Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, VinnieK said:

Which might not say as much as it may first seem to, since there are still plenty of restrictions in place in the UK and people are still generally exercising a fair bit of caution in how they go about their daily business.

 

 

I am neither a statistician nor an epidemiologist, but if you look at the increased number of cases (which itself may not be a reliable figure to use for the reasons explained in Thommo's link) in the UK, possibly due to wider testing than infection, then look at the death rates, then it seems difficult not to conclude that the infection's morbidity is dwindling or never was that great.  

There are suggestions as to why it appeared so high at first, health vulnerability of patients, poor socio-economic factors in the first countries hardest hit, and so on.  The truth is the information is subject to "presentation" and media bias to serve an agenda, whether that agenda is to provide credence to government policy, sell newspapers or what, I don't  know, but I definitely feel we are being fed selective data. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 10.9k
  • 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

5 minutes ago, Gladys said:

........it seems difficult not to conclude that the infection's morbidity is dwindling or never was that great.  

Or was it that the treatment now is different. The realisation that steroids has had such an impact seems to have coincided with morbidity changes or is that again part of the reconstructed information that is being put out to ease the pressures.?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gladys said:

I am neither a statistician nor an epidemiologist, but if you look at the increased number of cases (which itself may not be a reliable figure to use for the reasons explained in Thommo's link) in the UK, possibly due to wider testing than infection, then look at the death rates, then it seems difficult not to conclude that the infection's morbidity is dwindling or never was that great.  

There are suggestions as to why it appeared so high at first, health vulnerability of patients, poor socio-economic factors in the first countries hardest hit, and so on.  The truth is the information is subject to "presentation" and media bias to serve an agenda, whether that agenda is to provide credence to government policy, sell newspapers or what, I don't  know, but I definitely feel we are being fed selective data. 

Again, it's not just about death rates; for instance, France's hospitals have only just issued a warning about their intensive care units being under pressure after experiencing another spike in cases.  Also, a lot of those factors you list are still in place: people who were vulnerable before COVID-19 are just as vulnerable now, and present the risk of hospitalizations surging in the same way as before if the virus is allowed to circulate freely among the population again. Finally cases vs. death rates isn't anywhere near the full story, since a large number of other factors like the age and health profile of those infected also plays a huge part in determining how severe the impact is. If those being infected are primarily young, then of course death rates and hospitalizations aren't going to rise as significantly as they did when things first kicked off. 

I don't know if COVID-19 is much less dangerous than we first thought, or if it has become much less lethal, though I hope that is the case.  Two things I do know though are 

  • The circumstances today in the UK are still far from normal and so caution should be exercised when using these as an argument concerning the threat the virus poses.
  • The saving face/justifying policy explanation for the government continuing with social restrictions makes little sense when: a) the most common criticism of the UK government that I've heard is they've cocked things up by being too lax and erratic in imposing restrictions; b) they could so easily market themselves as the saviours of Britain by declaring that everything's fine now and lifting restrictions. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 3 ways to look at the stats

  • Truth
  • Lie - overblown because you're a piece of shit who ought to be controlled
  • Lie - under reported because you can't know how awful the response has been

You can pretty much rule the first one out. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Holte End said:

Surely it should be called " Ashford Election Tour ".

I take his re-election as an MHK now as a given (unless something really dramatic happens). I reckon this is his "Chief minister election tour". Get out to the people just in case they have a say it in next time. Clever politician.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, VinnieK said:

Again, it's not just about death rates; for instance, France's hospitals have only just issued a warning about their intensive care units being under pressure after experiencing another spike in cases.  Also, a lot of those factors you list are still in place: people who were vulnerable before COVID-19 are just as vulnerable now, and present the risk of hospitalizations surging in the same way as before if the virus is allowed to circulate freely among the population again. Finally cases vs. death rates isn't anywhere near the full story, since a large number of other factors like the age and health profile of those infected also plays a huge part in determining how severe the impact is. If those being infected are primarily young, then of course death rates and hospitalizations aren't going to rise as significantly as they did when things first kicked off. 

