Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

Thanks. Yes, it's a sorry state of affairs isn't it.

I have thought that myself, but more from the viewpoint of people who have broken the rules by mixing not reporting the fact that they are ill to avoid consequences. I would hope after three weeks of no cases though, any virus they have spread would have shown itself somewhere.

I think people now though are possibly being a little economical with the truth to contract tracing.

This then creates or helps to increase the "unexplained "  cases.  Really, they're explainable.  

Id much prefer government just concentrated on the numbers.    Which appear to be falling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 36k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Banker

    2712

  • TheTeapot

    1466

  • Gladys

    1364

  • Nom de plume

    1100

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, TerryFuchwit said:

I dont know if I'm getting my point across properly.  I guess what I'm saying is that I think the government is basing its policy on a flawed number. (Due to people likely being dishonest with where they may have been, hence creating "unknown" cases)

It's basing it on a flawed number, but the flaw is not using all new cases, not just those where they think they know the source of the infection.  It's that thinking that got us into this mess in the first place.

In reality I don't think people being dishonest about where they have been is causing much problem at this stage  - there's been no list of 'places of risk' been issued for weeks because effectively everywhere is.  I actually wonder how much tracing is going on at the moment - I suspect they are just asking a few questions of those to testing positive to see who they have seen recently.

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

I think people now though are possibly being a little economical with the truth to contract tracing.

This then creates or helps to increase the "unexplained "  cases.  Really, they're explainable.  

Id much prefer government just concentrated on the numbers.    Which appear to be falling.

Now, imagine if people knew their cases could be traced directly to who gave it to them.

Tenner says they'd be less economical with the truth.

The problem is, the cases may be explainable, but people are picking it up being out and about and doing things. Until you've stamped out those transmission pathways, it will just rear an ugly head in a bad way when restrictions relax.

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

I dont know if I'm getting my point across properly.  I guess what I'm saying is that I think the government is basing its policy on a flawed number. (Due to people likely being dishonest with where they may have been, hence creating "unknown" cases)

 

12 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

Thanks. Yes, it's a sorry state of affairs isn't it.

I have thought that myself, but more from the viewpoint of people who have broken the rules by mixing not reporting the fact that they are ill to avoid consequences. I would hope after three weeks of no cases though, any virus they have spread would have shown itself somewhere.

 

8 minutes ago, TerryFuchwit said:

I think people now though are possibly being a little economical with the truth to contract tracing.

This then creates or helps to increase the "unexplained "  cases.  Really, they're explainable.  

Id much prefer government just concentrated on the numbers.    Which appear to be falling.

This sot of thing needs to be treated as criminal. 
Look at how much this is costing, not just ecomically but people's lives generally.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

Now, imagine if people knew their cases could be traced directly to who gave it to them.

Tenner says they'd be less economical with the truth.

The problem is, the cases may be explainable, but people are picking it up being out and about and doing things. Until you've stamped out those transmission pathways, it will just rear an ugly head in a bad way when restrictions relax.

Or not, but there is only one conclusive way.

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

The lesson from Panorama? Swift, decisive action. Test, test test; trace, trace, trace and track, track track.

S Korea require all incomers to be tested on arrival (results within 4 hours), download a tracking app for the duration of their isolation and they are checked several times a day, but no lockdown.

Spend the money on that and also "safety net" support like free PPE for the elderly, proper T,T and T, state run food deliveries  and sticking to a plan.  

Be proactive, not reactive.

Sweden didn't come out of it very well.

Nor did UK. There was no comparison either in Governmental approach or shown public attitude. And consequently, not in fatality numbers either.

Though I see from a news article today that Boris and Dominic found £400m of public money last June to bail out a bankrupt UK satellite firm with no established working technology and with no records of relevant Downing St meetings in the business retained...

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Barlow said:

 

 

This sot of thing needs to be treated as criminal. 
Look at how much this is costing, not just ecomically but people's lives generally.

