Jump to content

Lost Login

Regulars
  • Content Count

    6,199
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Lost Login

  1. 10 minutes ago, Zarley said:

    Sorry, but you are being extremely rude, dismissive and disrespectful. By insisting on referring to DOCTOR Glover as Mrs or Ms, you are implying that she's just another person with an opinion, rather than an expert in her field. 

    And funny how you use JW as an example of not using a person's title, when he is another one who insists on using Ms rather than Dr.  

    Your refusal to use Dr Glover's proper title makes you look like a petulant child with an axe to grind, a child who doesn't care - or doesn't care to understand - how offensive you're being. 

    Also, your petulant refusal to use Dr Glover's proper title makes you sound petty and, for me, renders much of your opinion worthless.  

    But calling the director of Public Health Hetty or similar rather than Dr Henrietta Ewart in posts is fine. I look forward to all future reference to HQ or DA as being The Hon.......

    I refer to virtually all as Mr, Mrs, Miss, Mr or by their names except when dealing with them professionally. You may not like it but I try not to pick and choose who I think deserve to be given their full title and who don't.

    • Like 1
  2. 4 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

    @Lost LoginIt has been explained to you numerous times in pretty clear terms that the genomics would be a valuable tool to aid the shoe leather work of the contact tracing team. You seem to be purposefully ignoring this point. Would you care to explain why?

    I don't think I am. I want to stop the outbreak as soon as possible. The best way to do that is the test trace and isolate. I may have missed it, and for that I apologise, but it appears that the rapid genome testing is not going to make the slightest bit of difference to that, so giving it such a high profile to make it seem vitally important I think is misleading. I appreciate that not all do 

  3. 4 minutes ago, manxst said:

    Secondly, I’m pretty sure everyone is aware of there being a difference in yes/no Covid testing, and genome testing. Obviously one is more important than the other, but to exclude a further potential ‘weapon’ (however limited you believe it to be) in our armoury in the fight against the virus is negligent, remiss, and inexcusable (especially when it’s being offered for free!).   

    I don't think they are. Certainly in the media briefings some of the journalists appear to struggle to understand.

    It is fine, I came on here to try and understand if I was missing something as to why some where giving the impression that the failure to have rapid local genome testing would seriously compromise stopping the current outbreak. It appears fairly clear from recent posts it does not. I am happy with that so will cease posting for another long period as I have, to my satisfaction, answered my own curiosity. I had really hoped that somebody could have posted in way that I understood why rapid genome testing was so important in stopping the local outbreak since the noise over it and I am disappointed that it appears that really it will make little difference one way or another.

  4. Just now, AcousticallyChallenged said:

    I think what you're missing is a key piece of information.

    Genomic testing is simply an opportunity that isn't typically available for outbreaks in communities the size of the island.

    In the UK, they take a sampling approach for surveillance, testing 1 in N samples, but don't have the luxury of being able to trace the outbreak to such a fine level, especially not in conjunction with contact tracing data.

    Whilst trace, test, isolate can be effective, we have an opportunity to be a trailblazer in combining the data from that, with the data from the genomic sequencing.

    This will not only identify how it has spread, but help us avoid a repeat scenario in the future. Understanding how it spreads on a small community level would also contribute to the scientific body of knowledge.

    Pray tell, where's the downside?

    No downside and I have said repeatedly it would be good to have. What I wanted to understand was there a serious downside in stopping the current outbreak from not presently having. From the recent posts it appears there is no serious downside from not presently having but that appears not to be the impression Ms Glover wishes to give the general public. I appreciate that may be totally unintentional but I do not see that as good. If there was a serious downside then yes, scream it from the rooftops.

  5. 6 minutes ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

    Well, understandably, one would be inclined to believe the microbiologist's opinion.

    And there is the issue. Ms Glover's tweets are, I believe, giving many a misleading impression and because of her position people will take far more notice of what she says. A local nutter screaming the world is about it end is different to Brian Cox stating it.

