Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 10.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Can you guys start a separate thread titled "Jersey is ace - oh no it isn't" and leave this one to a discussion on IOM and the coronavirus?

Ratio of admissions to deaths is not that different, testing is obviously out due to the massive capacity increase like just about everywhere in the world.    The current UK situation is impact

It's a safe place right now because of the Manx people, not the Manx politicians. None of us want to be "the person who brought it back" so we isolate and make sure we don't transmit the virus by bein

Posted Images

3 minutes ago, The Old Git said:

Presumably because there’s not been a need before 

Well if you don’t routinely test people returning to the IOM, and there’s no community transmission, then there’s nobody to trace is there as nobody is positive in order to trigger a tracing exercise! 

Edited by Southfork
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

Checking and tracing and tracking seems to be the weakest link in this whole thing. The 111 team seem to be checking very little. Most people getting just one call - Hi, are you self isolating? Yes we’re self isolating thank you very much. If we get a cough we’ll let you know. Bye. The focus does seem to be far too based around us being able to claim we’re COVID-19 free as suggested above rather than much else. The announcement didn’t seem to suggest they’re keen to track anyone on the plane especially in relation to this. Maybe because the case is a key worker and was on a flight with another load of key workers? It was a good balanced announcement though but the hysteria is already starting to whip up. 

Yes, they made a big thing about a fortnight ago about how they had finally got themselves into gear (so it may have improved), but bragging in August about what you should have done in March is hardly a sign of competence.  As usual they seem to have had endless meetings about announcing something, announced it , and only then started thinking about how to make things work.  None of this stuff is that difficult, but it needs flexibility and willingness for staff from different Departments to work together at 'ground' level.  That would expose how much of the upper bureaucracy is unnecessary, indeed counter-productive, and those people aren't going to let that happen.

I've long suspected that the reason that testing was underused was that Quayle and co were so obsessed about bragging about being Covid-free that they didn't want to 'spoil' it - even if the cases discovered were all safely in isolation and knowing the situation would help prevent further spread.  To some extent this might even be justified - a lot of media coverage of other countries and even international statistics don't distinguish between isolation and community cases well enough.  But it's no excuse not to do the right thing from a public health perspective.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Southfork said:

Well if you don’t routinely test people returning to the IOM, and there’s no community transmission, then there’s nobody to trace is there as nobody is positive in order to trigger a tracing exercise! 

That was my point. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Banker said:

Basically they copied Guernsey regulations so when they move to next phase so will we, however Guernsey population are now starting to get more vocal about restrictions and pointing to Jersey success as way to go.

Actually they haven't copied Guernsey, but taken their model and added all sort of pointless twiddles like charging £50, while not taking into account important stuff like travel history.  It's their usual way of making changes to show they are 'in charge' without bothering to consider the consequences.

If Guernsey want to copy Jersey's 'success' they will also have to follow their restrictions on things like mask-wearing, social gatherings and so on.  Jersey are also having to continue business support, while we are ending ours and are so desperate that they are even resorting the helicopter money by issuing everyone with £100 vouchers.

Quote

Well obviously.  The one thing we know about tourism to the Isle of Man is that people flock here in late Autumn.  To go to Jaks.

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

Actually they haven't copied Guernsey, but taken their model and added all sort of pointless twiddles like charging £50, while not taking into account important stuff like travel history.  It's their usual way of making changes to show they are 'in charge' without bothering to consider the consequences.

If Guernsey want to copy Jersey's 'success' they will also have to follow their restrictions on things like mask-wearing, social gatherings and so on.  Jersey are also having to continue business support, while we are ending ours and are so desperate that they are even resorting the helicopter money by issuing everyone with £100 vouchers.

Well obviously.  The one thing we know about tourism to the Isle of Man is that people flock here in late Autumn.  To go to Jaks.

