Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, manxst said:

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!).   

I don't think they are. Certainly in the media briefings some of the journalists appear to struggle to understand.

It is fine, I came on here to try and understand if I was missing something as to why some where giving the impression that the failure to have rapid local genome testing would seriously compromise stopping the current outbreak. It appears fairly clear from recent posts it does not. I am happy with that so will cease posting for another long period as I have, to my satisfaction, answered my own curiosity. I had really hoped that somebody could have posted in way that I understood why rapid genome testing was so important in stopping the local outbreak since the noise over it and I am disappointed that it appears that really it will make little difference one way or another.

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

2 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

I don't think they are. Certainly in the media briefings some of the journalists appear to struggle to understand.

It is fine, I came on here to try and understand if I was missing something as to why some where giving the impression that the failure to have rapid local genome testing would seriously compromise stopping the current outbreak. It appears fairly clear from recent posts it does not. I am happy with that so will cease posting for another long period as I have, to my satisfaction, answered my own curiosity. I had really hoped that somebody could have posted in way that I understood why rapid genome testing was so important in stopping the local outbreak since the noise over it and I am disappointed that it appears that really it will make little difference one way or another.

People have already explained it to you, but given your lack of understanding over a Doctorate, it’s also of little surprise that you fail to grasp (or perhaps fail to want to grasp) what the genome testing would do. 

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

I don't think they are. Certainly in the media briefings some of the journalists appear to struggle to understand.

It is fine, I came on here to try and understand if I was missing something as to why some where giving the impression that the failure to have rapid local genome testing would seriously compromise stopping the current outbreak. It appears fairly clear from recent posts it does not. I am happy with that so will cease posting for another long period as I have, to my satisfaction, answered my own curiosity. I had really hoped that somebody could have posted in way that I understood why rapid genome testing was so important in stopping the local outbreak since the noise over it and I am disappointed that it appears that really it will make little difference one way or another.

We've given you the reasons, you've chosen to ignore them. That's your issue. Not a matter of genomics, COVID or qualifications.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

@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?

I don't think I am. I want to stop the outbreak as soon as possible. The best way to do that is the test trace and isolate. I may have missed it, and for that I apologise, but it appears that the rapid genome testing is not going to make the slightest bit of difference to that, so giving it such a high profile to make it seem vitally important I think is misleading. I appreciate that not all do 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

@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?

Would it be equally petty to suggest it is because he is an accredited Associate of the Royal Society of Eejits? ( I was thinking he may have been something to do with the University of the Northern Territories, but wasn't sure what his denominator would be). 

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

I don't think I am. I want to stop the outbreak as soon as possible. The best way to do that is the test trace and isolate. I may have missed it, and for that I apologise, but it appears that the rapid genome testing is not going to make the slightest bit of difference to that, so giving it such a high profile to make it seem vitally important I think is misleading. I appreciate that not all do 

Is it not obvious?

Test trace and isolate is only enhanced with genomics. It gives you real time feedback as to how well you're doing with each of those processes. It makes coming out of lockdown safer, and less likely to cause us to come back round to community transmission.

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

@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?

Honestly? I can't help but think that @Lost Login thinks Dr Glover is just an uppity woman who wants to make a name and money for herself, when in reality she is an intelligent, down-to-earth, altruistic woman who is a leader in her field and who speaks her mind.

Heaven forbid she wants to help her fellow Manx citizens. It would seem that LL cannot conceive of such selfless behaviour.

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Gladys said:

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. 

 

If you refer back to the “spat” thread on the 21st November Dr Glover said that (apart from myself) everyone could call her Rachel.

So she is not so precious about the use of her title as some of her supporters who seem to want to be offended on her behalf.

Edited by The Voice of Reason
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zarley said:

Honestly? I can't help but think that @Lost Login thinks Dr Glover is just an uppity woman who wants to make a name and money for herself, when in reality she is an intelligent, down-to-earth, altruistic woman who is a leader in her field and who speaks her mind.

Heaven forbid she wants to help her fellow Manx citizens. It would seem that LL cannot conceive of such selfless behaviour.

 

Not only that, but when employed (despite DA's lack of clarity as to her status) she was on bank rates rather than commercial rates and provided the reagents at cost. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Voice of Reason said:

If you refer back to the “spat” thread on the 21st November Dr Glover said that (apart from myself) everyone could call her Rachel.

So she is not so precious about the use of her title as some of her supporters who seem to want to be offended on her behalf.

I have called her Rachel in threads, and that is fine.  But if you are going to formally address her, get it right. 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Voice of Reason said:

If you refer back to the “spat” thread on the 21st November Dr Glover said that (apart from myself) everyone could call her Rachel.

So she is not so precious about the use of her title as some of her supporters who seem to want to be offended on her behalf.

I call her Doctor out of respect for her position. I don’t know her personally, but if I did, I would still use her accredited term on this forum rather than Ms or Mrs which some use in a way to belittle her education, knowledge and expertise. 

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

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.  

But calling the director of Public Health Hetty or similar rather than Dr Henrietta Ewart in posts is fine. I look forward to all future reference to HQ or DA as being The Hon.......

I refer to virtually all as Mr, Mrs, Miss, Mr or by their names except when dealing with them professionally. You may not like it but I try not to pick and choose who I think deserve to be given their full title and who don't.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gladys said:

Not only that, but when employed (despite DA's lack of clarity as to her status) she was on bank rates rather than commercial rates and provided the reagents at cost. 

Absolutely. She's never been in it for the money, hence my reference to her altruism.

3 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

If you refer back to the “spat” thread on the 21st November Dr Glover said that (apart from myself) everyone could call her Rachel.

So she is not so precious about the use of her title as some of her supporters who seem to want to be offended on her behalf.

Guilty as charged; I am VERY offended on her behalf. As Gladys just said so well...

 

2 minutes ago, Gladys said:

I have called her Rachel in threads, and that is fine.  But if you are going to formally address her, get it right. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

I am happy with that so will cease posting for another long period as I have, to my satisfaction, answered my own curiosity. 

And yet here you are, still banging away with your mitts on...

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

I don't think I am. I want to stop the outbreak as soon as possible. The best way to do that is the test trace and isolate. I may have missed it, and for that I apologise, but it appears that the rapid genome testing is not going to make the slightest bit of difference to that, so giving it such a high profile to make it seem vitally important I think is misleading. I appreciate that not all do 

See, no one is saying genomics are the solution to our problem, they are saying that it is an additional and useful tool to add to the test trae and isolate thing.

Look at the information given out about 'low risk' locations and times. They're put out to help the contact tracing team, give them some help. Or like the 15 minute contact thing, that's is only to make the chances of success in contact tracing higher, its not because you can't get the virus with shorter contact times. Genomics is another helpful guide.

It's not really about this lockdown, that's done and there is nothing we can do about that other than stay in and wait for our political 'leaders' to get their shit together. It's about how we get on with things in the future.

Your absolute refusal to understand this is mental. 

  • Like 7
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...