PCR tests to travel

[Fevric J. Glandules]

Trying to take the junior Glandules to Spain in a couple of weeks.

AFAICWO they're going to need a negative PCR before going.
(Ex-Mrs. G. does not consent to vaccination. Yes, I know).

Anywhere recommended in central Cambridge that doesn't
charge an arm and a leg? The test would need to be done
after ~16:00 on the Saturday and the result available by
Monday evening to allow time to fill in the entry forms.
So postal type tests are probably not an option.

[Roland Perry]

In message <t1dqq8$30h$1...@dont-email.me>, at 00:49:13 on Wed, 23 Mar
2022, Fevric J. Glandules <f...@invalid.invalid> remarked:

There's some breadcrumbs here, but I have no recent personal experience.

<https://www.cam.ac.uk/coronavirus/stay-safe-cambridge-
uni/international-travel>

We had an overseas visitor in December and they needed a pre-departure
lateral flow test which we bought online and had to do on a video call
(to check they'd swabbed properly) and to see the result emerge, or not.
I think they then emailed the necessary credentials.

The trickiest bit was the test had to be done in a specific quite narrow
window, because it wasn't clear if it was 24-48hrs before the flight
took off, or at any time the day before the flight. So we picked a time
that worked for both.
--
Roland Perry

[Fevric J. Glandules]

Roland Perry wrote:

> There's some breadcrumbs here, but I have no recent personal experience.
>
> <https://www.cam.ac.uk/coronavirus/stay-safe-cambridge-
> uni/international-travel>

Thanks, but not much there to help.

https://www.theregenerativeclinic.co.uk/cambridge-covid-19-pcr-testing-same-day-and-next-day-covid-19-pcr-service/
seems about as good as it will get at £59 per person.

[Roland Perry]

In message <t1gcj3$9g$1...@dont-email.me>, at 00:04:51 on Thu, 24 Mar 2022,

Fevric J. Glandules <f...@invalid.invalid> remarked:

>Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> There's some breadcrumbs here, but I have no recent personal experience.
>>
>> <https://www.cam.ac.uk/coronavirus/stay-safe-cambridge-
>> uni/international-travel>
>
>Thanks, but not much there to help.

Apart from a list of services available, and from whom!

>https://www.theregenerativeclinic.co.uk/cambridge-covid-19-pcr-testing-s

>ame-day-and-next-day-covid-19-pcr-service/
>seems about as good as it will get at £59 per person.

Price sounds about right. NHS mail order PCR tests (I don't think you
can buy them, they have to be prescribed for people about to go into
hospital for routine surgery etc), get the results in about six hours
from reaching the lab (one can follow the Special Delivery tracking).
--
Roland Perry

[Paul Hardy]

Fevric J. Glandules <f...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> https://www.theregenerativeclinic.co.uk/cambridge-covid-19-pcr-testing-same-day-and-next-day-covid-19-pcr-service/
> seems about as good as it will get at £59 per person.
>

We booked with them when we were hoping to get away last Xmas, and they
were responsive and gave us our money back when the rules changed before we
could go.


--
Paul at the paulhardy.net domain

[Vir Campestris]

On 23/03/2022 13:20, Brian Morrison wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 00:49:13 -0000 (UTC)

> "Fevric J. Glandules" <f...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>

>> (Ex-Mrs. G. does not consent to vaccination. Yes, I know).
>

> Sensible woman.
>

Bloody fool.

The jabs have killed almost nobody, and save millions from dying.

It's also helped control the spread of it around the population,
including those people who are still susceptible even though though
they've had the jab.

It's also reduced case numbers which has reduced the chances of variants
arising.

@Fevric, won't social services tell her she's not fit to look after the
children?

Andy

[Fevric J. Glandules]

That is reassuring. Thanks.

[Fevric J. Glandules]

Roland Perry wrote:

> In message <t1gcj3$9g$1...@dont-email.me>, at 00:04:51 on Thu, 24 Mar 2022,
> Fevric J. Glandules <f...@invalid.invalid> remarked:
>>Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>>> There's some breadcrumbs here, but I have no recent personal experience.
>>>
>>> <https://www.cam.ac.uk/coronavirus/stay-safe-cambridge-
>>> uni/international-travel>
>>
>>Thanks, but not much there to help.
>
> Apart from a list of services available, and from whom!

Apologies if that sounded ungracious but it's far from a complete
list and of the three non-airport links, one says "our swab test
service isn’t suitable for travel".

[Roland Perry]

In message <t1qdne$1uq$1...@dont-email.me>, at 19:25:34 on Sun, 27 Mar

2022, Fevric J. Glandules <f...@invalid.invalid> remarked:
>Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> In message <t1gcj3$9g$1...@dont-email.me>, at 00:04:51 on Thu, 24 Mar 2022,
>> Fevric J. Glandules <f...@invalid.invalid> remarked:
>>>Roland Perry wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's some breadcrumbs here, but I have no recent personal experience.
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.cam.ac.uk/coronavirus/stay-safe-cambridge-
>>>> uni/international-travel>
>>>
>>>Thanks, but not much there to help.
>>
>> Apart from a list of services available, and from whom!
>
>Apologies if that sounded ungracious but it's far from a complete
>list and of the three non-airport links, one says "our swab test
>service isn‚t suitable for travel".

Hence my use of the expression "breadcrumbs", rather than "a complete
and definitive source". But it does have *some* services which would be
suitable.
--
Roland Perry

[Vir Campestris]

On 26/03/2022 20:43, Brian Morrison wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 17:35:30 +0000
> Vir Campestris <vir.cam...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> @Fevric, won't social services tell her she's not fit to look after the
>> children?
>

> I'm glad I don't live in your upside-down, 'liberal' universe.
>

In your universe do I have the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre?