    • Like 1
  6. 6 minutes ago, manxst said:

    Dr Glover has been recommending various testing as you state, from at least Oct (I didn’t bother checking before that).

     

     

     

    But Covid testing and genome sequencing are different issues. I don't thinks many would disagree with the points made with regard to testing for Covid. As others have said that, in respect of testing, was a matter of logic. As I have said before it should be remembered that the 7 day test though was not compulsory,  you only took if you wanted to be able to have a days exercise. I think you also had to pay for it unless you were a medical transfer so it was never introduced as a means of picking up cases.

    By banging on about that she could do same day genome sequencing, in my view, Ms Glover is giving the view that there is a continued failure in testing , which I believe is wrong, and I am concerned about that messaging since it appears that whether or not we gave rapid genome sequencing is fairly irrelevant in stopping the current outbreak. 

    • Like 1
  7. 8 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

    Please stop disrespecting her by calling her Mrs.  She is not married.  Her title is Dr Glover.

    Self publicity?  Let me explain.  There are still people out there, good people, people who care about the Isle of Man, and it's residents and are prepared to put themselves out there to help with no thoughts of reward. Altruistic people do still exist you know? Just because we are used to the cut-throat, scheming politics demonstrated by government it is easy to believe that everyone else is out to get something for nothing.  This is not the case here.

    Dr Glover is trying to save us from further incompetent action that could result in further lockdown, further restrictions, and an escalation of infection and death.

    You suggesting it's self publicity says more about you than it could ever say about her.

     

    Sorry I will refer to Ms Glover in future. I appreciate she is qualified but I do have an aversion to referring to individuals by their qualification or occupation in general conversation.  We don't a general rule refer to John Wright as advocate John Wright or refer to people's qualifications in their names so I always wonder why we do as for a certain qualification or profession. You have retired armed forces personnel who still want to be called by their rank when enlisted. That is just an aside.

    With regard to "Dr Glover is trying to save us from further incompetent action that could result in further lockdown, further restrictions, and an escalation of infection and death" in my view that is just appears to be irrational hype.  In the, hopefully, rather sensible discussion over the last 24 hrs it seems that whilst genome testing might provide interesting information it will do little speed up the elimination and eradication of the current outbreak. John Wright I think put it well. Testing, tracing and isolation are what are important to stop the current outbreak.

    Tweeting, as Ms Glover did, makes it appear that the failure to have rapid genome results is vital in stopping the current outbreak, preventing further lockdowns etc. It is not in my view. Those are based on having good testing for Covid 19, good tracing and good self isolation procedures. None of them relate to genome sequences. Maybe not deliberately but Ms Glover's tweets give the impression that the not having rapid genome testing on the IoM is a major failure in bringing the current outbreak under control. Additionally it seems some think that the genome sequencing is the same as testing for Covid 19 and think there is a delay in getting testing results. My in laws did. Whatever her issues with IoM Govt appearing to try and undermine the message from IoM Govt and their health advisors at present does look to me as though she is prioritising her own interest.

    I started posting again yesterday as I was genuinely interested as to why it appeared that some the failure to do rapid genome testing on the IoM would prolong the current outbreak. I could not see it and I still cannot see it. Test, trace and isolate is what will get us back to normal. Genome sequencing whilst interesting and, I am sure, important in a future review will make little any difference whether we have same day results, after 7 or 14 days or never. 

     

     

       

    • Like 2
  8. 5 minutes ago, dreamon said:

    Dr Glover tweeted ...

    'Just watched the briefing. No genome results yet after 2 weeks. If

    get in touch I will sequence all the positive cases to date since NYE for free and link/cluster the transmission chains of those cases FOR FREE within 48 hours. All they have to do is ask.
     

    Genuine offer or self publicity.?

    Taken at face value it is a great offer although the issue seems to have been elevated so that it appears rapid genome sequences is of vital importance when that does not appear to be the case. 

    A cynic might question whether after this length of time and stuff being sent across the stuff is still available to be tested. If not then it is a bit of a hollow offer. I have no idea.

