Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, John Wright said:

Most of that testing was, and still is, test 72 hours before travel/arrival. A route we didn’t go down. Boy David said it only catches 7%. That’s a discredited figure.  It may catch up to 50% if you shed and are detectable 7 out of 14 days. But then you’ve up to 3 days in which to get infected.

So, it may stop between 1/3 and one half of positives reaching here. But there are inherent issues with patient transfers having to be tested and hang around in UK.

Yes I know. There was lots of chatter about regular testing of people in isolation as a means to relaxing the border restrictions a bit back in the summer.  Certainky from the "experts" in the pubs I visit.

It was never really rocket science that a test pre departure, a test on arrival, a test mid isolation, and a test before coming out of isolation was pretty bullet proof and most people were more than happy to pay (medical transfers clearly shouldn't have to pay)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 33.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Banker

    2574

  • TheTeapot

    1396

  • Gladys

    1293

  • Nom de plume

    1032

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

27 minutes ago, John Wright said:

The breakdown in relationships between Ms Glover and Government primarily happened when 7 day testing was removed by Government without consulting her. ( I’m sure there were other reasons, she’s told us about them, but that was what crystallised it ). 

Im not sure that 7 day testing would necessarily have picked up some of the transmissions within co-travelling co-isolating households. And I don’t recall anyone asking/recommending day 1 and 13 or 1, 6/7 and 13 day testing in October.

Dr Glover has been recommending various testing as you state, from at least Oct (I didn’t bother checking before that).

FA0291CF-7BB3-4048-9826-898C4768E43C.jpeg

CD2E86DF-7000-4C8C-9B68-81B82637AD45.jpeg

46607ED4-CE93-4D46-8A2E-826A3ABE5A01.jpeg

B64D887F-0B75-44BF-8629-CF5A830297DC.jpeg

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

Please stop disrespecting her by calling her Mrs.  She is not married.  Her title is Dr Glover.

Self publicity?  Let me explain.  There are still people out there, good people, people who care about the Isle of Man, and it's residents and are prepared to put themselves out there to help with no thoughts of reward. Altruistic people do still exist you know? Just because we are used to the cut-throat, scheming politics demonstrated by government it is easy to believe that everyone else is out to get something for nothing.  This is not the case here.

Dr Glover is trying to save us from further incompetent action that could result in further lockdown, further restrictions, and an escalation of infection and death.

You suggesting it's self publicity says more about you than it could ever say about her.

 

Sorry I will refer to Ms Glover in future. I appreciate she is qualified but I do have an aversion to referring to individuals by their qualification or occupation in general conversation.  We don't a general rule refer to John Wright as advocate John Wright or refer to people's qualifications in their names so I always wonder why we do as for a certain qualification or profession. You have retired armed forces personnel who still want to be called by their rank when enlisted. That is just an aside.

With regard to "Dr Glover is trying to save us from further incompetent action that could result in further lockdown, further restrictions, and an escalation of infection and death" in my view that is just appears to be irrational hype.  In the, hopefully, rather sensible discussion over the last 24 hrs it seems that whilst genome testing might provide interesting information it will do little speed up the elimination and eradication of the current outbreak. John Wright I think put it well. Testing, tracing and isolation are what are important to stop the current outbreak.

Tweeting, as Ms Glover did, makes it appear that the failure to have rapid genome results is vital in stopping the current outbreak, preventing further lockdowns etc. It is not in my view. Those are based on having good testing for Covid 19, good tracing and good self isolation procedures. None of them relate to genome sequences. Maybe not deliberately but Ms Glover's tweets give the impression that the not having rapid genome testing on the IoM is a major failure in bringing the current outbreak under control. Additionally it seems some think that the genome sequencing is the same as testing for Covid 19 and think there is a delay in getting testing results. My in laws did. Whatever her issues with IoM Govt appearing to try and undermine the message from IoM Govt and their health advisors at present does look to me as though she is prioritising her own interest.

I started posting again yesterday as I was genuinely interested as to why it appeared that some the failure to do rapid genome testing on the IoM would prolong the current outbreak. I could not see it and I still cannot see it. Test, trace and isolate is what will get us back to normal. Genome sequencing whilst interesting and, I am sure, important in a future review will make little any difference whether we have same day results, after 7 or 14 days or never. 

 

 

   

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

Mrs Glover did a great job in setting up the testing facility in the IoM for which we should all be extremely grateful. I would not argue that the IoM should have done more testing and had stricter isolation and testing rules and that the rules for those coming over as key workers etc were not strict enough. We seem to have had an influx of people around Christmas time who you would wonder under which of the criteria they qualified. I think one of the current MHK's had several pictures of their parents visiting them over Christmas on their facebook page.

