Jump to content
Coronavirus topics renamed and some locked. No new topics. ×
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
On The Bus

Coronavirus Isle of Man

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

There might be a few urgent ones swabbed and processed overnight at the hospital, but most of those 74 will be in the community.  They won't be taking non-urgent samples at night and any taken this morning won't have had time to be processed (I think it takes six hours). 

 

2 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

If there are ones that somehow relate to tomorrow - how come the results were ready in the morning, but not at 4pm in the afternoon?

 

1 hour ago, Cambon said:

Not so simple, Roger. Everyone admitted to hospital is tested. On top of which, staff are tested every day. 

So... let me explain :D

The lab starts testing at 8am (ish) with all the hospital admissions from the previous afternoon and overnight. Those tests have results by about 5-6pm (ish) provided they weren't too snotty and needed extra processing which delays them a little. While they are being processed we also start processing a second batch which includes the morning hospital admissions and the grandstand (community) tests which arrive early afternoon. These are started in a second batch of testing which ultimately runs overnight and those results are ready about 9am (ish). Hope that helps the speculation :lol: 

This is a different set of timings than when results appeared electronically from PHE in Manchester, so it's taken a bit of time for the stats people to get used to the different reporting times (give them a chance, it's only day 3 of local testing).

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dilligaf said:

I have to say that this curve thing is bollocks. They reckon we are safe now to ease off, at the same time that the  “care” home has them dropping like flies. 
Ian Wright is nobodies fool and the best poster by a mile on here, but I can’t for the life of me see how it is considered safe to let people back to work in droves. The death toll is rising fast and I can’t see that changing for some time. Maybe letting thousands go back to won’t change the death toll, but to my simple mind, we aren’t even halfway through this pandemic.

"They" are hardly saying it's safe to "ease off." That wasn't the message I got anyway. Something was obviously amiss at Abbotswood and maybe the distancing and isolation rules weren't acted upon soon enough. Who knows, maybe there'll be an inquiry in time. Clusters occur, as with most of the yearly viruses.

The workforce isn't returning in "droves" either, it is partial returns to some trades and services. The figures would suggest the death toll isn't "rising fast" if anything, it has stabilised, with Abbotswood being up to now an exception.

Did you actually listen to the broadcast? Not one of them suggested it was "safe" the emphasis actually was on maintaining caution and there'll be a monitored progression of workers returning to their jobs where the risk is considered lower within certain environments.

As I said earlier, there's another epidemic at large, that is people only hearing what they want to hear and what they don't know they'll make up. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Cambon said:

You had better re-read my post and troll back through this thread then, because it is all there. It is also fact. 

Disregarding this thread you have posted some complete crap lately. You never did before, so I am concerned for your state of mind. I always looked up to you and consumed your opinions. Not sure these days and makes me wonder if someone is using your log in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, quilp said:

"They" are hardly saying it's safe to "ease off." That wasn't the message I got anyway. Something was obviously amiss at Abbotswood and maybe the distancing and isolation rules weren't acted upon soon enough. Who knows, maybe there'll be an inquiry in time. Clusters occur, as with most of the yearly viruses.

The workforce isn't returning in "droves" either, it is partial returns to some trades and services. The figures would suggest the death toll isn't "rising fast" if anything, it has stabilised, with Abbotswood being up to now an exception.

Did you actually listen to the broadcast? Not one of them suggested it was "safe" the emphasis actually was on maintaining caution and there'll be a monitored progression of workers returning to their jobs where the risk is considered lower within certain environments.

As I said earlier, there's another epidemic at large, that is people only hearing what they want to hear and what they don't know they'll make up. 

The figure isn’t rising much.? FFS it had almost doubled in two days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, quilp said:

Thanks for posting that link. I'd noticed a lack of articles listing smoking as a contributing factor to covid deaths and was wondering if it were wishful thinking or if it really wasn't being brought up as a covid thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, quilp said:

The broadcast is still available, have another listen to Quayle's response. 

You Thommo must have heard something that wasn't said!

Alex BBC asked...What protection there would be vulnerable people?

HQ referred to his earlier statement that H&S would police the sites and that one could choose not to work.

If they came under pressure to work, H&S could step in to resolve safety and distancing concerns the person may have.

Gary Roberts said the police would not be on the sites, that would be H&S.

At no time was HQ asked what would happen if the employer fired the worker.

The remit of H&S is, surprisingly, H&S. It does not have any powers regarding contract law or unfair dismissal .

HQ was not asked nor did he say what would happen if someone was fired for refusing to work.

 

Consider........

A small building firm has been using the Govt scheme to subsidise their wage bill, they have applied for the £3000 grant.

Now that they have work again, they will not get that subsidy and possibly, not the grant. That puts them under pressure to cut their costs to suit the level of work and the full cost of the wages.

Do they keep on paying the person who has refused to work £££ to stay at home? or do they fire him because there's not enough work for the full workforce anyway?

If fired it used to be  that you could not get JSA for xx weeks, has the wage subsidy rule been made to negate this? I doubt it!

