Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Filippo

Recommended Posts

There is another important point, and that is the whole genesis of the falling out.  Dr Glover recommended testing before leaving isolation, but that was quickly dropped and, to the lay person, it would appear that if that testing had happened, we wouldn't be locked down now as the positive case would have been picked up before going into the wild. 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

Thanks so the point really is That as teapot says it will not help us cease the transmission and get us out of lockdown any quicker than the current measures will. 

 

I didn't say that bit at all. It absolutely would help 'cease the transmission'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

was that not using her Genomic testing facility was going to greatly delay getting the current restrictions lifted. From what you are saying that appears not to be the case.

In essence that is the case, but it also depends on other factors like strains, vaccine supply, type of border restrictions,what is happening across etc.

What is apparent though is that in the circumstances we are in we could use all the data we can get our hands on to manage the virus and to make realistic plans to safeguard people as best we can. All hands to the pump.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gladys said:

As for wise old Rhumsaa,  I understand entirely what you are saying, but the answer, surely, is to pursue the course of most benefit to the island, and to work on a constructive relationship of trust and mutual respect.

Agreed

And the IOMG could have saved the situation countless times during the process.

However, the most recent offer from Dr Glover isn't the best way of starting a second chance of a constructive relationship of trust and mutual respect I don't believe.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gladys said:

There is another important point, and that is the whole genesis of the falling out.  Dr Glover recommended testing before leaving isolation, but that was quickly dropped and, to the lay person, it would appear that if that testing had happened, we wouldn't be locked down now as the positive case would have been picked up before going into the wild. 

 

Nail on head. 

Having swallowed my pride and used an account on Facebook, I can see that there is a growing swell of opinion that shares this view. They're not too happy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rhumsaa said:

Agreed

And the IOMG could have saved the situation countless times during the process.

However, the most recent offer from Dr Glover isn't the best way of starting a second chance of a constructive relationship of trust and mutual respect I don't believe.

Sadly, her Twitter offer isn’t the starting point of a second chance. That was in fact the private emails she says she sent to the government and which have been ignored, so causing her to Tweet instead. Typically, the government ineptitude and silence on the matter has caused those who don’t know this, and who usually blindly follow in good faith, to rally against the doctor. 

Edited by manxst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rhumsaa said:

Agreed

And the IOMG could have saved the situation countless times during the process.

However, the most recent offer from Dr Glover isn't the best way of starting a second chance of a constructive relationship of trust and mutual respect I don't believe.

You're right. On both counts. It would take a change of strategy from her to recover from that.  I think Rachel is smart enough to know that too. I can see why she did it and I have a lot of empathy for her, in the situation she has found herself in but, it hasn't helped. To win the hearts and minds, she must show a different side.

Edited by Roxanne
add a bit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheTeapot said:

I didn't say that bit at all. It absolutely would help 'cease the transmission'.

Apologies If I misunderstood you. When you said "It would probably not, because the lockdown is a political decision." in response to my question how will it assist us getting out of lockdown quicker I took that to mean you agreed it would not stop transmission and therefore lockdown quicker. You are differentiating the two and therefore suggesting that the speed of getting out of lockdown is not directly linked to the speed of transmission.

Fair enough. How will using Dr Glover's Genomic testing help cease the transmission in the IoM quicker than the current lockdown will. In my simple mind, the lockdown stops contacts between people which stops the transmission. If we  all self isolated for a period of 4/5 weeks, impractical I know, transmission is broken and end of the virus.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@rachomics and @wrighty Is it possible that a variant emerges that is resistant to one vaccine type, say the Pfizer version, but is not resistant to the Moderna, or the AZ? It would be of immense importance in effective treatment, in short order, if we had the ability to speedily identify the profile of which variant a person had contracted. 

Edited by quilp
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Apple said:

.....like here on Manxforums obviously. 😄

It does happen. I've changed my long held views about a lot of things after reading discussions here. There was no way i was having a vaccine for example - I am now - because I've followed the debate on here  There's a lot of good stuff on here.  It's easy to knock it but we've got some real smart contributors here.

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

1 hour ago, horatiotheturd said:

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.

You can bet your last dollar that it will be Manxified.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, manxst said:

Sadly, her Twitter offer isn’t the starting point of a second chance. That was in fact the private emails she says she sent to the government and which have been ignored, so causing her to Tweet instead. Typically, the government ineptitude and silence on the matter has caused those who don’t know this, and who usually blindly follow in good faith, to rally against the doctor. 

But even then, there's a way of writing that tweet that doesn't draw a big line in the sand and make the IOMG lose face by reaching out at some point.

Or just don't write the tweet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Rhumsaa said:

But even then, there's a way of writing that tweet that doesn't draw a big line in the sand and make the IOMG lose face by reaching out at some point.

Or just don't write the tweet.

But that is the frightening thing, it is about saving face, not protecting the IOM. 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

It's a culture clash really.

I'm not sure that it is. I think it's a little deeper than that - or shallower - depending on how you might choose to see it.

I think their silence is deliberate.  It's stonewalling. A nasty trait used by those who want to cause pain.

Against someone who wants to do their best for the Island, and who is not being listened to, that's a hard cross to bear.  That Rachel has carried on posting, not all of it objective it has to be said, seems to have been seized upon by government in the way someone not very nice in a relationship may stand back, all calm and collected and say, see, we told you that there's something wrong with her and there's nothing wrong with us.  A lot of the public are buying into this view. It's dirty tricks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gladys said:

But that is the frightening thing, it is about saving face, not protecting the IOM. 

Well..... I agree but playing devils advocate - if they at some level believe their stance over Rachel's then the saving face aspect is our subjective view?

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...
×
×
  • Create New...