PCR Testing

[Phil xxkr]

For anyone who needs access to a reliable PCR testing company try Nationwide Pathology based at Lutterworth. Very easy to order on-line or over the phone, £40 for a day 2 Amber. I have no connection with the company but might ask LOC admin if they might get them on the Gold card discount page. They clearly offer discounts to someone as it's mentioned on the order page. 

[Mr Vlad]

Why pay for it when you can get it for free. It'll probably be the same 72hr turn around. No brainer. 

[Arnett]

May aswell just order it from the Gov website or 119 for free, if your a positive case contact and not double jabbed your isolating regardless of the result.

Not worth any fee.

[doog442]

3 hours ago, Mr Vlad said:

Why pay for it when you can get it for free. It'll probably be the same 72hr turn around. No brainer. 

I believe you can't use the free NHS tests for travel (which I guess is what Phils on about when he references day 2 amber tests).  

We're due to travel to St Lucia next month. As it stands we require a PCR test to enter (fit to fly) and an antigen and day 2 PCR test on return. 

[Phil xxkr]

11 hours ago, doog442 said:

I believe you can't use the free NHS tests for travel (which I guess is what Phils on about when he references day 2 amber tests).  

We're due to travel to St Lucia next month. As it stands we require a PCR test to enter (fit to fly) and an antigen and day 2 PCR test on return. 

Spot-on Doog, and you need to have a proof of purchase code to enter onto your PLF so trying to fiddle the system is a no-go. Regarding St Lucia I stayed at the Cap Estate a few years ago, great place, great people lots of mozzies mind. 😱. I just about remember a day trip on a pirate boat to Marigot Bay, mad, way too many rum punches that's how you drown 😎

[Phil xxkr]

10 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

Spot-on Doog, and you need to have a proof of purchase code to enter onto your PLF so trying to fiddle the system is a no-go. Regarding St Lucia I stayed at the Cap Estate a few years ago, great place, great people lots of mozzies mind. 😱. I just about remember a day trip on a pirate boat to Marigot Bay, mad, way too many rum punches that's how you drown 😎

Update, just heard on the radio PCR tests may no longer be needed from October!!! Timing is everything they say. 😒

[Malc]

Guys, please don't get too wound up about the possible cessation of the needs at various stages for PCR Testing, self-isolation etc

In my business ( as a Travel Agent ) I can sure wish that all is getting a lot lot better BUT reality kicks in sometimes and the world is still awash with not only covid but lots of other 'orrible stuff ...  and covid variants ..  and spreading 

I'm just thinking that it's probably " touch and go " with another potential UK lockdown ............. nothing's going to be " normal " for a very very very long time

The UK death rate from covid is still tragically high .....  so, please still take great care everyone

Malc

[Mr Vlad]

Personally speaking I think it's highly irresponsible for foreign travel even tho the traveller has had both jabs and proven clear of C19. As Malc stated things won't be normal for a good few years yet. 

The case rates are rising daily which is surprising considering how many have had both jabs But those jabs are wearing out.

Here's a true example. Around 20 family members ages from 40 to 70 who have had both jabs, tested negative before a family wedding. On return to their respective homes test Positive. Now is that scary or what?

Oh this is a family of a good friend of mine.

 

[Malc]

double jabbed and still unaware of being a covid carrier really isn't too unusual sadly .....  the jab just protects one individually, hopefully, against serious issues from the disease .....  being double jabbed and a covid carrier and infecting others is very possible and it's those poor souls who are unjabbed and where the double jab isn't enough protection, who could suffer tragic end results

Testing is good and is I guess occurring more and more and just tells us that more people than ever are carrying covid ..........  test far fewer people and the covid spread could seem tiny .....  it's just figures .....  it's the hospitalisation and death rates that are the worrying factors .....  and that seems to be on it's growth regime again ...... so everyone, just take a great deal of care and if you can be double jabbed then do so, it will help not only you and yours but society at large ..........  and when the 3rd booster jab is ready I'll be the first in the Q to get it hopefully 

 

Whilst they are all proclaiming air travel is safe, well, not sure I'd be Qing up to get into a metal canister with 500 others for some hours, to then be prised from the metal tube to join more Qs to then go mix with those in a foreign land with heaven knows what protection ........ AND THEN .......... do it all again to return home 

Ah, I own a Lexus, I must surely be sane 

Malc

[dutchie01]

I have been following the daily youtube videoś of Dr John Campbell. He is my main source of information, a daily view since March last year!