    I would like to see a bit of a compromise. In future, if we can, the stuff is split in two and genome sequenced both in the UK and IoM. The IoM has the rapid results and they still go into the UK set. Presumably Mrs Glover offer of doing for free would stand as we appears to have only a relatively small number of cases. 

     

     

    • Like 1
  9. 1 minute ago, Banker said:

    Henny said she’s happy with 14 days and Howie said they would consider restrictions on Monday in light of weekend cases

    I could see them announcing what they intend to do in the future if there are no new cases that are not people already in self isolation but I would expect and hope that they are not introduced for a week or so. Another few days to be certain is better than risking returning to the current lockdown   

  10. 8 hours ago, Gladys said:

    Firstly, she is Dr Glover, as in PhD.

    Secondly, I am not sure many of us are confusing the two.   Simply, testing is "do you have it" and genome testing is "what do you have". 

    What we are saying is she is an microbiologist with expertise in really little things and finding them.  We do not have anyone else with that expertise.  What we are fighting at the moment is a really little thing, and even smaller bits of it. 

    If you have read any of her tweets, she found the very machine needed to set up the lab for testing, unused, under a cover and had another bit of kit needed.  She trained other staff and from all accounts, even our beloved leaders before the spat, had set up a world beating facility so we could "test,test, test"  We did not have a basic covid testing facility.

    Yet we stopped testing, contrary to her very learned opinion.  Cynics may say it was because we didn't want any positives. Others may think that testing regardless of required isolation is a good idea because you would have a better understanding of where it is and how it was behaving.  Testing, regardless of isolation, would have revealed the 1886 case, probably, and would have indicated that the then requirement of only returnees isolating in a household was not right. Surveillance being a very useful tool in any war.

    Lastly, it would also help in understanding if there were any changes in the virus, such as incubation period and infectiousness, such as we have with the new variant. 

    The genome sequencing is a development from the testing that would seem to be a very useful source of information in the fight.  We could quickly identify if we had a variant found elsewhere which would indicate a different approach.  We no longer have that and have to send away for sequencing, with at least a two week turn around. 

    Having those capabilities will greatly assist in future, allowing greater freedom and a sophisticated approach to borders.  That is all. 

    Mrs Glover did a great job in setting up the testing facility in the IoM for which we should all be extremely grateful. I would not argue that the IoM should have done more testing and had stricter isolation and testing rules and that the rules for those coming over as key workers etc were not strict enough. We seem to have had an influx of people around Christmas time who you would wonder under which of the criteria they qualified. I think one of the current MHK's had several pictures of their parents visiting them over Christmas on their facebook page.

    I would not disagree with you about the advantages of genomic testing but we have such a small sample size we are not going to pick up any variations over here. The UK will do that far before we will. Yes it would be good to know if the strain we have includes the one that is more infectious or has a longer incubation period, but if the IoM Govt planning and acting on the case that all cases are the "worst" strain knowing for definite is nice but changes nothing in terms of what we are doing over here.

    If we had rapid results from Genomics sequencing then great but my one fear would be that it showed we did not have the new more infectious variant in the IoM. That I appreciate is probably unlikely. If the public were aware of that would they become complacent and stop worrying about ensuring the social distance, isolate, wear face masks etc. Best in my view to presume all cases are the most infectious variant and act accordingly 

  11. 7 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

    Unfortunately not.  The most recent case in the community (not in isolation, not linked to known cases) was only on Thursday and there were similar cases every one of the four days before.  So any of those could have been infecting loads of other people and those in turn infecting others.  We won't know for weeks yet.

    Again genomics could help trace where these came from; tracing could help identify contacts, especially medium risk ones; testing of such people would help identify and isolate further cases; re-testing would make sure that close contacts remained negative.

    I have no idea if these things are happening (apart from the genomics which isn't) and with regard to testing even the DHSC doesn't seem to know what  280-ish or so daily tests are for - many may be the 1/7/14-day ones on returning travellers.

