Jump to content
Spam messages. Please stop reporting messages from Orange 15, Ivsa and Pupyh. They’ve been banned. ×

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 32k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Banker

    2385

  • TheTeapot

    1358

  • Gladys

    1222

  • horatiotheturd

    1015

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

Just now, jaymann said:

A good outcome. But one must wonder if yesterday's ridiculous briefing and 'advice' was really worth it.

Well. For once, I think they actually took a pragmatic approach. 

They told us to be careful for 24 hours whilst they figured out the situation when it looked like there was a problem. 

As soon as there was an update, they pushed it out saying the issue wasn’t as bad as expected, so life can continue as normal. 

  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

Love how the coronavirus takes Sundays off.

It's clearly Public Sector.... 😂

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

Well. For once, I think they actually took a pragmatic approach. 

They told us to be careful for 24 hours whilst they figured out the situation when it looked like there was a problem. 

As soon as there was an update, they pushed it out saying the issue wasn’t as bad as expected, so life can continue as normal. 

I can agree with you here.

But we can't keep doing this. They need to be better prepared for identifying contacts. This reliance on publishing lists of locations is too slow.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I follow the logic here. They are concerned about 2 unexplained cases as it means that there are likely to be people out there who have it and are spreading it without knowing. They test all close contacts of those 2 and they show up negative, so the 2 didn't get it from any of their close contacts. So surely we still have 2 unexplained cases? I would have thought that a better outcome would have been a positive test from one of their close contacts with a link to the original cluster so they become explained cases?

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...