Whoa there, Neddy. How about insufficient sanitising in shops, ineffective hand sanitiser (there is something in the bottles,  not sure what it is) , incorrect use of masks, too early release from SI, "cloudy" social distancing enforcement in shops, individual personal responsibility, and so on?

There will be some transgression, but what about the efficacy of, and commitment to, hygiene measures?  The majority of leaks in the measures could well be due to a lack of clear and enforced directives. 

For example, BV - how much of that has been caused through a lack of clear direction from management and how much from not accepting individual responsibility? 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

It's basing it on a flawed number, but the flaw is not using all new cases, not just those where they think they know the source of the infection.  It's that thinking that got us into this mess in the first place.

In reality I don't think people being dishonest about where they have been is causing much problem at this stage  - there's been no list of 'places of risk' been issued for weeks because effectively everywhere is.  I actually wonder how much tracing is going on at the moment - I suspect they are just asking a few questions of those to testing positive to see who they have seen recently.

There is another possibility but you might have to keep an open mind about it.

 I know someone who has tested positive today. He lives with his partner and has adhered to every rule. One of them goes masked up for shopping once a week, early morning, late evening dog walks and have stayed home the rest of the time. This morning the male told me he felt like he had been in a car crash but covid wasn’t possible because he hasn’t seen anyone for three weeks or more (apart from his partner and she works from home and doesn’t go out. He went for a test this morning and he’s positive. There’s little to no track or trace to be done because he hasn’t been anywhere and hasn’t mixed with anyone. If he had he would have said. I  believe him because since the first lockdown he’s been scrupulous about his behaviour.

So where has he caught it. 

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

There is another possibility but you might have to keep an open mind about it.

 I know someone who has tested positive today. He lives with his partner and has adhered to every rule. One of them goes masked up for shopping once a week, early morning, late evening dog walks and have stayed home the rest of the time. This morning the male told me he felt like he had been in a car crash but covid wasn’t possible because he hasn’t seen anyone for three weeks or more (apart from his partner and she works from home and doesn’t go out. He went for a test this morning and he’s positive. There’s little to no track or trace to be done because he hasn’t been anywhere and hasn’t mixed with anyone. If he had he would have said. I  believe him because since the first lockdown he’s been scrupulous about his behaviour.

So where has he caught it. 

How are they with deliveries to the house? Can it be caught that way?

I tend to pick up mail, parcels, newspapers, food deliveries as soon as they’re delivered without a second thought. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

There is another possibility but you might have to keep an open mind about it.

 I know someone who has tested positive today. He lives with his partner and has adhered to every rule. One of them goes masked up for shopping once a week, early morning, late evening dog walks and have stayed home the rest of the time. This morning the male told me he felt like he had been in a car crash but covid wasn’t possible because he hasn’t seen anyone for three weeks or more (apart from his partner and she works from home and doesn’t go out. He went for a test this morning and he’s positive. There’s little to no track or trace to be done because he hasn’t been anywhere and hasn’t mixed with anyone. If he had he would have said. I  believe him because since the first lockdown he’s been scrupulous about his behaviour.

So where has he caught it. 

Glory hole?

  • Haha 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

There is another possibility but you might have to keep an open mind about it.

 I know someone who has tested positive today. He lives with his partner and has adhered to every rule. One of them goes masked up for shopping once a week, early morning, late evening dog walks and have stayed home the rest of the time. This morning the male told me he felt like he had been in a car crash but covid wasn’t possible because he hasn’t seen anyone for three weeks or more (apart from his partner and she works from home and doesn’t go out. He went for a test this morning and he’s positive. There’s little to no track or trace to be done because he hasn’t been anywhere and hasn’t mixed with anyone. If he had he would have said. I  believe him because since the first lockdown he’s been scrupulous about his behaviour.

So where has he caught it. 

Well you can’t catch it from staying at home so I would guess one of them is not being fully truthful about who they’ve seen 

  • Like 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...

×
×
  • Create New...