I would not disagree with you about the advantages of genomic testing but we have such a small sample size we are not going to pick up any variations over here. The UK will do that far before we will. Yes it would be good to know if the strain we have includes the one that is more infectious or has a longer incubation period, but if the IoM Govt planning and acting on the case that all cases are the "worst" strain knowing for definite is nice but changes nothing in terms of what we are doing over here.

If we had rapid results from Genomics sequencing then great but my one fear would be that it showed we did not have the new more infectious variant in the IoM. That I appreciate is probably unlikely. If the public were aware of that would they become complacent and stop worrying about ensuring the social distance, isolate, wear face masks etc. Best in my view to presume all cases are the most infectious variant and act accordingly 

First off, Dr Glover. She has a PhD and is a well-cited author, and has every right to be recognised for it. They aren't easy. If that was a deliberate slip, it's dismissive at best.

The real problem is they simply were not acting as though it could be the new strain. They were using the same criteria they were using in March 2020. A lot of things have changed since then, but it's much easier to go with what you already have written on your sheet of paper. Why rock the boat?

We are far more concerned with who is passing it onto who. That is the value of the genomic testing at present. That's what Dr Glover is offering on island, and something we would be daft to be missing out upon. The likelihood of it being the most prevalent strain in the UK is reasonably high. Either way, I doubt it'd breed complacency.

It would not be difficult for a virus to pass around asymptomatic groups for a few weeks of lockdown undetected, if the circumstances were right for it. However, with the genomics and contact tracing, we may identify any reservoirs in the community before that happens. Equally, it would serve as a reassurance that things were safe to open.

If we had the genomics from 31st Jan, we may well have avoided this lockdown altogether. Unfortunately, if you're flying blind, you can't assume anything, so default to assuming the worst.

The travesty is that we're flying blind by political choice.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

Tweeting, as Ms Glover did, makes it appear that the failure to have rapid genome results is vital in stopping the current outbreak, preventing further lockdowns etc. It is not in my view.  

Well, understandably, one would be inclined to believe the microbiologist's opinion.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, manxst said:

Dr Glover has been recommending various testing as you state, from at least Oct (I didn’t bother checking before that).

 

 

 

But Covid testing and genome sequencing are different issues. I don't thinks many would disagree with the points made with regard to testing for Covid. As others have said that, in respect of testing, was a matter of logic. As I have said before it should be remembered that the 7 day test though was not compulsory,  you only took if you wanted to be able to have a days exercise. I think you also had to pay for it unless you were a medical transfer so it was never introduced as a means of picking up cases.

By banging on about that she could do same day genome sequencing, in my view, Ms Glover is giving the view that there is a continued failure in testing , which I believe is wrong, and I am concerned about that messaging since it appears that whether or not we gave rapid genome sequencing is fairly irrelevant in stopping the current outbreak. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lost Login said:

But Covid testing and genome sequencing are different issues. I don't thinks many would disagree with the points made with regard to testing for Covid. As others have said that, in respect of testing, was a matter of logic. As I have said before it should be remembered that the 7 day test though was not compulsory,  you only took if you wanted to be able to have a days exercise. I think you also had to pay for it unless you were a medical transfer so it was never introduced as a means of picking up cases.

By banging on about that she could do same day genome sequencing, in my view, Ms Glover is giving the view that there is a continued failure in testing , which I believe is wrong, and I am concerned about that messaging since it appears that whether or not we gave rapid genome sequencing is fairly irrelevant in stopping the current outbreak. 

I think what you're missing is a key piece of information.

Genomic testing is simply an opportunity that isn't typically available for outbreaks in communities the size of the island.

In the UK, they take a sampling approach for surveillance, testing 1 in N samples, but don't have the luxury of being able to trace the outbreak to such a fine level, especially not in conjunction with contact tracing data.

Whilst trace, test, isolate can be effective, we have an opportunity to be a trailblazer in combining the data from that, with the data from the genomic sequencing.

This will not only identify how it has spread, but help us avoid a repeat scenario in the future. Understanding how it spreads on a small community level would also contribute to the scientific body of knowledge.

Pray tell, where's the downside?

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

Well, understandably, one would be inclined to believe the microbiologist's opinion.

And there is the issue. Ms Glover's tweets are, I believe, giving many a misleading impression and because of her position people will take far more notice of what she says. A local nutter screaming the world is about it end is different to Brian Cox stating it.

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

But Covid testing and genome sequencing are different issues. I don't thinks many would disagree with the points made with regard to testing for Covid. As others have said that, in respect of testing, was a matter of logic. As I have said before it should be remembered that the 7 day test though was not compulsory,  you only took if you wanted to be able to have a days exercise. I think you also had to pay for it unless you were a medical transfer so it was never introduced as a means of picking up cases.

By banging on about that she could do same day genome sequencing, in my view, Ms Glover is giving the view that there is a continued failure in testing , which I believe is wrong, and I am concerned about that messaging since it appears that whether or not we gave rapid genome sequencing is fairly irrelevant in stopping the current outbreak. 

