Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Filippo

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

He’s currently to be found lurking and responding to my posts with laughing emojis. No doubt he’ll be along soon..

On enforced hols until 31/7. Is that a request to disable his ability to post emojis?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Max Power said:

Surely taking responsibility for your own health involves applying the rules which we were given at the outset? Social distancing, masks where appropriate, hand gels, making your own decisions on how much you want to risk socialising? 

Everyone wants guidance, how much do you need? 

Enough to make my own decisions and anticipate the consequences for myself and others. Good physical and mental health, and maintaining it, is more than just socialising. 

I think some previous posts indicated that taking responsibility was all we needed. If that were true then what have we been spending all our money on. ?

Dealing with Covid has many aspects and on many different levels. It can not be reduced to simple cliches or slogans as the Government would try to have us all believe. Their messages have to be clear, succinct, free of misinterpretation for everyone who has to hear it. Thats where some of these problems are arising.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Numbnuts said:

There a total embarrassment  and have been through most of this. I also think they've lost grip of the situation big time when found out on several issues. This numbers anomaly being a classic. Also think many have there eyes on the looming election . I can put many out of there misery ! Your not getting back in .    

The problem is that when the nation’s leadership is prone to be both cowardly and hypocritical, it is sometimes difficult to judge whether they are being inept or just too ‘occassionally’ erring. Not only they appear to be incapable of making the right decisions, what is even more galling is that their personal insecurities/egos seem to be preventing them from taking advice from those who are capable and competent. The ‘Dr Glover fiasco’ seems to be a blueprint for how this beleaguered government deals with tough issues (they appointed EAG and evidently took no notice of their opinions). They opened up the borders and then they hide themselves behind Zoom, whilst the rest of us are meant to be living with (lower) risks associated with Covid…, but it does not seem to be low enough for them personally.

That said, I suspect ultimately it is our collective responsibility as voters for electing the wrong politicians. Hope we, the GMP, will do a better job next time.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

The only reason Members would be told to isolate now is if they are positive. That then is a different story.

Well the media release that was put out (quoted above via Gef) said that Watterson had:

[...] received strong representations from Members about the current risks of sitting in the Chamber, given that some Members’ families are affected by COVID-19, others are not double vaccinated or have other personal health concerns.

with the implication that some would not feel able to attend.  And there might some waiting for test results or with family members positive.  Forcing people into what they feel with good reason would be an unsafe workspace is a rather difficult area at the best of times and that's before you consider political implications. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Itsmeee said:

Eh?

It is remarkably difficult to find online right now - I am pissed though, so maybe I just can’t see it?

But the plan was that when infection levels here matched or bettered the UK all travel restrictions would be removed.

We must be there now, so where are the published plans to reopen?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

There is also more evidence now that puts forth that even fabric masks do afford a level of protection to the wearer.

 

Apologies for the poor repro.

screenshot.png

Edited by Utah 01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Apple said:

Their messages have to be clear, succinct, free of misinterpretation for everyone who has to hear it.

You omitted two very important factors: honest and factual - not based upon the clarion calls from the Twatterati and Bookface addicts.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Utah 01 said:

You omitted two very important factors: honest and factual

Too true.

Given that we. are supposed to be 'living with Covid' then why have more hospital restrictions been imposed (15 mins lists, phone beforehand etc) ?

Of course those changes make sense but they contradict the message Ministers are trying to convey. So does holding Tynwald virtually. It seems again one message colliding into another.

2 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Que sera sera, I've given up with the whole sorry thing. I'll just go along with whatever now, as if I have any choice anyway! 

I think this speaks for far too many people now.  Personally I have lost confidence in DA and his mixed signals. Where is the Infection Control advice to the public (remember they brought the person responsible out early on in the outbreak). Where is Henrietta and her reading of our situation.

I hear the squabbling behind the scenes is quite fierce. DA needs to let go now. This will not end well for some.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Well the media release that was put out (quoted above via Gef) said that Watterson had:

[...] received strong representations from Members about the current risks of sitting in the Chamber, given that some Members’ families are affected by COVID-19, others are not double vaccinated or have other personal health concerns.

with the implication that some would not feel able to attend.  And there might some waiting for test results or with family members positive.  Forcing people into what they feel with good reason would be an unsafe workspace is a rather difficult area at the best of times and that's before you consider political implications. 

Meeting in hybrid form now according to Gef, a bit like a delicate rose.

  • Haha 2
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...