    As I understand it most cases show up with 5 to 10 days with very few after after day 14. We are now into, I think day 11, of the lockdown, so the chances of new cases not linked to known cases is diminishing everyday. We have had only something like 30 cases which are not day 1, 7 or 13 cases and a good percentage of those are family members  or people who were self isolating as they were a close contact case and therefore only infectious after they started self isolating. Of the four cases you refer to for part of the period they were infectious the current restrictions were in place and any high risk contacts of these people would have been traced and required to self isolate. We might have a few cases from these the next week or so hopefully those people are already in self isolation. Only time will tell but presently it appears that a pretty good job has been to date in tracking contacts and stopping transmission. Certainly there appears to be no increase in numbers so there at present appears to be no indication "any of those could have been infecting loads of other people and those in turn infecting others" The numbers this week should indicate whether they have and whether the tracing has been effective as if it is those testing positive had have already had to self isolate.

    Testing as you rightly said is important is this. The genomics sequencing appears not to be as the important thing is to stop transmission. As you say it is important that close contacts are identified, they self isolate and are tested. As soon as they test positive there close contacts are required to self isolate and tested. I presume that is happening from the numbers of tests. That is an assumption but I presume very few are travelling at present outside hospital cases as there are 210 tests shown as being due. Ashford said these included scheduled day 7 & 13 tests and if that remains the case this number would be increasing substantially if many were travelling.

    I can understand that Genomics can give reassurance that your tracing is accurate but as from all the recent posts posting appear to indicate it can only link you to which of the clusters it may be from if there are more than one with different sequences and not to whom you caught it off I still do not see that at this point that it is extremely vital that it is done in the IoM as a matter of urgency to stop the current outbreak. Nice to have yes, crucial no. The crucial aspect is the speed of the test and tracing and people self isolating. The Genomics argument at this point is a distraction 

     

      

     

    • Like 1
  12. 46 minutes ago, Gladys said:

    Isn't there an ethical issue with vets treating humans?  If there is, then needs must would indicate a relaxation from the Royal College. 

    I don't think so. I believe Vets can treat humans but Doctors can not treat animals. That used to be on the basis that humans could give the Vet permission but the animal could not give a doctor permission. I think it is the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 that states who can treat animals and it is stricter than rules covering doctors and human. A doctor can carry out surgery on an animal if specifically asked to by a Vet.  

    • Thanks 2
  13. 21 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

    We still don't have an answer as to why COMIN decided to end testing when they did. Presumably they were advised by the 'medics' that because the virus wasn't in the community it wasn't necessary to continue. Dr. Glover said that was not a good idea. Postulating on whether genome sequencing etc brings any value to the debate now is lost, is background noise and semantics. Had testing continued with the regime that Dr Glover suggested then we probably wouldn't be in lockdown now. 

    We need an answer as to why testing was withdrawn in it's entirety.

    I agree. Mrs Glover's background and position give her views more weight than the like of most of us on this website but simple logic was all that was required to understand that if you wanted to be pretty sure a new arrival could not infect others in the community then you needed to test on 1, 7 and 13 or something close to if they lived with others. If you self isolate on your own day 7 testing is probably pretty irrelevant.  If you share accommodation then testing on day 1 & 13 is no guarantee. The initial carrier at day 13 may have ceased to be positive and if they have passed on another person in the property that person may still be showing negative. That is pretty logical.

    The IoM Govt has, over time, changed the rules as its view of the threat has changed.  It did try enforcing self-isolation at the Commis but many kicked off. Before the students came back at Christmas they changed the rules so that a whole household had to self isolate and not just the traveller. You can no longer isolate with others unless they travelled with you but I am not sure if that changed pre or post the new cases. People are not happy with, the most high profile one being the guy who can not stay with his wife who had a heart attack. If only he had thought of travelling to see and be with her in Liverpool. Other times you could leave your property for a walk whilst isolating after travelling, other times you could not

    Various comments have been made with regard to withdrawing the testing on the 7th day as if that was a relaxing of restrictions. From memory the 7 day testing was introduced to allow people who had and passed the test to leave their house for an hour a day for a walk. The test was voluntary and if you did not have you had to stay in your property for the full 14 days. I think when they took away the voluntary test after 7 days and said everybody must stay in their property for the full 14 days Govt thought they were tightening and not relaxing restrictions.

