There was a big outbreak in Norfolk in a chicken plant with 300 workers. One of them had a fit (nothing to do with covid). The worker went to hospital and was tested (routine for hospital admissions) he was found to be positive. They went back to the plant and tested everybody, over 100 tested positive and nobody said they had symptoms. The government have had time to ensure that there are more tests than we need so that we over test rather than under test. The woman in charge of testing has a record of failure in previous positions and is failing again. No doubt she supports Boris and Brexit. This isn't a case of a bell end minister, it's a case of a bell end government.
[QUOTE="This isn't a case of a bell end minister, it's a case of a bell end government.[/QUOTE] Or both...
Not sure about this particular scenario having any bearing on the matter, but he is DEFINITELY a bell-end. Hope this helps.
I am confused by his statement saying that 25% of people who are taking the test do not need the test as they have no symptoms. How are they measuring this number, because as far as I am aware this can only be done by asking the individual as they turn up for a test. If the said individual when asked says I have no symptoms then why are they been given a test? Surely there is a simple solution to this, no symptoms equals no test. However, Hancock is still a bell end
But that’s not the govt policy - and if it was, it’d be stupid as the majority of people with the virus are asymptomatic.
so if they have no symptoms through either asymptomatic or not having the virus full stop, why are they being given a test or requesting one?
No, he really is a bellend, this is the man who “changed the law” to allow nurses and pharmacists to administer flu jabs, something they have been doing legally for 20+ years.
I thought Boris was under qualified for the job he's doing, but Matt Hancock? The guy is a clueless idiot, who guesses his way through a day and takes zero responsibility for his actions.
you are missing the point, you go for the test if you have symptoms. If you are asymptomatic you show no symptoms so why would you request the test
Maybe they’ve been notified that they’ve been in contact with someone who has the virus. straight question: Someone is stood too close to you in the supermarket; would you rather know that they a cough tested tested negative or they’ve no symptoms but tested positive and so they stayed home.
Because they’ve been in contact with someone that’s positive? Because they’ve been in contact with a lot of people? Because they’ve had a change in habits and just want the peace of mind? Because they need to spend time with vulnerable relatives and want to be 100% sure? There are many valid reasons.
I get what you are saying, but on that basis then the 25% that Hancock claims do not need tests do require tests? My take is that in order for a test you have to live with someone who has the virus, you have been in contact with someone who has, you show symptoms or have been informed via the world beating track and trace to get test. That would imply that all people going for a test require it and no one is going for a test who does not require it.
So therefore they need a test, what I am saying is, how do they know that 25% of people asking for a test do not need one
Yes; as above he’s a bellend Yes See above This is simply Handco ck blaming the public because the world leading track and trace and testing is a crock of shi. t run by his personal friend with no tendering process or advertising for the job.