Haha. Good point. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Conspiracy time - there is no case. People have been getting gobby and complacent for a while now, it's a reminder of control, you've had your state sponsored BIG weekend piss-up, kids are going back to school, knuckle down and behave shitheads.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Banker said:

Test all arrivals like Jersey!

I'll put a big disclaimer here that I'm not the person who decides who gets tested and when. 

Saying that, I am a scientist who understands that if you test someone on the day they arrive and their exposure to the virus was at on the way to the ferry/plane, that test is going to come up negative because no test in the world can give a result based on exposure. The test is for actual infection, whether symptomatic or asymptomatic.

So let's say that we test everyone on arrival. We end up giving out a large number of negative results to people who are going to be going into isolation for at least 7 days anyway. Here's where the psychology comes in, and you'll have to ask yourselves how you would behave if someone said you tested negative for COVID19 the day you arrived. Would you stick to strict isolation even though you have a negative test result from your arrival test? I'd bet that there's a good number in the population who would be a little less strict with themselves because they've been told they're negative. Now, if one of those people tests negative at the border and then develops an asymptomatic infection, or goes out the day before they develop symptoms, then we'd have a significant community transmission on our hands and we'd be back to square one.

If we tested on arrival and there was no isolation period at all we would have a fairly serious problem rather quickly. It only takes one asymptomatic person to start a community transmission chain and we'd be back in lockdown. Just because this hasn't happened in Jersey doesn't mean that it won't. It means Jersey have been very, very lucky (so far). 

This is why testing on day 7 of isolation is a good risk-based compromise as if someone is exposed in the week before travelling (or even on the day of travel) there's a significant chance that they'll test positive on day 7. They would likely test negative on arrival and that's nothing to do with the testing methodology but just the basic biology of how viral infections proceed. 

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, rachomics said:

I'll put a big disclaimer here that I'm not the person who decides who gets tested and when. 

Saying that, I am a scientist who understands that if you test someone on the day they arrive and their exposure to the virus was at on the way to the ferry/plane, that test is going to come up negative because no test in the world can give a result based on exposure. The test is for actual infection, whether symptomatic or asymptomatic.

So let's say that we test everyone on arrival. We end up giving out a large number of negative results to people who are going to be going into isolation for at least 7 days anyway. Here's where the psychology comes in, and you'll have to ask yourselves how you would behave if someone said you tested negative for COVID19 the day you arrived. Would you stick to strict isolation even though you have a negative test result from your arrival test? I'd bet that there's a good number in the population who would be a little less strict with themselves because they've been told they're negative. Now, if one of those people tests negative at the border and then develops an asymptomatic infection, or goes out the day before they develop symptoms, then we'd have a significant community transmission on our hands and we'd be back to square one.

If we tested on arrival and there was no isolation period at all we would have a fairly serious problem rather quickly. It only takes one asymptomatic person to start a community transmission chain and we'd be back in lockdown. Just because this hasn't happened in Jersey doesn't mean that it won't. It means Jersey have been very, very lucky (so far). 

This is why testing on day 7 of isolation is a good risk-based compromise as if someone is exposed in the week before travelling (or even on the day of travel) there's a significant chance that they'll test positive on day 7. They would likely test negative on arrival and that's nothing to do with the testing methodology but just the basic biology of how viral infections proceed. 

Ok thanks for explanation. Jersey do have a risk based way of testing and those coming from higher risk areas or countries have to quarantine.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, rachomics said:

This is why testing on day 7 of isolation is a good risk-based compromise as if someone is exposed in the week before travelling (or even on the day of travel) there's a significant chance that they'll test positive on day 7. They would likely test negative on arrival and that's nothing to do with the testing methodology but just the basic biology of how viral infections proceed. 

Early on in all this I remember calculating (from a published paper) that Log(t) (where t is the time from exposure to testing positive) follows a normal distribution.  These figures may well now have been refined somewhat, but the mean (of t) was 5.1 days.  Using a log normal distribution, about 78% of people if infected on day 0 will test positive by day 7.  So, the vast majority of returning travelers, if positive, will be positive on day 7 given their exposure may well be a day or 2 before their travel.