    All the above is to do with basic Covid 19 testing and not the Genomic "testing". At times I think the two get confused or interlinked.

     

      

    • Like 1
  14. 16 minutes ago, Gladys said:

    Lost Login, as I understand it, genomics gives an audit trail.

    Yes, but is that audit trail one which tells you who has read a specific copy of a book or does it tell you who passed to who after reading. I get the impression it is the first with the odd occasion it is the latter as the sequence changes slightly, but that is only an impression

  15. 38 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

    Well actually it might.  Or more likely it might stop the need to extend lockdown for longer.  I(f say a new case appears and you can link it to an existing cluster that you know about through genomics and pick up all the likely contacts, then you don't need to think about lockdown in the same way you might if it was a new unrelated case appearing from nowhere.

    Of course it also helps in such circumstances if you have good track and trace and carry out a lot of testing (in New Zealand anyone with cold symptoms is encouraged to have a test).  And that you provide good support, both financial and otherwise to those who have to isolate - so people don't have to worry about testing positive and so will be more willing to come forward for a test.

    But there have been several times over the last few months in New Zealand where individual cases have appeared (usually in those working in isolation facilities) and by tracing the virus back to the person who brought it in, they were able to have life go on as normal.

    Thanks. Any new cases now should be travel cases, caught pre lockdown and they are already in isolation or caught from a party you are isolating with. If an individual tests positive for Covid 19 outside that they are going to extend lockdown or whatever. I am not disregarding the use of Genomics but in the present case the IoM appears pretty sure how it got out again and where. There is little evidence of infection from other sources ad even if there was the IoM would do nothing different to break transmission so on this specific instance whether Mrs Glover and IoM Govt are having a fight or a love in it would not appear that it is going to make much practical difference to most of us. That is really one of the things I was trying to understand as the impression that some have given is that the failure to use Mrs Glover's facility was going to cause the lockdown to be considerably extended. I don't get the impression from here that is likely to be the case although what it might have done is given some added reassurance which is no bad thing.

    Final question and you may not have any idea but is much of this a moot point as I have no idea what after doing swabs etc the IoM retain and for how long, especially if stuff has been sent to the UK. Even if Mrs Glover & IoM Govt kissed and made up could the sequencing tests actually be run as are the samples she needs still kept. I would have thought they might have been destroyed under fairly tight protocols.  

  16. 39 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

    The straight fact is that fast accurate genomics of the various cases picked up would have told the contact tracing team how many main lines of transmission there had been. This would make their job much easier. In at least one of the briefings Henrietta has said they've got a case with no clear line of transmission. Genomics would help link to other known clusters.

    I'll try to explain with a hypothetical. I'm not sure of current numbers, or the finer details so I'll kind of make them up. 40 current active cases, of which 15 are known travelers in isolation, so we can ignore them. Of the other 25 say, 10 are linked in one cluster and 9 in another, through either family or location but no established link between the groups. Then there is another little group of 4 that the contact team can reliably put with each other, and then there are two individual cases with no idea how they have come about. This is where the genomics comes in. Can we put these different groups together or are they 5 different routes of infection? 

    If they are all the same then you can be very comfortable that by isolating those people you will be closing that transmission down. But say that group of 4 is different to the others, or its one of the individuals, then you know that there is a good chance it is still out there and more work needs to be done.

    Fast genomics is a very valuable tool for the purposes of contact tracing and closing down routes of transmission.

    That's my understanding anyway, I hope it makes sense.

