Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Filippo

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, P.K. said:

The hospital does not need to be overwhelmed for people to die. As we have seen in the last outbreak.

Strange (after Thatcher) but true the government of the day have a duty of care to ALL of their citizens. That includes those with conditions like immunocompromised and immunosuppressed who were not part of the vaccine testing programs but are very vulnerable to the virus.

Rock and a hard place. After the tragedy that is India, a country who had thought it had beaten the virus but now has over 21M infections and 230,168 deaths, the reluctance of leaders to fully open is perfectly understandable.

Here is a question for you.

Do you think it is acceptable for a country to open it's borders knowing some of it's citizens are going to die and if so in Mannin's case what do you think is an acceptable number?

 

Yes.

Two a week as a direct result of COVID would be acceptable IMO if it opened us up.

Won't happen though.  That per head of population would be somewhere in the region of 5 tines the death rate India are currently facing and our vaccinations and healthcare provision are in no way comparable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Here is a question for you.

Do you think it is acceptable for a country to open it's borders knowing some of it's citizens are going to die and if so in Mannin's case what do you think is an acceptable number?

 

People die of lots of things P.K., lots of horrible, nasty things. 

Smoking is a proven killer of people but I don’t see cigarettes banned from entering a country.

You have to start thinking bigger picture than being trapped in a Covid prison.

Life is fraught with risk, it’s everywhere. We all choose to live our lives mitigating those risks as best we can.

Closing borders might have been a good idea, it’s really not now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mr Roboto said:

The cult of Rachel is quite amusing really. I think the cult members should definitely put up big Wicker Rachel’s on common land and worship them to keep them safe from harm as it’s all they’re effectively doing on social media anyway. It was a very inglorious moment for government amongst a series of inglorious moments government has had in relation to its covid response. But to quote Andy Warhol she’s had her 15 minutes of fame. There’s much worse been done in the last 15 months. Particularly the mass imprisonments and other completely out of control Lockdown 1 behaviours which the average covid-head Rachel supporter was literally cheering and baying at like demented idiots. 

You say this as though scientific advice couldn't actually be used to make a more informed and pragmatic series of decisions about how to handle outbreaks.

Not many places have had a combination of local elimination, a genomics lab for what is a small number of cases, and the expertise to use it. Combined with a contact tracing team that are actually able to contact everyone. It's a near-unique level of insight and data-gathering on the global stage.

Suddenly, you're in a position where you're both guiding and refining the contact tracing process, keeping us out of lockdown. The former has been done to death on MF, but that's as well as having a potentially bigger scientific impact. I'm sure there are ministers who would wet themselves in excitement if there were headlines going out about how the IOM was helping to shape how COVID is managed in the early stages of an outbreak.

But, instead we have a farcical saga including an anonymous letter read out in a press briefing. Which feels like something that would be done in the playground. Plus the rest of it.

You're conflating different groups of people, the ones that would have the Manx Bubble to the ends of the earth, and the ones that simply want an appropriate response, using all the tools available.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Nom de plume said:

People die of lots of things P.K., lots of horrible, nasty things. 

Smoking is a proven killer of people but I don’t see cigarettes banned from entering a country.

You have to start thinking bigger picture than being trapped in a Covid prison.

Life is fraught with risk, it’s everywhere. We all choose to live our lives mitigating those risks as best we can.

Closing borders might have been a good idea, it’s really not now.

Apparently RTA's are down due to less traffic. Hospitalisations for flu were well down over the winter undoubtedly due to wearing masks like they do in the Far East as a matter of course.

Now would you please answer my question, thanks.

Edited by P.K.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Mr Roboto said:

What on earth is an avoidable death? You could get hit by a bus tomorrow or die of a heart attack running for one. Do you want government to ban all buses on that basis just in case it happens? Honestly you accuse others of hyperbole and yet you make the most outrageously incorrect over statements time and time again in what honestly just sounds like a deep seated desire to transmit your own paranoia onto other people via osmosis. The one thing people like you seem to really fear is a return to a normal life as some perhaps they think they’ve got power over other people for one time in their lives still by continually trying to scare other idiots half to death with their hysteria and half baked covid stories.

Government is taking away the power from people like you to spread your fear. The rules are going or have gone and the borders will be fully opening very soon whether you like it or agree with it or not. And screwed up irresponsible people like you and others will ultimately be found responsible for an awful lot of suicides and mental health issues in others by using social media to spread your obsessional fear mongering shit. 

 

record.jpg

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, P.K. said:

The hospital does not need to be overwhelmed for people to die. As we have seen in the last outbreak.

Strange (after Thatcher) but true the government of the day have a duty of care to ALL of their citizens. That includes those with conditions like immunocompromised and immunosuppressed who were not part of the vaccine testing programs but are very vulnerable to the virus.

