Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 33.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Banker

    2554

  • TheTeapot

    1386

  • Gladys

    1287

  • Nom de plume

    1024

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

10 minutes ago, Mr Helmut Fromage said:

The Guernsey Public Servants have a 100% attendance record 

What...both of them? Get away.

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

The purpose is irrelevant, she got a direction notice so was able to return subject to certain requirements.  She didn't have to prove it was essential or, if she did, it was deemed ok. 

 

I'm intrigued about this case as to why she got a direction notice from 111 (medical only) and not the travel notification service (non-medical travel related). It sounds like she checked with the wrong place, someone tried to be helpful but gave out duff info. The 111 team should have passed this query on to the travel team. If only they'd got hold of a jobsworth this wouldn't have been a story.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guernsey travel procedures on return from areas classified as 2 & 3.

As well as test days 2 & 7 etc there is a requirement for passive follow up.

 

Passive follow up means a person:

  • must at all times be vigilant for symptoms, however mild, of COVID-19; must report any such symptoms immediately to Public Health; and must comply with any instructions given by Public Health thereafter (which may, for the avoidance of doubt, include an immediate resumption of self-isolation);
  • must not enter a nursing, care or residential home without the prior agreement of the manager of the home, received after having informed the manager of the home of their status as being subject to these restrictions and should not return to work there unless they have an agreed method statement with Public Health; 
  • must not, other than in an emergency, enter the Princess Elizabeth Hospital, and in an emergency must give prior notification of their status as being subject to these restrictions before entering the Princess Elizabeth Hospital if reasonably practicable in all the circumstances and should not return to work there unless they have an agreed method statement with Public Health; 
  • must inform any other healthcare provider (for example, a doctor, optometrist or dentist) of their status as being subject to these restrictions when making any appointment for care;
  • must, so far as reasonably practicable, keep a record of people met and places visited (to assist with contact tracing if necessary); and
  • must comply with any additional conditions and restrictions imposed from time to time by the Medical Officer of Health.
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Major Rushen said:

Guernsey travel procedures on return from areas classified as 2 & 3.

As well as test days 2 & 7 etc there is a requirement for passive follow up.

 

Passive follow up means a person:

  • must at all times be vigilant for symptoms, however mild, of COVID-19; must report any such symptoms immediately to Public Health; and must comply with any instructions given by Public Health thereafter (which may, for the avoidance of doubt, include an immediate resumption of self-isolation);
  • must not enter a nursing, care or residential home without the prior agreement of the manager of the home, received after having informed the manager of the home of their status as being subject to these restrictions and should not return to work there unless they have an agreed method statement with Public Health; 
  • must not, other than in an emergency, enter the Princess Elizabeth Hospital, and in an emergency must give prior notification of their status as being subject to these restrictions before entering the Princess Elizabeth Hospital if reasonably practicable in all the circumstances and should not return to work there unless they have an agreed method statement with Public Health; 
  • must inform any other healthcare provider (for example, a doctor, optometrist or dentist) of their status as being subject to these restrictions when making any appointment for care;
  • must, so far as reasonably practicable, keep a record of people met and places visited (to assist with contact tracing if necessary); and
  • must comply with any additional conditions and restrictions imposed from time to time by the Medical Officer of Health.

Very sensible & concise.

Implementing soon too.

Edited by Nom de plume
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, madmanxpilot said:

I think that it won't be as simplistic as that. I would have thought that if we start from zero cases on a certain date, that efforts will still be made to control the spread of the virus by testing, contact tracing and isolating. 

I think that there would be no immediate introduction of societal restrictions at the outset of an outbreak.

I would have thought that a very keen eye will be kept on how any outbreak progresses, and how it manifests itself in terms of hospitalisations.

Provided the hospital is coping, restrictions will remain light if any at all. If the data suggests it isn't, then expect them to become more significant.

The grey area moving forward will be how infections (which will be inevitable) translate into hospital cases. That data will be key and will dictate our path out of this mess.

A massive difference between the private and public sector is that in the private sector you are paid to take risks.

In the public sector, despite being paid more than your private sector counterpart, you NEVER take a risk in case it reflects badly on your political masters and damages their chances of re-election with resultant Career Limitation Move implications for yourself.

What's best for the electorate is, of course, an irrelevance...

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Major Rushen said:

Guernsey travel procedures on return from areas classified as 2 & 3.

As well as test days 2 & 7 etc there is a requirement for passive follow up.