    Genomics I understand will assist you in knowing which cluster cases belong to but not I struggle to see how it assist directly tracing transmission/contacts as the tracers want to know who you caught it off and who you may have transmitted it to,   

     In your example an individual infects a group in Ramsey, and a Group in Douglas.  Presumably testing will find all those people with the same sequencing of vaccine. A time later another individual is tested to be found positive and has the same sequencing.  Genomics can link it back to the Ramsey Group or Douglas Group but I am not sure it can differentiate as to which Group or whether it passed through an intermediary in between. I may be totally wrong in that but this why although I understand Genomics is useful I am really struggle to understand why using Mrs Glover’s facility will speed up the breakage of transmission in the Isle of Man under the present circumstances and that in practical terms it therefore makes little difference whether het facility or a different one is used.

     To me it would always be preferable to use a local service provider but in terms of stopping the current outbreak, as you can see, I still struggle to understand how getting to run Genomic testing now or over the last week or so really would have accelerated breaking the chain of transmission. We don't appear to the number of unknown cases etc that would seem to give any benefit. If on the other hand we were trying to eliminate by track and trace and only requesting those to lockdown whilst everybody else continued as normal then I totally understand why it would be very useful.

  17. 1 minute ago, TheTeapot said:

    I didn't say that bit at all. It absolutely would help 'cease the transmission'.

    Apologies If I misunderstood you. When you said "It would probably not, because the lockdown is a political decision." in response to my question how will it assist us getting out of lockdown quicker I took that to mean you agreed it would not stop transmission and therefore lockdown quicker. You are differentiating the two and therefore suggesting that the speed of getting out of lockdown is not directly linked to the speed of transmission.

    Fair enough. How will using Dr Glover's Genomic testing help cease the transmission in the IoM quicker than the current lockdown will. In my simple mind, the lockdown stops contacts between people which stops the transmission. If we  all self isolated for a period of 4/5 weeks, impractical I know, transmission is broken and end of the virus.  

  18. 6 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

    Because we don't know that there has only been one introduction this time and about a third of the cases had no obvious contact with another person infected.  So it could have come on the Island several times in recent weeks.  Genomics would reassure us there was only one source and if not we could look to see how the other infections arrived and how measures could be improved.

     

    Thanks so the point really is That as teapot says it will not help us cease the transmission and get us out of lockdown any quicker than the current measures will. What it potentially does is assist us reviewing if there were multiple sources, how they were linked, how tracing worked etc and then making sure that we look to improve for the future. On that basis whilst I can see people taking sides on the spat between the Govt and Rachel Glover based on personalities etc in practical terms in respect of getting out of lockdown it does not make much difference who does the sequencing and whether we get the results back in 24hrs, 48hrs, 7 days or 14 days. 

    That is in part what I was trying to understand as the impression given my some, again not necessarily on Manx Forums, was that not using her Genomic testing facility was going to greatly delay getting the current restrictions lifted. From what you are saying that appears not to be the case.

  19. 31 minutes ago, Rhumsaa said:

    However, I am also a practical chap and going forward I can understand why the IOM Gov wouldn't want to go back into that relationship - once burned and all that. Also the offer from Dr Glover is not exactly going to encourage anyone to do it because there's no opportunity to save face or put a positive spin on it.

    So everyone doubles down.

    And the Manx public lose.

    I like to think I am practically minded so I will raise the same question I raised in my recent post to Acoustically Challenged. Does this spat delay us getting out of lockdown as I would have thought that lockdown is what will stop the transmission quickly and enable normal life to resume. That is what is I am focusing on and what seems important at this point.  

  20. 1 hour ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

    You can actually tell how many times the virus has been introduced into the community, and how it has progressed through the community too.

    Dr Glover's blog explains it with a nice diagram here: https://rachomics.blog/

    It gives you the answers as to who it is likely to have passed between directly, but also, where hops have been missed. It can either reassure you that your contact tracing is working, or alert you to a more widespread problem.

    Thanks, you are Roger Mexico have responded in a similar fashion. I can understand how you can see how it has passed through the community as if there are several different sequences being passed on you can see how they are spreading. If one is spreading more than the other you could target those with that strain so I can see that could be useful. As the IoM is taking the approach of lockdown to quickly stop transmission though I am not sure that actually helps the IoM eliminate.