Jersey's approach is far riskier, and I fully agree with Rachel's point about the psychology of getting a negative test on day 1 and thus being less particular about distancing etc.

As for the economics, we have two schools of thought on here - either 'everything's ticking over nicely and we must avoid another lockdown, stay tight', or 'continued border restrictions are killing the economy'.  My own view is more aligned with the former.  I can't really understand how having unrestricted (or minimally restricted) borders will improve the economic situation.  I fully accept that people want to get away, and I'd like to myself, but on balance I think we've got more to lose than gain by opening up now.

No doubt I'll now be labelled as a 'covid mentalist' or 'covidiot' or something - I'm nothing of the sort, but there are plenty of people who are still scared to death of this virus, and we'll likely have to go back to social distancing, hospital shutdown, queueing for Tesco etc if we get community transmission here again.

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than tourism, which is buggered anyway as we go into autumn, I'm not sure how much the border is affecting the economy. The offshore bankers and gambling execs don't need to come here to visit their money and freight should, in theory, be coming through unhindered.

We have a lot of freedom here and we stand to lose it all if the borders reopen and we get community transmission again. I'd love to see my parents and my daughter in the UK, but not so much that I'd want to end up with UK-style restrictions here. You can call our rules "Covid extremism" if you want but they're making schoolkids wear masks all day in England. And England has a 2-week quarantine from most of Europe now anyway!

I was really quite worried this morning that Quayle would use the case to announce masks for everyone, thank God he didn't eh.

I thought it was a good statement from Quayle. It probably didn't need a 10am Sunday statement in itself, but you all know what Facebook is like, if they'd not announced it and it had got out (and it would have!) the usual suspects would have gone completely off their nut. Best to nip it in the bud.

Edited by tetchtyke
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the virus becoming less deadly?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2252699-covid-19-is-becoming-less-deadly-in-europe-but-we-dont-know-why/?fbclid=IwAR2baBg-8tM57OUh60lKs6H1tUgjRHS5lw1Np_dm_HysVASy9wS7_PJnRaU

I did read somewhere at the start of all this that a virus tends to find a way not to kill its host as this is will obviously kill itself?

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

No doubt I'll now be labelled as a 'covid mentalist' or 'covidiot' or something - I'm nothing of the sort, but there are plenty of people who are still scared to death of this virus, and we'll likely have to go back to social distancing, hospital shutdown, queueing for Tesco etc if we get community transmission here again.

I think that part is worth emphasising and elaborating on to highlight those who are not so much scared of them or their loved ones getting the virus, but frightened of what a second lockdown would mean for them in terms of social isolation, the emotional strain of lockdown, and the potential impact on their finances. Moreover, aside from the practical risks and the question of to what extent their worries are or are not justified, the psychological benefit of the border restrictions shouldn't be under estimated or ignored.

On purely selfish level, I'd love to see the borders completely open, but I appreciate the risks and the legitimate fears and anxieties others have so am pretty content with things as they are.  I'm probably being unfair here, but, excluding those who work in tourism, catering, and other industries directly affected by the border controls, a lot of the more zealous opposition to border restrictions seems like its rooted more in abstract ideological principle and/or a cargo-cult mentality towards the economic benefits of unfettered travel than a genuine or considered concern for the Island.

Edited by VinnieK
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You can call our rules "Covid extremism"if you want but they're making schoolkids wear masks all day in England. And England has a 2-week quarantine from most of Europe now anyway!
 

Your quote about face masks is just not true and an example of scare tactics being used.

the rules state that in secondary schools it’s at the heads discretion for face masks in communal areas indoors only in social distancing can’t be maintained. In areas where they are in lockdown it’s mandatory in communal areas but not classrooms 

 

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   1 member


×
×
  • Create New...