Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Banker said:

Here’s description of Douglas for cruise, obviously expecting promenade to be finished by July 😂

26th Jul 2021
Douglas, Isle of Man (more information)
Douglas is the capital town of the Isle of Man, in the Irish Sea. It’s home to the Manx Museum, featuring displays of Viking gold. From here, the Story of Mann trail tours the island’s ancient sites. The restored Villa Marina–Gaiety Theatre complex features a grand Edwardian concert hall. Horse-drawn trams ply the promenade on Douglas Bay. South, the Great Union Camera Obscura uses mirrors to provide panoramic views.

Just imagine getting off the ‘Tradewinds’ cruise liner & being faced with Western Europe’s version of Aleppo ...

... and a water wheel that doesn’t turn.

 

Edited by Nom de plume
  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 33.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Banker

    2563

  • TheTeapot

    1391

  • Gladys

    1288

  • Nom de plume

    1028

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

Given the thread title is: IOM Covid removing restrictions

 

Any guesses when IOM residents will be able to travel without having to do isolation upon return?

 

Seems very unnecessary if so many people in the UK and on island have been vaccinated.

 

Whenever Ashford's asked this question the response is all about the vaccine not being 100% effective against preventing transmission and doesn't stop you getting ill. 

 

Well, we know that and it's doesn't answer the question.  I'm broadly in favour of the measures up to now but we really do need to start opening up. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, snowman said:

Given the thread title is: IOM Covid removing restrictions

 

Any guesses when IOM residents will be able to travel without having to do isolation upon return?

 

Seems very unnecessary if so many people in the UK and on island have been vaccinated.

 

Whenever Ashford's asked this question the response is all about the vaccine not being 100% effective against preventing transmission and doesn't stop you getting ill. 

 

Well, we know that and it's doesn't answer the question.  I'm broadly in favour of the measures up to now but we really do need to start opening up. 

 

We’ve been asking this question for months mate.

The flakes are driving the agenda.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, snowman said:

Given the thread title is: IOM Covid removing restrictions

 

Any guesses when IOM residents will be able to travel without having to do isolation upon return?

 

Seems very unnecessary if so many people in the UK and on island have been vaccinated.

 

Whenever Ashford's asked this question the response is all about the vaccine not being 100% effective against preventing transmission and doesn't stop you getting ill. 

 

Well, we know that and it's doesn't answer the question.  I'm broadly in favour of the measures up to now but we really do need to start opening up. 

 

It's an interesting question.

It's also a bit catch 22.  Airlines are not going to return unless they can fill planes.

People are unlikely to travel in sufficient numbers (be that for business or pleasure) with restrictions in place.  With restrictions in place there simply isn't the volume to have proper travel options.

The government need to provide certainty on this.  To allow airlines and people to make plans.

Personally, I'd prefer them to set a date of the 30th June.

Life is going to need to go on.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Nom de plume said:

We’ve been asking this question for months mate.

The flakes are driving the agenda.

I don't believe it was an appropriate time to ask in the past months. But the vaccination programme has progressed

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TerryFuchwit said:

It's an interesting question.

It's also a bit catch 22.  Airlines are not going to return unless they can fill planes.

People are unlikely to travel in sufficient numbers (be that for business or pleasure) with restrictions in place.  With restrictions in place there simply isn't the volume to have proper travel options.

The government need to provide certainty on this.  To allow airlines and people to make plans.

Personally, I'd prefer them to set a date of the 30th June.

Life is going to need to go on.  

 

It's difficult to justify anything beyond July given that the UK is removing social distancing and reopening nightclubs for example.  Perhaps the IOM will wait and see what the infection rates are in the UK following the removal of all social distancing measures. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, snowman said:

It's difficult to justify anything beyond July given that the UK is removing social distancing and reopening nightclubs for example.  Perhaps the IOM will wait and see what the infection rates are in the UK following the removal of all social distancing measures. 

And that wouldn’t be an unreasonable stance if you were risk averse, as I suspect our lot are.

Of course summer showed a down turn last year. Upturn started in October/November. It’s probably going to be then before we see what effect vaccine and imported variations will have

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, snowman said:

It's difficult to justify anything beyond July given that the UK is removing social distancing and reopening nightclubs for example.  Perhaps the IOM will wait and see what the infection rates are in the UK following the removal of all social distancing measures. 

They’re waiting for consultants to advise them on exit strategy after the last document was widely criticized , then they’ll probably copy Guernsey as they normally do

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Gladys said:

Stupid question, but is there a possibility that the vaccine will actually accelerate mutations? 

It's actually a good question and apologies for not answering it last night as I got distracted by that loopy letter.  I suppose the thinking is that vaccines would act as a form of evolutionary pressure as traits that helped the virus to evade the effects of the vaccines were preferentially selected.

