Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

Actually it isn't.  15 days ago on the 8th was the infamous 108 cases day, so you would expect to see that number recover.

This isn't a one-off.  I reckon that by now there 518 cases in the current outbreak which are past 14 days after the day they were announced as a new case.  And yet the number of recoveries based on the change in active cases is only 316[1].  That's about 200 who should have recovered, but haven't according to them.

 

[1]  The dashboard says 313 recoveries (I think they not be including some separate travel related ones) so there's not much disagreement.

Yes, agree. If you work the other way, and add up the number of cases declared in last 14 days, there's 565 cases but it's showing 766 active cases so matches your roughly 200 cases that in theory should be recovered but aren't.

The biggest worry for me on this is that this may show that this strain has a longer infection period, in which case they might need to consider lengthening the 21 day with no test isolation period pretty quickly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 35.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Banker

    2712

  • TheTeapot

    1464

  • Gladys

    1362

  • Nom de plume

    1099

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

38 minutes ago, Cambon said:

Yes. If you are asked to isolate as a close contact, but test negative, you are tested on day 1, 7 &13. Anyone isolating with you is not tested unless you eventually test positive. 

If you are positive, or test positive on day 1/7/13, those isolating with you must then also be tested. Oddly though, if you test negative on day 13, but people you are isolating with test positive, you are free from isolation but the positive cases must continue to isolate until day 21.

Seems a bit odd, there you go! 

No idea what would be odd about this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw this by Chris Thomas disputing Howard Quayle claim that Tynwald endorsed his exit plan which they’d just savaged!!

Not sure it is honest ⁦ ⁩ that Tynwald endorsed the draft Exit Approach as ⁦ ⁩ said in press briefing. It received & welcomed it as starting point, made points about it, & noted simplified version & plan would come for approval in April.
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Manx Yeller said:

The biggest worry for me on this is that this may show that this strain has a longer infection period, in which case they might need to consider lengthening the 21 day with no test isolation period pretty quickly.

I'm hoping it's just some mix up with the way they record the figures or calculate the number of active cases, but it does need explaining.  If there is evidence that those with the Kent variant (which I assume is all of them) are still testing positive at 13 days, then they really ought to be publishing it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gladys said:

So you could have a household split between isolating and not isolating? So, regardless, everyone is out of isolation after 21 days even if one if them only tested positive on day 13. 

No. If that happened, the whole isolation routine is reset. Starts again. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Manx Yeller said:

Just change the dates in the top left corner.  

They will currently be set to 01/12/2020 & 23/03/2022 so if you change them to 24/03/2021 & 24/03/2021 for example you'll see that currently there are 878 Hub vaccinations booked of which 797 are first dose.

That was extraordinarily helpful. Are you sure you're in the right forum? :D

  • Haha 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Cambon said:

No. If that happened, the whole isolation routine is reset. Starts again. 

No, but the first positive test is free if tested negative on day 13, but the rest of the household, if positive, have to continue isolation. So, first positive is out and about, but the remainder are not?  Or at least that is how I understood your post. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, The Phantom said:

Whilst I do respect Al Jazeera generally, that article says may be more deadly.  Once again very little proof or knowledge on this virus (from the experts, not you).  I'm basing my previous comment on historical evidence on all viruses generally and basic common sense.   But then we are also talking about populations getting herd immunity to these things over the years.

The Al Jazeera report was based on a Report from the New & Emerging Respiratory Threats Advisory Group last updated in February.  That looked at a variety of ways of assessing the increased deadliness of the variant and came to the conclusion that there was "a realistic possibility that infection with VOCB.1.1.7 is associated with an increased risk of death compared to infection with non-VOC viruses", though the estimates varied between 35% and 91% more and it noted limitations with the data.

They also noted the increased transmissability that has been generally agreed on.  The A-J article also referred from another source to greater hospitalisation of younger and female patients, though I'm not sure if we've seen that here.

One thing I can't find much evidence of is Ewarts assertion that the Kent variant has a longer period of being infectious.  The only paper I could find was one published by Harvard which gave a period of 13.3 days compared to 8.2 days for other infections.  But this was based on a tiny, tiny sample of only seven cases of the Kent variant all from the same location (and probably source), so it's hardly conclusive and they didn't find a difference in viral load which others suggest.  So there needs to be more evidence before the idea is accepted.

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

No, but the first positive test is free if tested negative on day 13, but the rest of the household, if positive, have to continue isolation. So, first positive is out and about, but the remainder are not?  Or at least that is how I understood your post. 

That’s what Henny said in a briefing as otherwise you could be in permanent isolation, after being positive and then testing negative on day13 you are no longer shedding  virus 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

 

One thing I can't find much evidence of is Ewarts assertion that the Kent variant has a longer period of being infectious.

Interesting reading. To be fair to DrH I don't think it was an assertion. More a suggestion of a possibility  based upon recent experience. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

After the blatant abuse of power shown by the chief minister and his council of ministers not to answer any questions raised over Covid. I decided to reacquaint myself to who the members are, As I looked through the names. Ray Harmer, David Ashford, Dr Alexander J Allison, Laurence Skelly, Geoffrey Boot,        Graham Cregeen, Timothy Baker, Alfred Cannan and I thought a bigger bunch of failure and ineptitude  has not been gathered in one place at one time. I would hope people will remember it is these people and not the great Manx Public that has put us in the position we find ourselves with Covid. I would hope that come September that the great Manx Public remembers who these people are and avoid their box on ballot paper. That is if the almighty Howard(fbotp) has not cancelled the election under emergency powers so as to protect the great Manx Public with there superior intellect, and keep noses in trough.

These are my own rambling's and should not be taken as the free will of the Great Manx public.

Edited by Dirty Buggane
mistake
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dirty Buggane said:

After the blatant use of power shown by the chief minister and his council of ministers not to answer any questions raised over Covid. I decided to reacquaint myself to who the members are, As I looked through the names. Ray Harmer, David Ashford, Dr Alexander J Allison, Laurence Skelly, Geoffrey Boot,        Graham Cregeen, Timothy Baker, Alfred Cannan and I thought a bigger bunch of failure and ineptitude  has not been gathered in one place at one time. I would hope people will remember it is these people and not the great Manx Public that has put us in the position we find ourselves with Covid. I would hope that come September that the great Manx Public remembers who these people are and avoid their box on ballot paper. That is if the almighty Howard(fbotp) has not cancelled the election under emergency powers so as to protect the great Manx Public with there superior intellect, and keep noses in trough.

These are my own rambling's and should not be taken as the free will of the Great Manx public.

Use of power is fine; it's abuse that you have to worry about. 

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

Use of power is fine; it's abuse that you have to worry about. 

Stopping questions from our elected representatives is an abuse of power in my opinion 

  • 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...