It's clear that I do have the right to refuse a preventative that costs
a few pounds, and yet be able to claim later treatment that costs tens
of thousands.

And that I have the right to refuse a preventative that will reduce the
chance of me spreading a lethal disease around the population at large.

Andy

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 26/03/2022 17:35, Vir Campestris wrote:
> On 23/03/2022 13:20, Brian Morrison wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 00:49:13 -0000 (UTC)
>> "Fevric J. Glandules" <f...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> (Ex-Mrs. G. does not consent to vaccination.  Yes, I know).
>>
>> Sensible woman.
>>
>
> Bloody fool.
>
> The jabs have killed almost nobody, and save millions from dying.
>
> It's also helped control the spread of it around the population,
> including those people who are still susceptible even though though
> they've had the jab.
>

I think at the moment something like 16% of the population has covid,
but no one requires hospitalisation.

Whether this proves covid never was dangerous, or that vaccination has
carried us through the most dangerous strains, is moot.

Cost benefit analysis would suggest that if the vaccine is effective, we
should try to vaccinate so many people that as many die from vaccine
side effects as from COVID.

I can see the GreatUnwashed understanding that...



--
In todays liberal progressive conflict-free education system, everyone
gets full Marx.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 26/03/2022 20:43, Brian Morrison wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 17:35:30 +0000
> Vir Campestris <vir.cam...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>

>> @Fevric, won't social services tell her she's not fit to look after the
>> children?
>

> I'm glad I don't live in your upside-down, 'liberal' universe.
>

Yup. Enforcing chlorine treated water on humans to eliminate cholera has
been a step too far IMHO.

And education - public education - is wasted on the millennial snoflakes.


--
“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the
urge to rule it.”
– H. L. Mencken

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 10:29:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 26/03/2022 17:35, Vir Campestris wrote:
>
>> The jabs have killed almost nobody, and save millions from dying.
>>
>> It's also helped control the spread of it around the population,
>> including those people who are still susceptible even though though
>> they've had the jab.
>>
>I think at the moment something like 16% of the population has covid,
>but no one requires hospitalisation.
>
>Whether this proves covid never was dangerous, or that vaccination has
>carried us through the most dangerous strains, is moot.

It's not moot. It's absolutely blindingly obvious that vaccination is
the reason. Despite current infection rates being higher than in the
first two waves, hospitalisation and death rates are considerably lower.
And it's not because the current variant is milder. In parts of the
world which don't have near-full vaccination rates, hospitalisation and
death rates are still high and the authorities are still having to
resort to lockdowns.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/11/hong-kong-tackles-deadliest-covid-wave
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/inside-hong-kongs-overwhelmed-hospitals-covid-cases-hit-new/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/28/shanghai-to-lock-down-millions-for-mass-testing-as-chinas-covid-cases-surge
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/03/27/shanghai-plunged-lockdown-infections-soar-chinas-major-covid/

Mark

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 28/03/2022 12:02, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 10:29:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
> <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 26/03/2022 17:35, Vir Campestris wrote:
>>
>>> The jabs have killed almost nobody, and save millions from dying.
>>>
>>> It's also helped control the spread of it around the population,
>>> including those people who are still susceptible even though though
>>> they've had the jab.
>>>
>> I think at the moment something like 16% of the population has covid,
>> but no one requires hospitalisation.
>>
>> Whether this proves covid never was dangerous, or that vaccination has
>> carried us through the most dangerous strains, is moot.
>
> It's not moot. It's absolutely blindingly obvious that vaccination is
> the reason. Despite current infection rates being higher than in the
> first two waves, hospitalisation and death rates are considerably lower.
> And it's not because the current variant is milder. In parts of the
> world which don't have near-full vaccination rates, hospitalisation and
> death rates are still high and the authorities are still having to
> resort to lockdowns.

That last is the killer piece of information.

>
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/11/hong-kong-tackles-deadliest-covid-wave
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/inside-hong-kongs-overwhelmed-hospitals-covid-cases-hit-new/
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/28/shanghai-to-lock-down-millions-for-mass-testing-as-chinas-covid-cases-surge
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/03/27/shanghai-plunged-lockdown-infections-soar-chinas-major-covid/
>
> Mark

And since its not JUST the Guardian it may actually be true.

There is a very real debate however as to how much we are individuals
with freedoms, and how much we are members of a common herd and should
conform for the good of all.

And of course how much abuse of 'for the common good' is currently an
excuse for massive profits, and suppression of political dissent...

There is another aspect of course, and that is social Darwinism, in that
vaccination rates are high enough to both protect and reduce the rate of
infection to the point where the only people likely to catch the disease
and die of it are the unvaccinated.

Like criminals, society can tolerate a small proportion of anti-vaxxers.

I have often felt a bit of Monte Carlo game theory might be applied to
social conformity to see how many non conformists benefit society and at
what point it becomes a destabilsing influence.

--
Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the
gospel of envy.

Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill

[Fevric J. Glandules]

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> I think at the moment something like 16% of the population has covid,
> but no one requires hospitalisation.

The Graun has it at 17,685.

[Roland Perry]

In message <t1ssut$nru$1...@dont-email.me>, at 17:57:49 on Mon, 28 Mar

2022, Fevric J. Glandules <f...@invalid.invalid> remarked:

That's the latest government figure. And it doesn't matter if these are
people who were admitted because of Covid symptoms, or those admitted
for a broken leg who also tested positive. Either set have to be treated
in Covid-secure facilities which both reduces the hospital's capacity,
and increases the workload.
--
Roland Perry