Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, snowman said:

Quite simply the borders were too porous under the quarnatine and non-testing regime in place.

Particularly into December as the new variant spread and factors such as people spending more time indoors influenced the pandemic.

Let's not forget that both Chief & Health Minister voted against additional testing in a vote in the Keys, in December.

I feel the need to remind people about this fact, as it's often brushed over.

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 17.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

OK. For what it's worth I'm going to try and explain why genomics is important in a ssRNA virus epidemic. No doubt it will end up being recited badly at a briefing, but, well, whatever. You read it he

Rachel has tried every which way to re-offer her services. This last tweet wasn't the first time she's reached out. Government has made it very clear they do not want her to be involved. I want h

I think you'll find most so called anti-government rhetoric is focused on government-stupidity and government-selfishness. In recent times - under Brown, Bell and now Quayle - all too many govern

Posted Images

Just now, snowman said:

Also too porous under the exemption scheme

Late Nov some UK tradies wearing masks came in to Victoria Grill in Douglas to pick up a takeaway order whilst I was sat having lunch with a few other people. It's a debacle, the whole thing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Kopek said:

3 new today

30 total current

9 from those in isolation

So are the three new today from community transmission or what? Why do they insist on quoting a load of meaningless statistics when all anybody want to know is how many cases since yesterday and the context of these cases?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr Shoe said:

This thread grows too fast to read every post! But your post that I responded to suggested that mass testing was pointless and only had value for show boating governments. 

Fair enough...I can now re-read your post as "100% mass testing is pointless/impossible, targeted testing is good, little testing is bad" Yes?

Personally (and I'm in a very different field) I would have ongoing randomised compulsory sampling of the populace. In addition to testing for those with symptoms or specific reasons.

Only testing those with symptoms and/or returnees is reactive. "Mass" randomised testing is proactive/predictive.

They kind of do have random testing though, as anyone admitted to hospital for any reason is tested. That is how the lad from St Mary's School was picked up. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jaymann said:

Let's not forget that both Chief & Health Minister voted against additional testing in a vote in the Keys, in December.

I feel the need to remind people about this fact, as it's often brushed over.

The lack of testing was pointed out by Rachel Glover in bbc interview as probable reason for second lockdown 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chris C said:

So are the three new today from community transmission or what? Why do they insist on quoting a load of meaningless statistics when all anybody want to know is how many cases since yesterday and the context of these cases?

We don’t know as no briefing but could be random or someone in isolation 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Banker said:

Howie already said no decisions on extension or reduction until nearer the date 

He might of said that but thats not reality bearing in mind 21 in community and most the last few days . He cant delay it tbh based on figures . Sad for all of us though . 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't Ashey say 14 days of 0 new cases before lockdown ends so by my dodgy maths we've got 1 day before extension confirmed. 

Here's hoping for day 1 of 0 cases tomorrow!! (sarcasm in case you couldn't tell).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Banker said:

We don’t know as no briefing but could be random or someone in isolation 

I had assumed that any in isolation would be included in the figure of 9 (unless they showed symptoms and had an extra test)

People really shouldn't be having to guess these things.

Compare the info we get to the daily info from Singapore.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/covid-19-singapore-imported-community-moh-jan-12-13943324

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Annoymouse said:

I don’t think anyone has asked the question in a press release to date. I did learn yesterday that they will be retesting high risk close contacts groups from Truth wine bar and at St Mary’s school.

Yes, I heard that too during the briefing. I was talking specifically about the 1886 venue that they (the dubious duo) don't seem to talk about anymore. Or did I miss a mention?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zarley said:

Yes, I heard that too during the briefing. I was talking specifically about the 1886 venue that they (the dubious duo) don't seem to talk about anymore. Or did I miss a mention?

1886 classed as low risk so no more testing!

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, jaymann said:

Let's not forget that both Chief & Health Minister voted against additional testing in a vote in the Keys, in December.

 

And the rest of CoMin. And Rob fucking Callister.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Banker said:

It could be from household members already isolating with a positive case, don’t know as no briefing 

They probably wouldn't tell us if there was.  We still don't know if they have found any connection between cases and they tend to mutter GDPR whenever pressed for details.   (Obviously it's not GDPR but that's this year's 'health and safety' for IOMG).

I'll point again to the way that New Zealand releases much more useful information without mentioning identities.  Here's a example from November:

November quarantine cluster

Investigations continue to identify the epidemiological link between Case A and Case D, who have the same genome sequence. This tells us that Case D, the shop assistant from A-Z Collections, most likely contracted the virus from Case A, the New Zealand Defence Force worker at the Auckland quarantine facility. The investigation is now focused on identifying the exposure event that links the two people, if possible. 
    
Case E is the case reported yesterday as a close contact of Case D, who lives in the same building. Whole genome sequencing from Case E has now been completed and indicates the same lineage as Case D, with one additional mutation. This tells us that Case E contracted the virus from Case D.

We have currently identified 11 close contacts of Case E, and nine of those have returned a negative test result, with two pending. Case E has been at the Auckland quarantine facility since 12 November. 

Our thanks go to all the people involved in this cluster, including the cases, who have been highly supportive of efforts to identify and trace close contacts and limit any further spread.

Note the use of genomics to help in the tracing of contacts, the clear explanations and specific mention of places where helpful, but not otherwise.  Also the way those infected are seen as collaborators in eradication, not targets of blame

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
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...