There is nothing the H&S can do about this situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dilligaf said:

The figure isn’t rising much.? FFS it had almost doubled in two days.

Because of the cluster. It seems you're failing to understand the circumstances of that isolated blip. 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Kopek I don't believe for one minute you listened to that broadcast all the way through. If I remember correctly, the question was posed by the guy from Energy, in the very last few minutes.

Edited to add: The podcast will be up for review tomorrow.

Edited by quilp
After a search.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, quilp said:

Because of the cluster. It seems you're failing to understand the circumstances of that isolated blip. 

Not a “ blip” to a dozen families though and many more to come.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, quilp said:

"They" are hardly saying it's safe to "ease off." That wasn't the message I got anyway. Something was obviously amiss at Abbotswood and maybe the distancing and isolation rules weren't acted upon soon enough. Who knows, maybe there'll be an inquiry in time. Clusters occur, as with most of the yearly viruses.

The workforce isn't returning in "droves" either, it is partial returns to some trades and services. The figures would suggest the death toll isn't "rising fast" if anything, it has stabilised, with Abbotswood being up to now an exception.

Did you actually listen to the broadcast? Not one of them suggested it was "safe" the emphasis actually was on maintaining caution and there'll be a monitored progression of workers returning to their jobs where the risk is considered lower within certain environments.

As I said earlier, there's another epidemic at large, that is people only hearing what they want to hear and what they don't know they'll make up. 

I think Cannon fodder was not too far  of the mark.

Edited by dilligaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Kopek said:

You Thommo must have heard something that wasn't said!

Alex BBC asked...What protection there would be vulnerable people?

HQ referred to his earlier statement that H&S would police the sites and that one could choose not to work.

If they came under pressure to work, H&S could step in to resolve safety and distancing concerns the person may have.

Gary Roberts said the police would not be on the sites, that would be H&S.

At no time was HQ asked what would happen if the employer fired the worker.

The remit of H&S is, surprisingly, H&S. It does not have any powers regarding contract law or unfair dismissal .

HQ was not asked nor did he say what would happen if someone was fired for refusing to work.

 

Consider........

A small building firm has been using the Govt scheme to subsidise their wage bill, they have applied for the £3000 grant.

Now that they have work again, they will not get that subsidy and possibly, not the grant. That puts them under pressure to cut their costs to suit the level of work and the full cost of the wages.

Do they keep on paying the person who has refused to work £££ to stay at home? or do they fire him because there's not enough work for the full workforce anyway?

If fired it used to be  that you could not get JSA for xx weeks, has the wage subsidy rule been made to negate this? I doubt it!

There is nothing the H&S can do about this situation.

A building firm would not be considered self employed would it. That is what the 3K is aimed at

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dilligaf said:

Not a “ blip” to a dozen families though and many more to come.

Sorry Dilli, but when looking at the statistics, only new cases, awaiting testing and active cases (to a degree) are important. Unfortunately, those poor people who have died (two of whom I knew), are unfortunate casualties. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I would share the contents of a conversation I had today with an elderly relative who falls into the vulnerable category with several underlying conditions. She said that she is prepared to stay in lockdown for as long as is necessary. To date she has had a fantastic life and looks forward to a life in the post pandemic future. Today’s technology makes her time inside easier than it would have been in times past as she ironically is getting more family interaction than ever courtesy of Zoom, and she finds comfort by all of the help and goodwill she is receiving from family and friends. What she does not want, and cannot understand why many are calling for it, is an enforced long-term lockdown for the fit and well under 60/70’s until a vaccine is developed. She does not want to see her grandchildren saddled with an enormous national debt. She does not want to see the economy suffer with the inevitable cuts to the services she relies on. She wants her family to get on with life as best they can using their common sense. Maybe the older generation are more stoic and able to handle adversity than the rest of us? Maybe they avoid Facebook comments?.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, dilligaf said:

Not a “ blip” to a dozen families though and many more to come.

This "many more to come." You're referring to more possible deaths at Abbotswood, I presume, and not in the public domain. Unfortunately, it's quite probable though the sickest residents have wisely been transferred to Nobles and hopefully some will pull through. But for now, the recent spike of deaths have all been residents of the home and an exceptional case. The point in question is the risk to workers returning to their workplace. IoM government seem to think it's worth the perceived risk, and the danger has possibly lessened, as long as precautions are followed. It is a gamble, a tentative move to restoring some normalcy. At what point it would be safe for all is anyone's guess. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Cambon said:

Sorry Dilli, but when looking at the statistics, only new cases, awaiting testing and active cases (to a degree) are important. Unfortunately, those poor people who have died (two of whom I knew), are unfortunate casualties. 

Each and everyone of those 12 people were human beings with loving families. They are not just fucking  statistics, they were real people with real families. 
How dare anyone just talk about them as statistics. 

What has happened to us  for people to use numbers instead of names. Society has degenerated of late as it seems “social media” has taken over from decency and morals 

Edited by dilligaf
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...