I have not signed it and will not sign it, for a very simple reason: This kind of thing should not be decided by popularity contest nor politicians (ultimately a popularity contest again). Just look at airport security theatre to see what happens when you get this wrong - after 9/11 everyone was screaming at the government to do something about the threat. As a result, they put in place a system of ludicrously expensive and almost certainly completely ineffective defences - what made the attacks so devastating was that they were unexpected, so the solution would have to try and guard against the unexpected rather than the specific thing the bad guys did last time.
NHS funds are finite, so whilst you can (depending on your financial circumstances) spend a lot on unproven treatments that you personally believe in, you cannot ask the NHS to pay for all of them. At the end of the day, every pound spend on diabetes care means that there's a pound less available for helping the babies with cancer.
Personally, I am a T1 patient so I get all the test strips on prescription but spend another £8 per day on CGM. Do I think that it helps me? Yes, sure, otherwise I wouldn't continue to pay for it? Would it be nice if the NHS paid for it? Well, of course. Do I, rationally, have any reason to think that it does anything? No, none whatsoever. As a result, asking the NHS to pay for it is wrong.
My understanding is that there is no evidence showing that testing is effective in T2. If that's incorrect, then give me a study and send a copy to NICE as well. They are not stupid, and they're not trying to kill us. I'm sure that there's ample funding available - all the big players have already developed products, and conclusive proof that every T2 patients needs to test 4x a day would instantly increase demand tenfold.
And please don't try appealing to my common sense and telling me that you can't know if your treatment is working without testing - that's an argument from theory, which is a bad. Textbook biochemistry is an excellent tool for producing hypotheses worth testing but not sufficient on it's own. If you want to have some fun, go look at any nutritional supplements. For example, Diabetone (IIRC this is the most popular product around here) has " These include L- Carnitine, Vitamin B1 (Thiamin), plus B6 and C, which are important factors in glucose metabolism.". That's an argument from theory, and entirely true - the important thing they're not saying is that this will *do* anything, because their own research shows that it doesn't do anything.
TL;DR: The decision about which medical interventions should be financed should be made by experts in the relevant field (which we are not) who are familiar with the relevant research (which we are not) and thus able to make an informed decision (which we are not).