IOM Covid removing restrictions

[Roxanne 1,888]

28 minutes ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

Why is it no good compared to 5 days?

What's the average COVID incubation time? Oh wait, it's 2 to 7 days. So if you know who it has transmitted to within 2 at the most, you've got a pretty good chance of isolating them before they become infectious.

And this is the other thing not being brought to the government table.  While we are waiting, and waiting, it is entirely possible that a lot of people are walking around, unaware that they are infected.

Time bomb.

[Hugh G Rection 8]

8 minutes ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

So, entertain me, what would be the downside of sampling the current outbreak, at no cost to the government?

There is none.

it is good old fashioned misogyny from the ‘honourable’. 
 

Now it’s not my field of expertise, but it reeks of suspicion that Dr Glover isn’t being used. Is she a bit too close to home holding the ‘whistle’? 

[Roxanne 1,888]

12 minutes ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

My agenda is actually, the safety of quite a number of older and vulnerable relatives and a freedom that not many other places in Europe have at the moment.

I've nothing to do with Taxagenomics, or public health policy. But, anyone can see why the UK don't use genomics for contact tracing. The horse has bolted.

I can see why New Zealand do use genomics for contact tracing. They've got a policy of local elimination too. You need every armament you can get with that.

So, entertain me, what would be the downside of sampling the current outbreak, at no cost to the government?

Battered egos?

[Roxanne 1,888]

2 minutes ago, Hugh G Rection said:

There is none.

it is good old fashioned misogyny from the ‘honourable’. 
 

Now it’s not my field of expertise, but it reeks of suspicion that Dr Glover isn’t being used. Is she a bit too close to home holding the ‘whistle’? 

She's the one person who has had the audacity to call them out on their bullshit and, worse, she knows more than them.

[Happier diner 549]

2 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

And this is the crux of the matter.

Our health and well-being is compromised, while at the same time, we are being told that everything is being done that can be done.

It's a lie.

Take a look at what the WHO says. Paragraph above bottom of page 21. Explains the limitations

https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1326052/retrieve

I'm not a doctor and I struggled with a lot of this document. But my conclusions are based upon my understanding of it

I'm not just being as Ass/Troll on purpose. Its an interesting subject and the potential of this testing of course is clear. However, I'm just honestly not seeing the benefits to us at this moment in time and I agree with Ashford (or whoever is advising him) that as we are it wouldn't help

[Banker 1,370]

Just Ashie on press conference later so looking like no bad news if Howie not about!!

Saves any tantrums when PM asks about steam packet!

[Happier diner 549]

Just now, Banker said:

Just Ashie on press conference later so looking like no bad news if Howie not about!!

Saves any tantrums when PM asks about steam packet!

No thstitics then today Just the fifeser vaccine updates

[Newbie 89]

35 minutes ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

Why is it no good compared to 5 days?

What's the average COVID incubation time? Oh wait, it's 2 to 7 days. So if you know who it has transmitted to within 2 at the most, you've got a pretty good chance of isolating them before they become infectious.

Perhaps I am being thick, but how does genomics tell you who the virus has been transmitted to.? To do the genomic studies you have to have a positive test. The genomic tests on one person will not tell you who they have transmitted the virus to if that person is not already known to have the virus.

[AcousticallyChallenged 1,180]

Just now, Newbie said:

Perhaps I am being thick, but how does genomics tell you who the virus has been transmitted to.? To do the genomic studies you have to have a positive test. The genomic tests on one person will not tell you who they have transmitted the virus to if that person is not already known to have the virus.

It tells you who caught it from who.

So by measure, you know if Alice caught it from Bob. And if Alice caught it from Bob at a coffee shop, you know that the coffee shop could be a problem. If Alice didn't catch it from Bob, who did she catch it from?

This stops you from having to assume where cases were transmitted, and, at the very least, reaffirms your notion that it is a single cluster.

But, equally, you have Alice and Bob who both have it, whose contacts do you look at first? Knowing who gave it to who, that lets you follow it in the right direction too.

[Happier diner 549]

2 minutes ago, Newbie said:

Perhaps I am being thick, but how does genomics tell you who the virus has been transmitted to.? To do the genomic studies you have to have a positive test. The genomic tests on one person will not tell you who they have transmitted the virus to if that person is not already known to have the virus.

Yey. Its not just me that gets it

Or at least thinks he does

[Peter Layman 18]

1 hour ago, TerryFuchwit said:

Lol. It's almost like you are new here.

I don't think you have to be new to suss out how some posters post

[Happier diner 549]

Just now, AcousticallyChallenged said:

It tells you who caught it from who.

So by measure, you know if Alice caught it from Bob. And if Alice caught it from Bob at a coffee shop, you know that the coffee shop could be a problem. If Alice didn't catch it from Bob, who did she catch it from?

This stops you from having to assume where cases were transmitted, and, at the very least, reaffirms your notion that it is a single cluster.

But, equally, you have Alice and Bob who both have it, whose contacts do you look at first? Knowing who gave it to who, that lets you follow it in the right direction too.

Probably true. But you would have isolated them both wouldn't you. What next? Test everyone on the Island and then do the sequencing or wait for the next positive test.

[Hugh G Rection 8]

11 minutes ago, Banker said:

Just Ashie on press conference later so looking like no bad news if Howie not about!!

Saves any tantrums when PM asks about steam packet!

Surely to me that forebodes impending doom.

HQ in some very important meetings???? Receiving some stern advice advocating island wide home arrest?????

Or maybe he’s taking a drive up to an impressive laboratory in Onchan to deliver some choice words to his least favourite keyboard warrior???? 🤣

[Newbie 89]

5 minutes ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

It tells you who caught it from who.

So by measure, you know if Alice caught it from Bob. And if Alice caught it from Bob at a coffee shop, you know that the coffee shop could be a problem. If Alice didn't catch it from Bob, who did she catch it from?

This stops you from having to assume where cases were transmitted, and, at the very least, reaffirms your notion that it is a single cluster.

But, equally, you have Alice and Bob who both have it, whose contacts do you look at first? Knowing who gave it to who, that lets you follow it in the right direction too.

If they both have the exact same strain of virus, how does it tell you who caught it from who in the coffee shop? If there has been a mutation and you just have those 2 cases, how do you know which is the earlier version of the virus? These are genuine questions - just trying to understand.

I can see the value if you have an apparently random unrelated case that turns out to have the same genome, so you can link that case to a known cluster and then look for ways that the transmission might have occurred, but that is exactly what contact tracers do, and they can start doing it as soon as they have a positive result rather than 24hrs later.

As for whether you look at Alice's or Bob's contacts first, you look at both to see whether there are any common contacts

[quilp 10,825]

All's well, nothing to worry about...