It's possible to some extent, but I think two things act against it.  The first is that the vaccine should reduce massively the number of people infected and that simply means that there is a lot less mutation going on and so less chance for adverse mutations to appear. I don't think it's a coincidence that a lot of the new dangerous mutations have developed in countries where the virus was allowed to get out of control (Brazil, UK, US) and so there were an awful lot of people infected and able to pass dangerous mutations on.

The second point is that vaccines are 'always on' and so protect people for a long period, unlike say antibiotics with which people are only treated for a short time.  This means any infections are hopefully short lived and the virus has less time to adapt. I've seen comments that patients who are immunocompromised and so take much longer to get rid of infections are possibly where such mutations may arise.

So on balance vaccines shouldn't act to increase mutations but the opposite.  But all this requires a population that is as fully vaccinated as possible to keep infections to a minimum (and hopefully eliminate them).  It also requires vaccines that stay effective for a long time or can be boosted to do so.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Happier diner said:

The virus doesnt have a brain and doesnt study the vaccine roll out figures and statistics so think about it. The virus doesnt understand vaccination programmes so cant mutate to outpace them.

It mutates in a form of accelerated evolution in the way all viruses do. 

It's TRUE the virus may evade the vaccination process but it' cant be accelerated by it. 

Have you looked at the Dr  Chris Smith you tube videos from the BBC. He explains thing brilliantly. No patronising but in layman's terms. He is a professor of virology so he knows his stuff too

I didn't say it thought, ( and I don't think it has a growly face) nor that mutation was a planned process.  All of nature evolves to eradicate unsuccessful characteristics and enhance those that increase survival. My question was whether the vaccine acting in a particular way would result in mutation to reduce that 'weakness' or enhance another characteristics to increase its survival rate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nom de plume said:

Just imagine getting off the ‘Tradewinds’ cruise liner & being faced with Western Europe’s version of Aleppo ...

... and a water wheel that doesn’t turn.

 

. . . and an 18th Century Boat that has been locked away from the Public for more than 5 years, because. . .  

"The water was lapping up against it, salt water, causing corrosion in an 18th century boat.

"How appalling to keep a boat in those conditions." 

 

Wow! Salt water causes corrosion?  Who would have guessed?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Newbie said:

The virus doesn't mutate in order to replicate, it is trying to replicate itself perfectly, but mutations occur by chance during that process. Some of those mutations may make the virus more effective (like the Kent variant) but most will have no effect, or will make the virus less effective. The more effective mutations become a dominant strain due to the fact that they are more effective.

If a strain were to emerge that made the virus less affected by the immunity created by vaccination (e.g. Brazil or SA), it would have an advantage over other strains that were better controlled by that immunity. Hence the possible need for boosters that have been tweaked to take account of new variants.

However, vaccinating people doesn't mean that such a mutation is more likely to emerge. Theoretically, if vaccination reduces transmission, and therefore the number of replications, the chances of such a mutation emerging should be reduced. But it is all theoretical at the moment

Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, snowman said:

It's difficult to justify anything beyond July given that the UK is removing social distancing and reopening nightclubs for example.  Perhaps the IOM will wait and see what the infection rates are in the UK following the removal of all social distancing measures. 

Infection rates will be what they will be.  Once people are vaccinated it would makr sense to stop obsessing over how many people have covid.  Rather than consistently headline report statistics of how many people have it, how many die etc.

If the government are going to continue down a path of not accepting covid as a part of every day life then we will never get out of this cycle of lockdowns we are in and the UK and the rest of the world seem to have been in.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

It's actually a good question and apologies for not answering it last night as I got distracted by that loopy letter.  I suppose the thinking is that vaccines would act as a form of evolutionary pressure as traits that helped the virus to evade the effects of the vaccines were preferentially selected.

It's possible to some extent, but I think two things act against it.  The first is that the vaccine should reduce massively the number of people infected and that simply means that there is a lot less mutation going on and so less chance for adverse mutations to appear. I don't think it's a coincidence that a lot of the new dangerous mutations have developed in countries where the virus was allowed to get out of control (Brazil, UK, US) and so there were an awful lot of people infected and able to pass dangerous mutations on.

The second point is that vaccines are 'always on' and so protect people for a long period, unlike say antibiotics with which people are only treated for a short time.  This means any infections are hopefully short lived and the virus has less time to adapt. I've seen comments that patients who are immunocompromised and so take much longer to get rid of infections are possibly where such mutations may arise.

So on balance vaccines shouldn't act to increase mutations but the opposite.  But all this requires a population that is as fully vaccinated as possible to keep infections to a minimum (and hopefully eliminate them).  It also requires vaccines that stay effective for a long time or can be boosted to do so.

Thanks Roger, it was the evolutionary pressure that I was thinking about.  Thank you also for replying in a non- condescending manner unlike Wimpy Boy. 

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...