Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

14 days and three negative tests.

There is always going to be the odd curveball like above. We need to be realistic.  Thats when your track and trace an isolation of contacts kicks in.

Your example isn't  relevant in the context of what I was suggesting anyway is it? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 20.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

1 minute ago, horatiotheturd said:

14 days and three negative tests.

There is always going to be the odd curveball like above. We need to be realistic.  Thats when your track and trace an isolation of contacts kicks in.

Your example isn't  relevant in the context of what I was suggesting anyway is it? 

Its just an example, like the 1886 case we had here, of the 14 days perhaps not being long enough. How long do people need to stay in isolation for? How long is fair? To the individual and to society? It's not like these people are criminals who should be locked up. It's a question of freedom, liberty and responsibility. Like your tagging proposal, its an affront to decency.

I know you want the borders open more, we're going to have to eventually, I'm just not sure you've really thought it through.

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Was that the Tame Elf episode?

No he popped his clogs a couple of years ago.

 

56 minutes ago, Gladys said:

 

 

Edited by finlo
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

Its just an example, like the 1886 case we had here, of the 14 days perhaps not being long enough. How long do people need to stay in isolation for? How long is fair? To the individual and to society? It's not like these people are criminals who should be locked up. It's a question of freedom, liberty and responsibility. Like your tagging proposal, its an affront to decency.

I know you want the borders open more, we're going to have to eventually, I'm just not sure you've really thought it through.

Have you thought through leaving them as they are.

My post that you quoted said after all vulnerable vaccinated.

I don't actually think that's necessary, but belive its what will happen.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Happier diner said:

That's possible but irrelevant. The site rules are the site rules. The construction industry has promised to be covid safe, yes within hours of being allowed back the plonkers don't have the common sense to even look like they are even trying. 

Its all bullshit anyway. You can work in a sterile way in the right environment, hospital etc but saying that you can on a building site is BS.

It is just a PR exercise, the wearing of face coverings on site, unfortunately some cant even do that. If you spend all day working on a scaffold with someone who has Covid you are going to catch it, end of.

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

Its just an example, like the 1886 case we had here, of the 14 days perhaps not being long enough. How long do people need to stay in isolation for? How long is fair? To the individual and to society? It's not like these people are criminals who should be locked up. It's a question of freedom, liberty and responsibility. Like your tagging proposal, its an affront to decency.

I know you want the borders open more, we're going to have to eventually, I'm just not sure you've really thought it through.

The 1886 example is completely irrelevant for obvious reasons stated many times previously.

I can't get my head around how so many people think the fact that that happened is in anyway relevant to conversations we have about moving forward.  I actually think it contributes massively to the fear around travel because people think it can happen again.

Really Howard needs to grow a pair and admit publicly that if he hadn't delayed until 23/12 we wouldn't have needed a locldown and take some responsibility for it, while clearly laying out to the public why the changes now in place mean that set of circumstances can't reoccur. 

Edited by horatiotheturd
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Boris Johnson said:

Its all bullshit anyway. You can work in a sterile way in the right environment, hospital etc but saying that you can on a building site is BS.

It is just a PR exercise, the wearing of face coverings on site, unfortunately some cant even do that. If you spend all day working on a scaffold with someone who has Covid you are going to catch it, end of.

What I saw was 2 chaps walking side by side chatting. Not working. Perfectly possible to social distance.

If they had been actually working I would gave agreed with you as it is difficult. However I would say the construction firms have convinced gov that they can comply, do if they cant they need to go home again.

To add some balance. I walked the length of the prom this morning and the work practices were excellent. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me that Howard always mentions, The meeting of the council ministers every time before he comes out with some crap. Like the decision is not his he is just passing on the bad news. Forgive me if I am wrong is he not in charge of the council of ministers and what he decides is what we get for fuckup or worse

Edited by Dirty Buggane
words failed me
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheTeapot said:

Its just an example, like the 1886 case we had here, of the 14 days perhaps not being long enough. How long do people need to stay in isolation for? How long is fair?

It is worth pointing out that the New Zealand case was the first 'quarantine failure' in months in a country of 5 million people. The quarantine system here could be improved by some slight tweaks. 14 days and 3 negative tests is pretty secure, as is 21 days without tests for individuals isolating alone. If people have travelled together and are isolating together, perhaps they shouldn't be given the option of 21 days isolation without testing.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Boris Johnson said:

I wish Howard would give someone else a go at the press briefings. Someone that can read out loud without sounding like it is the first time they have ever done it. Time and after time after time....................

Cregean? 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
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...