    I don’t understand the bit about telling how many times the virus has been introduced as that would require there to be numerous different strains and numerous introductions into the community. We seem to have small number of cases the majority of which they appear to have traced to their source so it does not appear that we will have numerous strains and numerous introductions. Whether we have or not how does knowing that help us stop or resolve the current transmission quicker than the current lock down does.   

    I read Dr Glover’s blog and I think I understand it. The sequencing will tell you who it has passed directly between as they will have the same sequence. I understand that would be useful as if there is an unknown sequence then you have a source you are not aware of.  Similarly I can see that it could show where hops have been missed although with the limited cases we have in the IoM the sequencing would have to slightly very quickly for that to apply. Does the sequencing change that quickly. Again though whether we the information or not how does knowing that help us stop or resolve the current transmission quicker than the current lock down does. I have not got much interest in the spat between IoM Govt and Mrs Glover, they are both getting my back up, beyond is it preventing us getting out of lockdown quicker than we would expect to do based on the current lockdown.

    I can see the rest being interesting science and information you would like to review in due course when reviewing procedures, cross checking how good your tracing was but I am struggling to understand how it would speed us out of lockdown which Is what seems to be implied by some.  I am not necessarily referring to just posts on Manx Forums.  

  21. There seems to be a lot of comment about the numbers of those in the IoM who are 80+ who have already been vaccinated. The feeling appears that it is disappointing low but are we out of line with other countries. Jersey was reporting that of the first 3,590 people who had received the vacine only 734 were over 80. that is 15% of the 80+ population. https://www.gov.je/News/2021/Pages/COVIDVaccineStats.aspx

    It seems that vaccinating key workers in health case, nursing homes might be the priority or may reflect how difficult it is to transport the Pfizer vaccine. I would have hoped that in the IoM that we would be doing better than only 20% of the jabs going to those 80 but if it turns out they are prioritising patient transfers I would not complain.

    Getting the vaccine in people as fast as you can or doing it in a manner that means you can basically guarantee that you do in accordance with how the producers state you should is  in my view, very much a matter of choice. If the virus was running rampant as in the USA, UK I can see the appeal of injecting a dose to as many as possible as quickly as possible as soon as possible. The IoM is not in that position so I can see the merits of ensuring that you can rigidly follow the guidelines. There are enough reports in the media about manufacturing delays and delivery delays in the UK to doctors practices that I can understand that if you decide to follow best practice you might wait until you can guarantee you give the second dose before you give the first.

    The booths in the airport seem totally over the top. In a hospital ward they separate you with a curtain. If they "take your bloods" at noble it is in a designated room but you are not separated so it seems totally unnecessary. I am not sure why there is such a demand for the airport and Douglas vaccination to be completed in such a rush as it appears that they will only be required from March when it appears that the IoM will start receiving much larger supplies of the vaccine. It seems in the meantime we are just going to receive a thousand doses here and there. The important thing is that they are ready when we need them not 4, 6 or 8 weeks before we need them but seeing how slow things proceed at times and that simple and cheap options are not chosen I can understand why people want to see them finished just so that for once the IoM Govt can actually meet a deadline.   

     

  22. 12 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

    This is broadly it. It's not really different strains, but much more detailed than that. You can see on sites like nextstrain.org that there are absolutely millions of variations, and it is this that is of use.

    So using your examples, say tomorrow they pick up 4 cases, and all are ABCD1 then they all came from the same source, who we theoretically know about cos they got tested the other day. But if one was ABCD5 and that hasn't been seen before and the person hasn't been away then somewhere someone else has brought that over with them and its got out somewhere. So it could help guide the contact tracing efforts, if the information is used in the right way.

    That's my understanding anyway.

    If I understand you correctly it basically just provides the broad brush approach. It may tell you if a new strain has been brought in, it does not really help in the tracing where it is just the current strains circulating which is where the IoM should be at with the lock downs and current isolation and testing procedure for those arriving. It might identify though if those arriving don't stick to the rules and pass it on.