Firstly, ‘by banging on’ and refusing to call Dr Glover by her officially accredited title, I find it incredibly hard to take anything of what you say seriously, being as rude as you are to her- I’m sure most if not all would agree with me, and don’t see why you cannot have some humility and respect.

Secondly, I’m pretty sure everyone is aware of there being a difference in yes/no Covid testing, and genome testing. Obviously one is more important than the other, but to exclude a further potential ‘weapon’ (however limited you believe it to be) in our armoury in the fight against the virus is negligent, remiss, and inexcusable (especially when it’s being offered for free!).   

Edited by manxst
  • Like 9
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AcousticallyChallenged said:

I think what you're missing is a key piece of information.

Genomic testing is simply an opportunity that isn't typically available for outbreaks in communities the size of the island.

In the UK, they take a sampling approach for surveillance, testing 1 in N samples, but don't have the luxury of being able to trace the outbreak to such a fine level, especially not in conjunction with contact tracing data.

Whilst trace, test, isolate can be effective, we have an opportunity to be a trailblazer in combining the data from that, with the data from the genomic sequencing.

This will not only identify how it has spread, but help us avoid a repeat scenario in the future. Understanding how it spreads on a small community level would also contribute to the scientific body of knowledge.

Pray tell, where's the downside?

No downside and I have said repeatedly it would be good to have. What I wanted to understand was there a serious downside in stopping the current outbreak from not presently having. From the recent posts it appears there is no serious downside from not presently having but that appears not to be the impression Ms Glover wishes to give the general public. I appreciate that may be totally unintentional but I do not see that as good. If there was a serious downside then yes, scream it from the rooftops.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, manxst said:

Firstly, ‘by banging on’ and refusing to call Dr Glover by her officially accredited title, I find it incredibly hard to take anything of what you say seriously, being as rude as you are to her- I’m sure most if not all would agree with me, and don’t see why you cannot have some humility and respect.

It screams to me 'well, we cannot trust the Lady so-called Doctor'. Whether or not it's some obtuse personal principle that @Lost Login professes, that's how it comes across.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lost Login said:

No downside and I have said repeatedly it would be good to have. What I wanted to understand was there a serious downside in stopping the current outbreak from not presently having. From the recent posts it appears there is no serious downside from not presently having but that appears not to be the impression Ms Glover wishes to give the general public. I appreciate that may be totally unintentional but I do not see that as good. If there was a serious downside then yes, scream it from the rooftops.

I suppose the best question to ask would be: would you type at your computer wearing oven gloves, or would you take them off?

Even now, the genomics would tell us what contact tracing missed. Knowing what contact tracing missed, would reduce the likelihood of that happening again.

Science is about constantly re-assessing your position based on the evidence. Currently, that evidence is being lost.

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

Sorry I will refer to Ms Glover in future. I appreciate she is qualified but I do have an aversion to referring to individuals by their qualification or occupation in general conversation.  We don't a general rule refer to John Wright as advocate John Wright or refer to people's qualifications in their names so I always wonder why we do as for a certain qualification or profession. You have retired armed forces personnel who still want to be called by their rank when enlisted. That is just an aside.

 

 

   

It's not an aside, it is a deliberate denigration of her status and is very petty of you.  She has a title  and it is not Mrs, just as it is not Mr or Lady.  This is not just a chat down the pub, it is about the very thing in which she holds a doctorate so it is entirely appropriate to use her correct title, whether you are averted to it or not. 

John Wright, like all advocates, doesn't have a title arsising from his profession or qualifications (in Europe many countries do give titles to lawyers such a Maitre Wright or Notary Wright) other than Mr.  Perhaps when he is posting about legal stuff we should address him as Mr.  It may be old fashioned, but many titles are earned and so should be respected.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

Sorry I will refer to Ms Glover in future. I appreciate she is qualified but I do have an aversion to referring to individuals by their qualification or occupation in general conversation.  We don't a general rule refer to John Wright as advocate John Wright or refer to people's qualifications in their names so I always wonder why we do as for a certain qualification or profession. 

Sorry, but you are being extremely rude, dismissive and disrespectful. By insisting on referring to DOCTOR Glover as Mrs or Ms, you are implying that she's just another person with an opinion, rather than an expert in her field. 

And funny how you use JW as an example of not using a person's title, when he is another one who insists on using Ms rather than Dr.  

Your refusal to use Dr Glover's proper title makes you look like a petulant child with an axe to grind, a child who doesn't care - or doesn't care to understand - how offensive you're being. 

Also, your petulant refusal to use Dr Glover's proper title makes you sound petty and, for me, renders much of your opinion worthless.  

Edited by Zarley
AutoINcorrect
  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lost LoginIt has been explained to you numerous times in pretty clear terms that the genomics would be a valuable tool to aid the shoe leather work of the contact tracing team. You seem to be purposefully ignoring this point. Would you care to explain why?

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...