Jump to content

Coronavirus Isle of Man


On The Bus
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

It is possible that follow up tests  have been programmed in on those testing positive so it gives a more accurate picture? If that was the case you would dispense with the "presumed recovered" number and move to live cases.

But why a jump in active cases of 10? One of 2 things has happened.

1. A typo and 41 should read 31 

2. Presumed recovered was wrong and we do have 10 more cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Zarley said:

Yesterday they published the "presumed* recovered" stat.

Today they published a "active cases" stat for the first time, with no mention of the promised missing *updated figure stat.

Curious.

ETA: on Sunday the "active" stat (if you did the maths) worked out to 28. Now today with only four new cases, it's up to 41.

Here you go....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr Rizwan Khan announced plans for future testing at the government's daily media briefing, including a shift to wider community testing.

However, he also explained why this can't be done just yet.

From MR website.

 

Possible shortage of the chemical reagents???

Might explain why the testing facility isn't doing the 200 it can do?

 

Regarding the 'Active Cases', it doesn't really matter until the numbers are zero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kopek said:

Dr Rizwan Khan announced plans for future testing at the government's daily media briefing, including a shift to wider community testing.

However, he also explained why this can't be done just yet.

From MR website.

 

Possible shortage of the chemical reagents???

Might explain why the testing facility isn't doing the 200 it can do?

 

Regarding the 'Active Cases', it doesn't really matter until the numbers are zero.

Active cases matter if they indicate a jump of ten cases in one day that are not reported in the headline data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Townend said:

But why a jump in active cases of 10? One of 2 things has happened.

1. A typo and 41 should read 31 

2. Presumed recovered was wrong and we do have 10 more cases.

Aren't the figures becoming more meaningful?

The "Active" on 3/5 was 28, ie 20 in Hospital and 8 presumed still unwell but self-isolating. Roger M has commented a few times that the "Still unwell" category was just the unwell who had not yet survived 14 days, ie after 14 days they dropped out of this category and into "got better". I guess this was OK as a best guess but it does lack a bit of precision. The newer figure of 41 "Active" looks like 20 in Hospital and 21 unwell and recuperating at home.  As there were 4 new cases, it looks like some checking has been done and that 9 of those who should have got better by now, haven't yet.

If my guesswork is correct, then the figures have become more meaningful. You could complain that they weren't perfect before or you could be pleased that they have improved, that depends on your disposition.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little logic please.

If they have changed the way of reporting or the criteria of the declaration, there is little point in comparing old and new data.

( aimed at Townend).

Edited by Kopek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Phillip Dearden said:

Aren't the figures becoming more meaningful?

The "Active" on 3/5 was 28, ie 20 in Hospital and 8 presumed still unwell but self-isolating. Roger M has commented a few times that the "Still unwell" category was just the unwell who had not yet survived 14 days, ie after 14 days they dropped out of this category and into "got better". I guess this was OK as a best guess but it does lack a bit of precision. The newer figure of 41 "Active" looks like 20 in Hospital and 21 unwell and recuperating at home.  As there were 4 new cases, it looks like some checking has been done and that 9 of those who should have got better by now, haven't yet.

If my guesswork is correct, then the figures have become more meaningful. You could complain that they weren't perfect before or you could be pleased that they have improved, that depends on your disposition.

 

So tell us they have changed the reporting criteria and we have more cases then then they previously reported.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Kopek said:

A little logic please.

If they have changed the way of reporting or the criteria of the declaration, there is little point in comparing old and new data.

So tell us they have changed the reporting criteria and we have more cases then then they previously reported.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Phillip Dearden said:

Aren't the figures becoming more meaningful?

The "Active" on 3/5 was 28, ie 20 in Hospital and 8 presumed still unwell but self-isolating. Roger M has commented a few times that the "Still unwell" category was just the unwell who had not yet survived 14 days, ie after 14 days they dropped out of this category and into "got better". I guess this was OK as a best guess but it does lack a bit of precision. The newer figure of 41 "Active" looks like 20 in Hospital and 21 unwell and recuperating at home.  As there were 4 new cases, it looks like some checking has been done and that 9 of those who should have got better by now, haven't yet.

If my guesswork is correct, then the figures have become more meaningful. You could complain that they weren't perfect before or you could be pleased that they have improved, that depends on your disposition.

 

Most people's disposition will be to have a full on melt down and rant at the government over it.

Your conclusion seems logical to me.  When you think about it, it's less than 10% of the cases that could have now beem found to have taken longer than 2 weeks to recover.   Doesn't seem unreasonable.   I guess people will recover in differing time frames.  Some maybe a few days. Some longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

Most people's disposition will be to have a full on melt down and rant at the government over it.

Your conclusion seems logical to me.  When you think about it, it's less than 10% of the cases that could have now beem found to have taken longer than 2 weeks to recover.   Doesn't seem unreasonable.   I guess people will recover in differing time frames.  Some maybe a few days. Some longer.

I agree, but if the strategy is to work you can’t have a floating number of cases. Yesterday he should have announced a change in active cases of 13, then we would all be happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally agree Gettafa,  these people make me sick, there may be a few genuine cases but a lot could have got back and didn’t, a lot went on holiday in March such as the couple who went on a cruise on 5th March although the writing was well and truly on the wall and thousands of Islanders cancelled holidays as the are responsible citizens and used their own initiative and intelligence to see what was happening around the world.   The one who was doing some kind of diary left the Island in March for somewhere really remote then could not get home in time.   I have no sympathy at all for these people.   The Government have a duty to protect the people who stayed home, stayed in and generally accepted the situation.  I would not trust this lot to self isolate on the basis they were not mindful of their own safety or others when they trotted off on holiday in March.   They should stop moaning and get on with it like we had to when they were living the high life on cruise ships or wherever.  As for Daft Daphne she is always on the look out to grandstand for any cause going.

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...