Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Recommended Posts

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
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 35.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Banker

    2712

  • TheTeapot

    1429

  • Gladys

    1335

  • Nom de plume

    1076

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

7 hours ago, Apple said:

"Smearing" is sometimes what the island does best when it has taken on something unpalatable to the  "system" - a bit like the the body removing things that are poisonous or detrimental (will leave that there....).

The only way I could see any reintroduction is for an effective negotiator or middleman (?JW) to try and come to some sort of private agreement that doesn't cast anyone in a bad light. A public display does not hold out much, if any, hope I'm afraid. 

Either that or create a common enemy (that would be something like a serious escalation or terrifying variant of the virus getting ahold here but that is a bit desperate.) 

 

 

Thanks for the vote of confidence. They need a mediator, someone who is qualified in Alternative Dispute Resolution.

Two things.

1. Both parties need to agree and engage to try and resolve their differences

2. if it fails it’s all confidential and what’s said can’t be bandied about in public or used in court.

Given the parties behaviour to date would that be possible to achieve?

There, I’ve disqualified myself.

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

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.

 

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.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

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.

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.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And we are still stood standing with hands in pockets waiting for the genomics reports to come back from the scouse mouse lab. The same ones we have been awaiting ten days for, that old Henrietta said we would have last Monday, but not to worry as they mean jack shit and no one else in the world thinks they are of any use either.

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

Not enough facial hair for your liking?

P.s Are you still working at Mountain Warehouse?

why? do you want to buy a tent?

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Thanks for the vote of confidence. They need a mediator, someone who is qualified in Alternative Dispute Resolution.

Two things.

1. Both parties need to agree and engage to try and resolve their differences

2. if it fails it’s all confidential and what’s said can’t be bandied about in public or used in court.

Given the parties behaviour to date would that be possible to achieve?

There, I’ve disqualified myself.

I have absolute sympathy for Dr Glover resorting to social media to highlight her frustration but also if I was on the other side of that, I'd probably not want to deal with someone who would post on twitter and tag the news organisations if they disagreed with me.

Sadly the only losers in this battle is the Manx public

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

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.

Sequencing will give you much more detail than just the strain a virus belongs to.  It can't be quite as accurate as DNA testing in humans which can give relationships very accurately, but it's a very good indication that infections are closely linked if the sequence matches or differs in only one or two places.

This makes it very useful in 'new' outbreaks like this one - you can see how many sources of imported infection there were and where the chain went.  It helps you identify missing links and test and isolate them.  Obviously the quicker you do this, the more effective it is.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gladys said:

Out of interest, who is your MHK? Mine are Ashford and Peake.  If I write to DA, it is likely it will end up in the shredder!  (Joking, I would send an email which cannot be destroyed.) And other than having been in the DHSC, I am not convinced Peake has any particular position or would take up the cudgel. 

I just wonder if there is any MHK who has declared a stance on this who may be fired into more action if they received several emails. 

The only other suggestion then is to send the same email to every MHK asking them politely to reintroduce Dr Glovers services in the best interest of the island, something they all promise to act in accordance with in their manifestos.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Dirty Buggane said:

And we are still stood standing with hands in pockets waiting for the genomics reports to come back from the scouse mouse lab. The same ones we have been awaiting ten days for, that old Henrietta said we would have last Monday, but not to worry as they mean jack shit and no one else in the world thinks they are of any use either.

Don’t worry- Hetty is chasing them up via email.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched the latest BBC news about vaccine rollout in USA, India and the UK.

The figures being quoted are astounding and the speed at which centres have been set up is phenomenal. 

Nice, simple quick and cheap facilities like drive through ones in America and Salisbury Cathedral in the UK.  The Cathedral seems perfectly fit for purpose having had some basic cubicles installed and volunteers drafted in to give out the jabs.

Bit embarrassing really, while our lot spend fortunes building facilities that will no doubt have new floor to ceiling walls, plastered, and probably papered with custom wallsllpaper and carpeted with carpet with little triskellions on it to be opened twice a week, 9:30 to 4 with lunch breaks when they eventually finish it.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rhumsaa said:

I have absolute sympathy for Dr Glover resorting to social media to highlight her frustration but also if I was on the other side of that, I'd probably not want to deal with someone who would post on twitter and tag the news organisations if they disagreed with me.

It's a culture clash really.  Scientists are used to disagreeing and discussing differences in public because that is the way that science progresses.  Without openness and discussion ideas don't get exchanged and improvements don't get made.  But disagreement aims not to be personal - it's other people's theories that are being examined, not their character.

On the other hand the Manx Civil Service and politics thrive on secrecy.  Look how long it took for that report on Skelly and Shimmin to come out - they didn't even want to admit it existed.  So the first instinct is always to hide and deny information and to not do things in case it produces a result you don't want.  Politicians are supposed to the ones who prevent this because their main duty is supposed to be to the public, but the current Ministers are mainly happy to do whatever they are told.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, horatiotheturd said:

Just watched the latest BBC news about vaccine rollout in USA, India and the UK.

While I can't comment on what the BBC have just said about the US, from watching cnn my impression is not one of things going very smoothly over there at all. Plenty of news articles easily searchable from a variety of sources suggesting the same.

 

 

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

It's a culture clash really.  Scientists are used to disagreeing and discussing differences in public because that is the way that science progresses.  Without openness and discussion ideas don't get exchanged and improvements don't get made.  But disagreement aims not to be personal - it's other people's theories that are being examined, not their character.

It's not a culture clash though is it and what you've detailed there is a revisionist history of the events.

I don't really want to dwell on that aspect of it because I have absolute sympathy for how Dr Glover must have felt and can view it as a social media whistle blowing due to feeling ignored and wading through the treacle that is the CS bureaucracy. I also agree with your second paragraph that the CS have a policy of closed doors and secrecy which is not helpful at all.

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.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 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...