IOM Covid removing restrictions

[Annoymouse 874]

26 minutes ago, jaymann said:

It does seem odd.

Having watched the interview, Magson (DHSC CEO) categorically said no even if they did 21 days. Ashford and Allinson both said they couldn't alter the decision.

I don't get it. Gov should be looking for 'easy wins' for public favour and this is a very easy one.

Ultimately someone has to be responsible for her care, if she collapses tomorrow unable to reach/dial the phone then someone would be held accountable, it’s negligence, I can’t believe the media even had to get involved, how can someone expect to recover from a heart attack within a week, let alone recover from surgery within a week?

Liverpool shouldn’t have released her unless there was care/support in place, IOM shouldn’t have accepted a returning patient unless care/support was in place. Dr Allinson shouldn’t have just accepted no for an answer and whoever gave the final no (I assume either Ashford or Dr Ewart) should be held accountable, I bet if it was a member of their family it would be a different story.

[pongo 4,548]

20 minutes ago, slinkydevil said:

What's the motivation for a 'content strategist' to write this article? I mean his other articles look 'paid to write' (usually are for a content creator) so why all of a sudden decide to write this? I wonder who paid him.

I was thinking along similar lines and trying to figure out the motivation.

I suppose that the job of an online content strategist is likely to often be about writing content which people click on, share and respond to. In many cases that would be about expressing controversial or provocative opinions.

Edited January 14 by pongo

[madmanxpilot 491]

8 minutes ago, Johnny F said:

A relative of mine was in exactly the same position as this mans partner and chose to self isolate completely on their own, its no big deal. Theres more, or less, to this blokes story than meets the eye IMO.

 

45 minutes ago, jaymann said:

 Can we talk about this?

His partner had a heart attack and sent to Liverpool. Is now of ill health and DHSC refused to let her travel back to IOM until he moved out.

Was categorically refused permission to isolate together, by CEO of DHSC. Poor guy is having to sleep in his car until he can find a sensible outcome.

Dr Allinson and Ashford both responded to him saying they can't help.

So, if a couple travel back together as returning residents, they have to stay in separate accommodation? If not this makes no sense whatsoever. He could simply go over to Liverpool and come back with his partner.....

[Annoymouse 874]

20 minutes ago, slinkydevil said:

 

What's the motivation for a 'content strategist' to write this article? I mean his other articles look 'paid to write' (usually are for a content creator) so why all of a sudden decide to write this? I wonder who paid him.

Trying to get his name on the map would be my guess, never heard of him before but he seems highly critical of government so will win some fans. Reminds me of that bloke years ago who painted the picture that everyone on the island was wealthy and a tax dodger. 

[Gladys 7,279]

There has to be something wrong there.  I thought the rule now was for the whole household to isolate, or for the returnee to find alternative accommodation?  What difference does it make that the returnee is a medical traveller? 

I could understand if it was the other way round, that he was the traveller and the concern would be to protect someone who had just been seriously ill.

[Annoymouse 874]

1 minute ago, Gladys said:

There has to be something wrong there.  I thought the rule now was for the whole household to isolate, or for the returnee to find alternative accommodation?  What difference does it make that the returnee is a medical traveller? 

I could understand if it was the other way round, that he was the traveller and the concern would be to protect someone who had just been seriously ill.

Well Mr Ashford said the other day that medical procedures carry certain exemptions, for example you can give an 80 year old a lift to the vaccination clinic regardless of whether you live in the same household or not.

[horatiotheturd 548]

7 minutes ago, Gladys said:

There has to be something wrong there.  I thought the rule now was for the whole household to isolate, or for the returnee to find alternative accommodation?  What difference does it make that the returnee is a medical traveller? 

I could understand if it was the other way round, that he was the traveller and the concern would be to protect someone who had just been seriously ill.

I think the new rule is you can onlynisolate with people who travelled back with you.  Nothing to do with households anymore.

Nice to see some compassion being applied and that they are judging each case on its individual merits !

[Gladys 7,279]

4 minutes ago, Annoymouse said:

Well Mr Ashford said the other day that medical procedures carry certain exemptions, for example you can give an 80 year old a lift to the vaccination clinic regardless of whether you live in the same household or not.

On the face of it, it's common sense.  Like I say, something isn't right.  Have we gone to level 5c? 

[Uhtred 10,158]

11 hours ago, Utah 01 said:

Quite.  The majority of the parish council haven't got a clue how to form or implement policy and that even starts with the ability to think of it in the first place.

I'll refer back to my comment of a few days ago; a been-nowhere, seen-nothing, done-nothing (aside from their vast experience gleaned from a lifetime on a Rock in the middle of the Irish Sea) civil service (Ha!) dictate policy to a a been-nowhere, seen-nothing, done-nothing bunch a parish councilors.

I get where you’re coming from but I can’t sign up the the ‘been-nowhere lifetime on a rock’ analysis if by that you mean local individuals who lack experience elsewhere. And the simple reason for that is that I cannot think of a single senior civil servant (not that I have a catalogue of them) who is an indigenous local...they’re absolutely all imports.

[Annoymouse 874]

2 minutes ago, Gladys said:

On the face of it, it's common sense.  Like I say, something isn't right.  Have we gone to level 5c? 

Well on the face of it something isn’t right, either she doesn’t want him there or there is grounds for negligence.

[jaymann 569]

I'm already picturing the GDPR response to Moulton question tomorrow.

[Kopek 2,133]

Maybe he is a danger to her as he has not been covid tested? She is vulnerable and needs a safe isolation?

Why, when she was taken to LIverpool didn't they get him tested and into isolation? Not enough time to be sure he was negative?

[Annoymouse 874]

36 minutes ago, jaymann said:

I'm already picturing the GDPR response to Moulton question tomorrow.

I’ll place a bet for :

‘We can’t discuss individual cases’ 

PM asks the exactly the same question worded slightly differently

“As I’ve already said Paul, we can’t discuss individual cases, it’s between the patient and the DHSC”

 

 

[Annoymouse 874]

7 minutes ago, Kopek said:

Maybe he is a danger to her as he has not been covid tested? She is vulnerable and needs a safe isolation?

Why, when she was taken to LIverpool didn't they get him tested and into isolation? Not enough time to be sure he was negative?

He’s offered to take a test and even pay for a test, we know a test result can be returned within 24hrs so If that was the issue it should’ve already been sorted before she was flown back.

 

Edited January 15 by Annoymouse

[Roger Mexico 9,765]

We actually mentioned this policy earlier in the week.  It's clearly completely bonkers because it doesn't matter who you co-isolate with - just that you are all tested at the end of the period to make sure that no cross-infection has taken place. 

With larger groups testing during the isolation period might also be helpful, though ideally you would try to avoid larger groups.  No one in the group would be allowed out of isolation unless all tested negative at once (some countries require more than one set of consecutive tests).

There is no rationale for what the DHSC is proposing here (never mind the cruelty of forcing a woman who's just had a heart attack to survive on her own).  It's magical thinking again, probably caused because someone co-isolating with a relative on the Island passed it on and so they've picked on the aspect of the situation that doesn't matter, rather than the one that does (not testing).

Incidentally, the alternative of isolating for 21 days without tests falls down the other way in that it is possible for someone to be cross-infected - indeed this may be what happened with the New Year's Eve cases.  So they've a policy that caused pointless and possibly dangerous suffering, while still possibly letting infection through.