And, yes, in my opinion the outlook is not too positive for the short term, it could take more time than we all expect. 

[Arnett]

I may or may not work in a role which is linked to direct positive covid cases. 

The increase in positive testing is substantial, non-vaccinated people people of all ages are still getting very ill. And those vaccinated can still get some horrendous symptoms. 

I personally wish all Lateral flow testing was scrapped and PCR was the only option. 

[doog442]

6 hours ago, Mr Vlad said:

Personally speaking I think it's highly irresponsible for foreign travel even tho the traveller has had both jabs and proven clear of C19. As Malc stated things won't be normal for a good few years yet. 

 

 

 

Sorry but I disagree. I have more chance of catching covid popping into my local pub or getting the tube around London than visiting somewhere with substantially less cases than here. 

 

6 hours ago, Malc said:

Whilst they are all proclaiming air travel is safe, well, not sure I'd be Qing up to get into a metal canister with 500 others for some hours, to then be prised from the metal tube to join more Qs to then go mix with those in a foreign land with heaven knows what protection ........ AND THEN .......... do it all again to return home 

Ah, I own a Lexus, I must surely be sane 

Malc

They reckon 0.4% of people returning to the UK from their hols test positive (and that includes unvaccinated passengers). In other words 99.6% don't have an issue. To me those odds appear quite favourable and certainly a risk I'm willing to take. 

This thing isn't going away so we really should learn to live with it.

[Malc]

11 hours ago, doog442 said:

To me those odds appear quite favourable and certainly a risk I'm willing to take. 

Excellent, but don't roll those dice too soon ...  just in case you're in that 0.4% and end up hospitalized or worse .............

Malc

[Phil xxkr]

2 hours ago, Malc said:

Excellent, but don't roll those dice too soon ...  just in case you're in that 0.4% and end up hospitalized or worse .............

Malc

 

2 hours ago, Malc said:

Excellent, but don't roll those dice too soon ...  just in case you're in that 0.4% and end up hospitalized or worse .............

Malc

There are less than 5% fatalities per Billion miles travelled on UK roads but I am with you Malc that's enough of a risk to make me stay at home and never go anywhere until I can be assured there will never be another accident 🤯

[doog442]

3 hours ago, Malc said:

Excellent, but don't roll those dice too soon ...  just in case you're in that 0.4% and end up hospitalized or worse .............

Malc

Don't worry Malc I'm not rolling any dice . There are still two Government travel 'reviews' before I even think about booking airport parking and we all know what a complete lottery they are. As a travel agent it must be a worrying time for you, my daughter lost her job with an airline and her boyfriend pilot is clinging onto his job. I'm mindful of the risks however but thanks for your concern. I think if we had any underlying health conditions (fortunately we don't), weren't double jabbed and there wasn't a requirement for everyone on the plane to have undergone a PCR test prior to departure then we might put it off, however its my full intention to be drinking a few G&T's watching a Caribbean sunset this time next month 🥂 ..if it doesn't happen so be it, it can wait. 

[LenT]

1 hour ago, Phil xxkr said:

 

There are less than 5% fatalities per Billion miles travelled on UK roads but I am with you Malc that's enough of a risk to make me stay at home and never go anywhere until I can be assured there will never be another accident 🤯

I think a possible flaw in this analogy is that road accidents are not contagious.

A fully vaccinated, asymptomatic individual is still capable of spreading this virus.

Incidentally, RoSPA claims that annually around 6K people have fatal accidents in their own homes and a further 2.7 million have to attend A&E departments.  