 

Passive follow up means a person:

  • must at all times be vigilant for symptoms, however mild, of COVID-19; must report any such symptoms immediately to Public Health; and must comply with any instructions given by Public Health thereafter (which may, for the avoidance of doubt, include an immediate resumption of self-isolation);
  • must not enter a nursing, care or residential home without the prior agreement of the manager of the home, received after having informed the manager of the home of their status as being subject to these restrictions and should not return to work there unless they have an agreed method statement with Public Health; 
  • must not, other than in an emergency, enter the Princess Elizabeth Hospital, and in an emergency must give prior notification of their status as being subject to these restrictions before entering the Princess Elizabeth Hospital if reasonably practicable in all the circumstances and should not return to work there unless they have an agreed method statement with Public Health; 
  • must inform any other healthcare provider (for example, a doctor, optometrist or dentist) of their status as being subject to these restrictions when making any appointment for care;
  • must, so far as reasonably practicable, keep a record of people met and places visited (to assist with contact tracing if necessary); and
  • must comply with any additional conditions and restrictions imposed from time to time by the Medical Officer of Health.

Good & clear, exactly what we need but haven’t got!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said:

Would you prefer 'with the passing of time'?

.........how about 'in the future' or 'looking ahead'?  Anything other than one of the very first entries onto the bullshit-bingo card after it emerge from US corporate-speak lexicon.  Of course, it's endemic in the 'political class', unless, of course, you have aspirations in that direction in which case you're half-way there 👍

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, P.K. said:

A massive difference between the private and public sector is that in the private sector you are paid to take risks.

In the public sector, despite being paid more than your private sector counterpart, you NEVER take a risk in case it reflects badly on your political masters and damages their chances of re-election with resultant Career Limitation Move implications for yourself.

What's best for the electorate is, of course, an irrelevance...

To some extent this is true but when people's lives and / or well being are at stake potentially then risk assessment and management is a whole new ball game. It's not just for political reasons either - get it wrong and you could blow your whole career if you don't take all the circumstances into account. Seen it happen too often.

Been there, done that. 

 

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

To some extent this is true but when people's lives and / or well being are at stake potentially then risk assessment and management is a whole new ball game. It's not just for political reasons either - get it wrong and you could blow your whole career if you don't take all the circumstances into account. Seen it happen too often.

Been there, done that. 

 

To be honest, public sector is not about taking risk commercially, that is not what they do and nor should they.  That is why dealing with them just seems hard slog.  However, what they should do is risk assess, taking all factors into account, not just the ones that have political currency, and take advice. 

In any risk assessment you need to have a clear objective.  In the private sector it is maximising shareholder returns whilst minimising the vulnerability of that return, through managing commercial, legal, reputational, and socio-economic risk which attends the profit-making activity.  

In the public sector, those objectives are not the same.  They should be more protectionist (public purse, economy, national security, society, health etc) rather than speculative.  Nor are the risks to return quite the same, because unlike the private sector, 'success' cannot be measured purely financially.  

So, the upshot is that comparing public sector performance by private sector measures is unrealistic.  That doesn't mean that there are no common measures, like financial prudence, but the motivation is and should be very different. 

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

To be honest, public sector is not about taking risk commercially, that is not what they do and nor should they.  That is why dealing with them just seems hard slog.  However, what they should do is risk assess, taking all factors into account, not just the ones that have political currency, and take advice. 

In any risk assessment you need to have a clear objective.  In the private sector it is maximising shareholder returns whilst minimising the vulnerability of that return, through managing commercial, legal, reputational, and socio-economic risk which attends the profit-making activity.  

In the public sector, those objectives are not the same.  They should be more protectionist (public purse, economy, national security, society, health etc) rather than speculative.  Nor are the risks to return quite the same, because unlike the private sector, 'success' cannot be measured purely financially.  

So, the upshot is that comparing public sector performance by private sector measures is unrealistic.  That doesn't mean that there are no common measures, like financial prudence, but the motivation is and should be very different. 

Spot on, Gladys! 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, P.K. said:

A massive difference between the private and public sector is that in the private sector you are paid to take risks.

In the public sector, despite being paid more than your private sector counterpart, you NEVER take a risk in case it reflects badly on your political masters and damages their chances of re-election with resultant Career Limitation Move implications for yourself.

What's best for the electorate is, of course, an irrelevance...

Just to clarify, could you please suggest what proportion of private sector employees regularly take ‘risks’, that is exposing themselves to danger as opposed to exposing shareholders to financial loss.

Could you also suggest why the following, predominantly public sector jobs, in your own words, NEVER take a risk:

Fire Officers

Police Officers

Prison Officers

Paramedics

Bomb Disposal Officers

Surgeons

Coastguards

 

 

  • Like 5
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...