3 of 3: Without (1) & not providing free RATs to households, only privileged & wealthy will be able to protect themselves & reduce wider risk of spread.

Jan 1, 2022 路 10:28 PM UTC

198
1,149
62
5,372
Load newest
Replying to @MarylouiseMcla1
My daughter is a student and does not live with me. She relies on casual work. She is isolating. With no income how can she afford the RAT?
1
1
14
Replying to @MarylouiseMcla1
It is shameful
6
Replying to @MarylouiseMcla1
And today鈥檚 positivity rate ?
1
Replying to @MarylouiseMcla1
Just spent $78 for a box! Criminal
Replying to @MarylouiseMcla1
馃ぃ馃ぃ馃ぃ馃ぃ馃ぃ馃ぃ馃ぃ馃ぃ馃ぃ
Replying to @MarylouiseMcla1
Basically Scomo is saying he doesn鈥檛 give a RATs
20
Replying to @MarylouiseMcla1
So true.
Replying to @MarylouiseMcla1
Tried to get 3 RATs so we could test b4 seeing my sister in law who has MS. The chemist said there was a limit of 2. Luckily 1 other person was in the car to buy the 3rd. Cost $16.95 each. 1 came back invalid. No refund given. Told 2 buy another 1. Who can afford this?
1
Replying to @MarylouiseMcla1 @MikeCarlton01
Meanwhile Harvey Norman is selling RATs What a coincidence.
Replying to @MarylouiseMcla1 @saysgrumpysuzie
It is a false protection, unless they are RATting their visitors, they will only know when they have COVID.
Load more