So once you’ve driven further than 15 miles from your home - where the majority of driving accidents happen - you may well be safer than staying at home!

[Phil xxkr]

18 minutes ago, LenT said:

I think a possible flaw in this analogy is that road accidents are not contagious.

A fully vaccinated, asymptomatic individual is still capable of spreading this virus.

Incidentally, RoSPA claims that annually around 6K people have fatal accidents in their own homes and a further 2.7 million have to attend A&E departments.  

So once you’ve driven further than 15 miles from your home - where the majority of driving accidents happen - you may well be safer than staying at home!

Contagious or not makes no difference Len the argument is one of statistics and probability and risk. And I may be wrong but I seem to recall most car accidents occurred within 15 miles of home? Maybe someone can be more specific. 

[LenT]

3 hours ago, Phil xxkr said:

Contagious or not makes no difference Len the argument is one of statistics and probability and risk.

I’m no statistician, as many can attest, but what I queried was the validity of trying to compare a road accident with a viral infection.  As I understand it, you were relating your 5% figure to Malcolm’s 0.4% figure and suggesting that therefore the former posed the greater risk, statistically.

My apologies if I’ve got that wrong!

My point was that while statistically small, 0.4% of asymptomatic Covid carriers would be large in numbers - with each individual having the ability to spread the infection exponentially.  This is not a characteristic of a road accident.

3 hours ago, Phil xxkr said:

. And I may be wrong but I seem to recall most car accidents occurred within 15 miles of home? Maybe someone can be more specific. 

It is I who should have been more specific!

‘Within 15 minutes of home’ was the information I was trying to convey!  But I see it could be read as ‘more than 15 miles from home’.

 

Oh the shame!  😦

 

 

 

[Phil xxkr]

5 hours ago, LenT said:

I’m no statistician, as many can attest, but what I queried was the validity of trying to compare a road accident with a viral infection.  As I understand it, you were relating your 5% figure to Malcolm’s 0.4% figure and suggesting that therefore the former posed the greater risk, statistically.

My apologies if I’ve got that wrong!

My point was that while statistically small, 0.4% of asymptomatic Covid carriers would be large in numbers - with each individual having the ability to spread the infection exponentially.  This is not a characteristic of a road accident.

It is I who should have been more specific!

‘Within 15 minutes of home’ was the information I was trying to convey!  But I see it could be read as ‘more than 15 miles from home’.

 

Oh the shame!  😦

 

 

 

No Len, I wasn't comparing but contrasting ones attitude to risk, so a quotient of 0.4 sets your heart a flutter but 5% doesn't? Exponential is a term ofter used to mean large which it isn't. If the virus growth were truly mathematically exponential after 18 months the whole world would have been infected 10 times over. But use of the term does serve the purpose of scaring people witless. 

[LenT]

46 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

No Len, I wasn't comparing but contrasting ones attitude to risk, so a quotient of 0.4 sets your heart a flutter but 5% doesn't? Exponential is a term ofter used to mean large which it isn't. If the virus growth were truly mathematically exponential after 18 months the whole world would have been infected 10 times over. But use of the term does serve the purpose of scaring people witless. 

Thanks for this Philip but as I made clear, I’m not a statistician.  I therefore employ ‘exponentially’ in the more common usage of ‘something growing at a rapid rate’.  This is something we were all made aware of with the introduction of the R Rate.

As it happens I didn’t introduce either 0.4% or 5% into this debate, so I can’t say either excites me.  But your point about ‘contrasting attitudes to risk’ is an interesting one.  I can understand your irritation over the differing reactions, but I suggest this has to do with familiarity.  As drivers we accept a level of risk, perhaps because we feel we also have a level of control.  But a pandemic was a totally new experience.

No doubt some people were ‘scared witless’ but for the majority it all served to focus the mind.

And finally, another correction!

6 hours ago, LenT said:

‘Within 15 minutes of home’ was the information I was trying to convey!  But I see it could be read as ‘more than 15 miles from home’.

For ‘minutes’ read ‘miles’!  😟

Probably time for a nap….