I don't know if COVID-19 is much less dangerous than we first thought, or if it has become much less lethal, though I hope that is the case.  Two things I do know though are 

  • The circumstances today in the UK are still far from normal and so caution should be exercised when using these as an argument concerning the threat the virus poses.
  • The saving face/justifying policy explanation for the government continuing with social restrictions makes little sense when: a) the most common criticism of the UK government that I've heard is they've cocked things up by being too lax and erratic in imposing restrictions; b) they could so easily market themselves as the saviours of Britain by declaring that everything's fine now and lifting restrictions. 

 

With the same caveats as before, surely we would still be seeing a significant death rate with the "increase" of infections, for the very reason you state - there are still vulnerable people out there. 

As for the UK's performance, the justification argument holds true even if they have cocked up - even more so now they have to be seen to be responding even if it is in an erratic and haphazard manner.  They will not lift restrictions because they cocked up, as no matter what the outcome of lifting restrictions it will always be viewed as a failure. 

Much of this is down to hindsight and the classic Irish response to someone asking for directions "well, I wouldn't start from here". 

But "they" and our own government need to start educating and preparing the population for a total easing and the likelihood this will be with us for a good while. They need to give a clear explanation of exactly what the stats mean, be clear as to whether the increase in cases (even if all positive tests should be called cases) is down to an increase in infection or detection and what the death stats are actually telling us. 

There is no doubt in my mind that this is a bad disease when contracted by a vulnerable person, but there is also no doubt in my mind that we will all be feeling the longer term effects of "the cure" for many years. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gladys said:

With the same caveats as before, surely we would still be seeing a significant death rate with the "increase" of infections, for the very reason you state - there are still vulnerable people out there. 

There are still vulnerable people out there, but there are also still restrictions in place which may be what's currently limiting transmission to those people. With total easing, that protection is no longer in place and you run the risk of ending up right back where you started and having to go through another full lock down. It should also be noted that the category 'vulnerable people' is not limited to the very old either: people with diabetes are also at risk, and the increased risk of suffering from a severe form of the disease starts at around 40 and gradually increases with age.

4 minutes ago, Gladys said:

As for the UK's performance, the justification argument holds true even if they have cocked up - even more so now they have to be seen to be responding even if it is in an erratic and haphazard manner.  They will not lift restrictions because they cocked up, as no matter what the outcome of lifting restrictions it will always be viewed as a failure. 

That seems a bit weak to me. In that scenario, all that over-emphasizing the danger now would achieve is to prompt people to ask why more wasn't done to begin with and why more still isn't being done now—which is exactly the criticisms I'm hearing coming out of England.

It would be far easier for Boris use the same reasoning you've employed to declare everything is now sunshine and puppies and use that to vindicate their course of action. Of course, the hospitals might be a bit miffed, but we can always spin their objections as coming from doctors trying to scare us into buying them fancy new scrubs and cool ventilators to play with.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, John Wright said:

I’m only away 7 weeks. I’m working every day using ipad or laptop on my office VPN. If I get any tribunal hearings I can chair remotely via Teams. If I get an ombudsman adjudication I can receive the documents in e-format and do it as I travel.

I get fatigued travelling. That explains the ferries, avoiding long drives. Great to travel as you sleep. I’m going at my own pace.

I actually think Quayle & Co have done a good job. But I also think that putting a nation state, or a micro state, into total isolation, with no real exit plan, isn’t viable. I don’t discount the seriousness of Covid. I believe that the restrictions in most countries have kept infection and death low and avoided health service melt downs.

But I do think we’ve seen sections of the community panicked and not able to contemplate that Covid is just another risk in life where we take risks daily.

