I think you spoke a little bit too soon there fella.
Careful Winky, or you might be taking the 'inappropriate comment of the year award' off of Murray Walker. 
That would certainly be an achievement, to seize his 'Golden Egg' trophy.
But seriously the kinds of faults that are being highlighted are basic errors that you'd expect a team of software development 'experts' to find in basic test.
Never ever on a signed off for approval, released product, not even prototype version 1.0.
External Link/Members Only.
If the European countries have had similar teething issues with their similar apps, they've rightly hidden their embarrassment from leaking out into.the wider the foreign press.
Oh well, we'll just have to wait for the 'mark 2' release, with all these basic issues ironed out, in Feb 2021, or whenever.
Did I? Firstly, I would never admit to making an inappropriate comment, and certainly within the context of a punting review site. That would be pretty hard to do
.
The thing is with an App, it can be tweaked and updated. Such a tweak has already been made with the Covid App, to allow people who booked a Covid test before they had the App, to log it in the App on their phone.
I have no doubt there will be other things which crop up in the future, and yes, why didn't they think of them before? But Apps are tweakable, and frankly the goalposts are moving all the time with the pandemic.
I don't know what it is about software/App developers, but there always seem to be cock-ups and omissions which a three yr-old would foresee. Or maybe the politicians/scientists writing the spec are a bit thick? Or maybe it's a case of getting a basic, functioning App online asap in the circumstances, who knows?
But I think we're better off with the App than without it. And let's not forget, the best App to fight Covid is probably one which was politically unacceptable for 'privacy reasons' (and that was hotly debated) so it's yet another case of trying to please everyone most of the time.
