Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Filippo

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, TerryFuchwit said:

Why would anyone need to prove that?

The reality is we are supposed to be living with covid.   We are not really doing that if the answer to a positive covid test is to shut down every venue they've been to.

It seems to me that this is unrealistic for all concerned.

 

To comply with the Public Health Act for starters. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

Well as they’ve now shut a H & B pub and cost the brewery money you can likely bank on a quick solution to it all. It looks like quite a few businesses now coming out on Facebook this evening say they’re shutting after 111 contact. Even if they don’t shut the Manx rumour mill and covid scare grapevine is going to kill their trade anyway as people will just stay away from anywhere rumoured to be involved. They should have seen all this coming. Its effectively a lockdown by proxy by the lime a few hundred people test positive.

Which ones have posted on FB?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know no one who has had covid nor anyone who knows anyone who has had covid apart from Howard Quayle. Luckily I hate humans so never hug them so only people who  love other people and get covid are at risk. So why should all you nice people stop me from going somewhere nice in the sun. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Anyone said:

So we are worried about over population and the pollution that brings. So that means a pandemic that takes a few millions of us out , thus solving the over population and pollution issue is a bad thing? Or am I missing something.

Yes. You are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TerryFuchwit said:

Yes. You are.

Your problem is you took me seriously , but it is a view taken by some , if not a thought. Think about it , extrapolate our population growth , something has to give. There is not much room left so maybe evolution will sort it out. Like a pandemic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

To comply with the Public Health Act for starters. 

 

The PHA states you need to be locked away when you are healthy?

Utterly bizarre.

The current situation is untenable.  Any one with any sense can see that.   We have hundreds of people filing off the boat or plane, not testing, but if anyone ventures into a restaurant that subsequently tests positive the locals are all fucked.  Im not sure how that makes any sense.

In the UK people are deleting track and trace app.   I can see why too.

I went into a restaurant when over there.  Dont have track and trace app (obviously) and had to fill in some box ticking form the venue didn't check or care about.  Not that i would put proper details on there anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Anyone said:

I know no one who has had covid nor anyone who knows anyone who has had covid apart from Howard Quayle. Luckily I hate humans so never hug them so only people who  love other people and get covid are at risk. So why should all you nice people stop me from going somewhere nice in the sun. 

I know someone with covid over here atm: an unknown case, elderly, who's been double jabbed and is in a pretty bad way. Most people will know someone like that in the next few weeks. 

Edited by Ham_N_Eggs
  • Like 3
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, TerryFuchwit said:

The PHA states you need to be locked away when you are healthy?

Utterly bizarre.

The current situation is untenable.  Any one with any sense can see that.   We have hundreds of people filing off the boat or plane, not testing, but if anyone ventures into a restaurant that subsequently tests positive the locals are all fucked.  Im not sure how that makes any sense.

In the UK people are deleting track and trace app.   I can see why too.

I went into a restaurant when over there.  Dont have track and trace app (obviously) and had to fill in some box ticking form the venue didn't check or care about.  Not that i would put proper details on there anyway.

Per the regs, reasonable suspicion of infection or contamination. You can phrase it how you want, but the law is clear. It doesn't delineate between healthy or unhealthy.

Nobody here wants to rock the boat at the moment, and that'll be our undoing. We've not even had any Howie TV for a little while now. Jersey are doing day 0 testing even on jabbed arrivals. Guernsey require free tests for anyone arriving and going back to school within 14 days. The UK are trialing daily lateral flow tests for those in isolation to continue essential activities upon a negative result. I've got a friend who was part of it a week or two ago.

Of course, Guernsey have even the Island on their list of places you need 2 tests and 7 days isolation after coming from. Most of the UK they class as category 4, 14 days isolation. Unless double jabbed for 2 weeks.

Never mind that Tory MPs are already talking about the winter restrictions they're considering. Even Boris didn't say the roadmap was irreversible this time.

image.thumb.png.d7bd10d93fabb4aa5891b31bb31d8c3f.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ashford needs to stop worrying about NHS apps and look at the situation where healthy people are being denied the opportunity to earn a living. 

Businesses may be destroyed if they don't fix the current situation. Suggestions that you can apply for incapacity benefit in lieu of lost earnings are surely a sick joke. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AlanShimmin said:

Ashford needs to stop worrying about NHS apps and look at the situation where healthy people are being denied the opportunity to earn a living. 

Businesses may be destroyed if they don't fix the current situation. Suggestions that you can apply for incapacity benefit in lieu of lost earnings are surely a sick joke. 

It's not about them being healthy. It's about them being suspected to be infectious or contaminated. Until you can prove with reasonable certainty they aren't, what do you do?

You're using the term healthy to try and make it more emotive. That's all.

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

11 minutes ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

I know someone with covid over here atm: an unknown case, elderly, who's been double jabbed and is in a pretty bad way. Most people will know someone like that in the next few weeks. 

Luckily the vaccine is very effective so they should be ok. Jersey now has fourteen times the number of infections that we have and only five people in hospital. So the vaccine is clearly very effective.

https://www.bailiwickexpress.com/jsy/news/watch-chief-minister-urges-calm-covid-cases-hit-1400/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

It's not about them being healthy. It's about them being suspected to be infectious or contaminated. Until you can prove with reasonable certainty they aren't, what do you do?

You're using the term healthy to try and make it more emotive. That's all.

They are healthy though. 

If we keep up at the present rate there is going to be gridlock in essential services and most businesses will be closed. That is not sustainable and something has to give.

 

If we are living with it as has been suggested then we can't keep rounding up the suspected unclean every day. 

Edited by AlanShimmin
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AlanShimmin said:

They are healthy though. 

If we keep up at the present rate there is going to be gridlock in essential services and most businesses will be closed. That is not sustainable and something has to give.

Whether they are 'healthy' or not is a moot point.

Can you prove they aren't infectious or contaminated? And that they aren't likely to be given their exposure?

That's the law as it stands.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

Whether they are 'healthy' or not is a moot point.

Can you prove they aren't infectious or contaminated? And that they aren't likely to be given their exposure?

That's the law as it stands.

 

You could argue that for literally anyone. Contact traced or not.

Who are we protecting now and at what cost?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 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...
×
×
  • Create New...