Rock and a hard place. After the tragedy that is India, a country who had thought it had beaten the virus but now has over 21M infections and 230,168 deaths, the reluctance of leaders to fully open is perfectly understandable.

Here is a question for you.

Do you think it is acceptable for a country to open it's borders knowing some of it's citizens are going to die and if so in Mannin's case what do you think is an acceptable number?

 

The duty of care should not result in protecting one sector at cost and risk to others.  It has to be on a risk basis with an underlying requirement for reasonableness. 

When looking at a particular section of society then different mitigating arrangements can be out in place for that sector, not the entire population.  In doing so, government is discharging its duty of care to ALL its citizens. Duty of care isn't the same as duty to eliminate all risk.  It has to be reasonable and the risk to ALL sectors considered. 

Specifically with regard to those unable to have the vaccine, evidence is increasing that the vaccination suppresses spread so those unable to have it have a degree of protection from the rest of the population being vaccinated. 

The hysterical hyperbole peddling that implies certain people will be sacrificial lambs to allow the rest of the population to go about its everyday business, is just that, hysterical hyperbole. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Apparently RTA's are down due to less traffic. Hospitalisations for flu were well down over the winter undoubtedly due to wearing masks like they do in the Far East as a matter of course.

Now would you please answer my question, thanks.

I’ll answer your question.

Yes, people ‘might’ die. Is it acceptable?

Yes, given the sacrifices the majority (who never faced life threatening risk from Covid) have made in the last 15 months.

We’ve done our bit mate. We’ve isolated, socially distanced, cut ourselves off from family, got vaccinated, deprived our kids of education, suffered intolerable financial losses ... I could go on.

Time to suck it up.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Ye it is acceptable in my view. That's like asking someone who is building a road and saying do you realise that your road might cause 20 deaths on the next 50 years and do you think that's acceptable? So long as the road builder takes reasonable steps to reduce the risk (like we are with the virus) then its acceptable. Nothing can be without risk.

Such questions of ethics are challenging but at the end of the day without point.

It's crazy how nobody wanted the world locked up during flu season, despite thousands of deaths every year. I guess those deaths were acceptable

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Nom de plume said:

We’ve done our bit mate. We’ve isolated, socially distanced, cut ourselves off from family, got vaccinated, deprived our kids of education, suffered intolerable financial losses ... I could go on.

Time to suck it up.

Don't think you're on your own!

Yet another session of isolation would take us a lot of alcohol and Kniffel to get through....!

So what to you is an acceptable rate of fatalities from Covid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, P.K. said:

Don't think you're on your own!

Yet another session of isolation would take us a lot of alcohol and Kniffel to get through....!

So what to you is an acceptable rate of fatalities from Covid?

Well,

I don’t particularly like anybody dying unnecessarily but firstly, I’d really love a breakdown of the deaths in a daily tabulated format so Britain’s can make informed choices on the restrictions that have been forced upon them.

The daily statistics would make much better reading if we were furnished with age bands, BMI’s, with or without underlying health conditions.

Governments haven’t been upfront with people.

When I’ve seen these stats I can give you a better idea of a number I see acceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nom de plume said:

Well,

I don’t particularly like anybody dying unnecessarily but firstly, I’d really love a breakdown of the deaths in a daily tabulated format so Britain’s can make informed choices on the restrictions that have been forced upon them.

The daily statistics would make much better reading if we were furnished with age bands, BMI’s, with or without underlying health conditions.

Governments haven’t been upfront with people.

When I’ve seen these stats I can give you a better idea of a number I see acceptable.

Please post the stats up when you find them, thanks.

Not easy being Howard though, is it...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Don't think you're on your own!

Yet another session of isolation would take us a lot of alcohol and Kniffel to get through....!

So what to you is an acceptable rate of fatalities from Covid?

Firstly.  I drink more then I should.

Secondly.  Regular alcohol consumption is higher risk both to your long term heth and to the chances of short term death (falling etc) than COVID is to someone who is vaccinated.

So drinking is acceptable despite noone esle having to sacrifice anything for you to do it, but a miniscule risk from COVID isn't and others should be expected to continue making life changing sacrifices to protect people from it?

Have I got that right?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Roboto said:

That’s basically bollocks. 

No. What you said to P.K. Above is bollocks. If the uk had not locked down, daily new cases would have spiralled out of control, not been capped at 70,000. If you really think the UKs (and our) half assed approach to vaccination, ignoring manufacturers recommendations, was the correct approach, then you are away with the fairies.

USA now has 65% with at least 1 jab, and 41% with both jabs. Virtually all high risk people have had both jabs. They are nearing herd immunity and opening up fast. 

UK are now desperately trying to catch up on second doses as indicated by Boris three weeks ago.  They are now at 30%. 

Over here we will start mass second jabs next week. Let's hope we can catch up in time before a new variant comes in.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
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...