    • Like 1
  23. My knowledge of Genomics is limited so as we seem to have numerous apparent experts on here so I would be grateful if one of them could enlighten me on the level of information it can provide to assist in tracing.

     

    I understand that it can identify between different stands of the Virus so there is level of usefulness in that. i.e. if all previous cases were stand A then if you have a new case which is strand B it shows you have a new source. If you have a couple of initial source and one was strand A and the other Strand B then knowing that you can work out from which source new cases originated. I can see that could potentially limit the amount of tracing. That though is a very broad brush approach and the more cases you have the less useful it would appear to become. Additionally if knowing what strain it is does not affect the treatment, the symptoms the proposed course of action etc then whilst I can see it would be nice to know I cannot see why it is deemed by many here to be important to know.

     

    Part of the answer is probably down to my lack of knowledge or understanding. Rachel Glover’s post stated “If they fancied sending everything from the NYE cases to date down to my lab I'd sequence them all in 24hrs and in 36 hours they'd have the transmission chains of all cases since then mapped, linked, characterised and a report sent back for Henrietta and the contact tracing team to match up with their tracing data”. This gives the impression that it is so accurate and the sequencing so specific that having run the tests it can identify who a person caught the virus from. i.e in very simplistic terms f the code for the first the person was ABCD1, the second was ABCD 2, the third ABCD 2 you could trace who infected who, If there were several ABCD2 or ABCD3s you could see how many a person had infected. If you saw no ABCD4s then you would know the change had been stopped if you saw ABCD5s but not ABCD4s you would know cases had been missed. Is this the level of detail Genomic testing would give because whilst I see numerous references in this thread to Genomics which almost make it seem like the silver bullet solution. I cannot see much by way of explanation of why although I may have overlooked. I presume that those advocating strongly can explain in a way that relatively straight forward to understand.

     

    The Govt have chosen to use a UK lab for the sequencing. The reason appears to be because it is then included in a greater data collection program. The importance of that I have no idea of but I think there is no argument that Rachel Glover’s lab in the IoM would do it quicker. I have no idea of the importance of that sequencing and as stated above I would be grateful if somebody would provide a idiots explanation. If it is important would the best solution to try and have the best of both worlds in that you sequence in both the UK and the IoM. This gives you the quick results from the IoM lab whilst the UK lab can still use as part of the data collection program. I presume that the relevant material is separated into several portions as Rachel Glover yesterday publically offered to sequence the positive tests that the IoM Govt are still waiting the Genomic results back from the UK. This would indicate that only part of the relevant material is sent to the UK and some is retained in the IoM.

     

     

     

     

    • Like 1
  24. 7 minutes ago, Amadeus said:

    As explained by others in this topic, it's obvious he was set up by people who know each other. This was a planned attempt at getting a reaction, followed up by a fake shitstorm on social media. Because being woke and outraged is all the rage these days, everyone went right with it. Now self righteous wannabe SJWs are telling everyone to check their privilege and I feel like I walked into a South Park episode. 

    Not obvious to me at all. Set up or not to open his mouth and say stupid things he still said them.

    Would it be acceptable for me to state that you believe that as I understand you are German and we know all Germans have underlying Nazi sympathies and think that the Aryan race are superior and then say it was fine to say that as you set me up?

    I think that to accuse you of that or any German would be pretty outrageous but then I think that to suggest that Obama being president shows that their is no discrimination against black people in the USA or black people etc in the IoM suffer the same level of abuse as those who are fat or ginger.

    Set up or not he opened his mouth and say stupid things. His punishment for that? A slap across the knuckles I think should be sufficient and to be frank some of the postings on here defending what he said I find far more offensive. Judging by many of the postings on here I think that the figures on the 2009 report about racism in the IoM are understated if this site was representative of the IoM as a whole. Hopefully it is not. Mind you I think some of you would argue that if there was a mass lynching by KKK in the IoM you would be arguing it was the fault of those that were lynched as they had not run away fast enough not to be caught.

    I'm done with this site

     

     

×
×
  • Create New...