 

10 hours ago, thesultanofsheight said:

You won’t find a post from me that says anything different on Quayle and Co - they did very well straight off but this focus on building a Covid free island bubble now is wrong and actually damaging from a psychological perspective. It’s also virtually impossible to sustain - so it’s an artificial environment. Like the UK were struggling with the exit plan communication now we’ve got ourselves in this position where people are irrationally fearful and psychologically damaged by the scare stories they’ve been told so far. I don’t blame IOM government for that as Manx Radio isn’t that good at propaganda and you get a sense anyway that Quayle and a few others don’t buy into it either but can’t ignore their medial advisers or guidance from UK government which has literally fucked up everything it’s touched since day one. But we can either sit here and watch the wheels further fall off our economy paralyzed by fear or have a clearer exit plan that is not held back by not wanting to upset some people who have irrational fears about better access to the outside world and what that involves. Upping the focus on testing across the board and track and trace has to be part of that plan to allow more mobility in a controlled way.

 

12 hours ago, Banker said:

 

14 hours ago, Out of the blue said:

Apart from the initial phases where nobody was quite sure what we were dealing with, to my recollection never have so many peoples rights and liberties been curtailed to protect so few...

 

15 hours ago, Out of the blue said:

I think you echo many peoples sentiments.  Politicians around the world have started out with good intentions, but inadvertently mission creep has taken over. They have driven in to a Covid cul de sac and they have either bought into the cult of Covid or just cannot see a face saving way out. We can only hope for a vaccine that will justify some political manoeuvring room. It is asking too much of a small island jurisdiction to lead with this, so enjoy our relative freedom and let it all play out. I look forward to reading the historians take on this mess in the decades to come, assuming I haven’t succumbed to this ‘wicked disease’.

 

14 hours ago, Nom de plume said:

So true. They’ll never admit they might have over-reacted.

 

John Wright:

Do you think that if we had had a more liberal policy of social distancing, based on voluntary compliance, somewhat akin to the policies adopted by the likes of Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Japan, would we have had more premature Covid-19 deaths?

Note that for a more liberal policy I do not exclude encouraging the working from home and the temporary shutting down of the riskiest kinds of activities such as those of discos, pubs etc. Some shutdown of the riskiest activities would have been needed if there was sign of the health authorities being overwhelmed, and for the length of time until proper health care could be assured, though no longer shutdown than that.

The UK would have not had more premature deaths than what it has experienced, definitively. The Isle of Man would have had a few more, but you would have counted them on the fingers of one hand (the Jersey case clearly shows that the border can stay open with little consequence).

For premature deaths I mean Covid-19 fatalities among those who had meaningful life expectancy ahead of them. In the Isle of Man 18 of the 24 deaths have been in care homes (mostly one care home actually), meaning that those patients were too frail for even making it to the hospital. And those care homes' accidents might have been avoided if proper isolation procedures had been followed. The lockdown will surely cause more deaths, for absolutely obvious reasons. You know that there are many effective cancer drugs and treatments that are not available or severely restricted on the NHS because they are too expensive? Of even drugs for common afflictions such as arthritis and similar inflammatory diseases. Think of Amgen's Enbrel (etanercept), just to make an example. What do you think we are more likely to die of, soon or later? Depleting public coffers has consequences!

Overall Covid fatality in the countries I mentioned has not exceeded the UK; it has actually been less on a per-capita basis, which clearly proves the point.

Soon or later there will be an assessment of the UK lockdown, where for lockdown I mean restrictions in excess of those adopted by the above mentioned countries, and the conclusion will be that even direct fatality from Covid was not reduced. Don’t mention indirect casualties and reduced quality of life from the lockdown...

And finally, upsetting so much those who have my own views of existence and society also comes at a cost, in the longer term. I know from the stupid country in which I grew up what happens when the more thinking and rational oriented kinds of people start despising the system that tries to control them.

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Apple said:

I take his re-election as an MHK now as a given (unless something really dramatic happens). I reckon this is his "Chief minister election tour". Get out to the people just in case they have a say it in next time. Clever politician.

Though it’s not the public who’ll elect the next CM in all certainty.

Personally the thought of this guy becoming CM fills me with dread. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, The Old Git said:

I see Guernsey is copying us now with a new case with someone returning from the UK testing positive in quarantine.

 

Picked up on Day 7 of testing, not on entry suggesting member of the general public, not a key worker going through mandatory screening at border.

Slightly differing scenario.

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...