind of basis for that statement I'm assuming they're just covering their arses because they unexpected the demand.

[martinuzz]

With the horrors of the Toilet Paper War of 2020 still fresh in memory, I am inclined to believe the claim.

Never underestimate the hoard.

[ChairmanPoo]

I'm assuming they're just covering their arses because they unexpected the demand.

Ding ding ding jackpot!

They've been saying this for a while here. But the problem is, the whole theory behind the rapid test is that it's rapid. You're supposed to have a few at home so that you can test if you have symptoms without exposing anyone. And keep testing if necessary.  How is that supposed to work if people only buy "the necessary amount"? What's the necessary amount?

[wierd]

Clearly, one per patient!  More would be wasteful, and require paper pushers to actually source more than the number they are getting!

Think of the bureaucrats!  Exposing the incompetence of government would make the politicians look bad during a crisis!  How heartless! /s

[Grim Portent]

They've been saying this for a while here. But the problem is, the whole theory behind the rapid test is that it's rapid. You're supposed to have a few at home so that you can test if you have symptoms without exposing anyone. And keep testing if necessary.  How is that supposed to work if people only buy "the necessary amount"? What's the necessary amount?

I know this is rhetorical, but I think making sure every person has a buffer of five tests available each fortnight would be a decent amount. One test for each week just to be careful, then a few spare tests if you show symptoms. In theory that would cover a good range of time, while only actually using four tests a month if someone is healthy.

Would be a nightmare to arrange I imagine though, even my smallish town would need over 500.000 tests each month not counting the NHS ones, which doesn't sound reasonable to provide.

[Starver]

The last I checked, you could order a pack (7) a day of LFTs online, per household. Or collect two packs, per visit to a pharmacy/other distribution point.

The first seems limited by delivery-slots (there were problems with that, not sure about right now), the second by what's actually in-stock (depends on how many 2-packs-per-visit have been made).

You're only supposed to get them if you're asymptomatic[1]. Hence my disinclination, given my now subsiding[2] 'cold'... Maybe when it tails off completely I'll join the rush. Otherwise (or for travel) you're directed to get a PCR.


I think anybody in the UK can get at least advice from 119 (if there's not manning/demands issues!). But go through the appropriate bit of gov.uk or <region.>nhs.uk and I'm sure there'll be a decent facsimile of the latest advice without tying up anything more rhan web-resources in the process.


[1] For most of the UK "twice a week", regardless. Which I've been definitely shirking at, back in the more halcyon days of self-complaisance, so if there's supply issues it aint my fault. Enlgand suggests "before you go to a more hazardous situation" (whether mingling with those more likely to pass it around, or those more susceptible if you do), but no sign that's meant less speculative hoarding by the hordes and other hoggers.

[2] Which I'm sure it is. Complicated by the fact that a PSU blew in one of my machines, this morning and between the lingering remnants of the 'magic blue smoke' it let escape (with such a flash!) and the clouds of dust I disturbed (during the convuluted process of moving, dismantling, remantling and replacing the equipment concerned) there's a bit of an atmosphere in this room that I've not yet properly vented. For such a surprisingly easy repair, it can be somewhat unpleasant to do - given the infrequency of its necessity.

[delphonso]

On a somewhat lighter note, anti-vaxxers are implying a kid who died in 2013 died because of the vaccine.

Originally from USNews, but paywalled.

[wierd]

So.. before the vaccine even existed huh?

Seems legit. Totally. /s

[Starver]

That's how good/bad it is!

[King Zultan]

Damn you time traveling vaccines!
*shakes fist*

[Rolan7]

I hate that whoever is playing Plague Inc made Omicron somewhat less deadly yet more transmissible.  For one thing that's usually a backwards strategy (unless we're still in the very early game... fuck.)

But it also feeds right into the hands of the "just embrace the virus" dipshits who were clamoring for "herd immunity" from day one.  Their insanely deadly plan is somewhat less deadly now.  The "Logan's Run" number is a few years later, and thus more palatable.

Except I don't even see these dunderheads capitalizing on that fact, because facts are antithetical to their cults.  Using any real data might inspire their followers to use *other* real data, and the game would unravel.

[Egan_BW]

[Vector]

Got a test today, fingers crossed for the expected negative result.

My university is online for the first week. I'm almost praying (the "almost" is only because I'm not that Christian) that it will be online for the rest of this quarter. We were actually fine in person last quarter, extremely low positivity rate. This quarter . . . can't we at least be online until everyone has to be boosted, January 31 . . .

I don't want COVID, goddammit.


Got my prescription for a second antidepressant today. *sigh*. Fuck this shit.