Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, Neil Down said:

The current flu vaccine isn't 100% effective yet so not sure when they think they'll actually have a reliable vaccine

No vaccine is 100% effective - that's where herd immunity actually does come in.  If 95% of people are protected, then the other 5%  will (nearly all) be protected because there's no one to pass it on to them.  But any vaccine with a reasonable efficacy will be the easiest way of reducing the spread of the virus.

That may well have to be the case with Covid-19 because it looks increasingly if reinfections are happening quite a lot and not always with the second time being milder than the first, which I hoped would be the case.  But it may be that vaccines will work slightly differently and turn out to be longer lasting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 10.4k
  • 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?

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

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

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Neil Down said:

The current flu vaccine isn't 100% effective yet so not sure when they think they'll actually have a reliable vaccine

And it's fairly well known that the flu vaccine given to the over 65's is a waste time/money. Or so I have read.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Gladys said:

When it represents a greater risk to life than  most other causes of death. 

That's a very tricky one to measure.

How would you do it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

And it's fairly well known that the flu vaccine given to the over 65's is a waste time/money. Or so I have read.

also been known to give the recipient the mother of all flu. Imagine giving Covid+ to a vunerable person

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

No vaccine is 100% effective - that's where herd immunity actually does come in.  If 95% of people are protected, then the other 5%  will (nearly all) be protected because there's no one to pass it on to them.  But any vaccine with a reasonable efficacy will be the easiest way of reducing the spread of the virus.

That may well have to be the case with Covid-19 because it looks increasingly if reinfections are happening quite a lot and not always with the second time being milder than the first, which I hoped would be the case.  But it may be that vaccines will work slightly differently and turn out to be longer lasting.

So maybe first time round the infected body fights the virus off but next time the defences are buggered sort of thing.

We just don't know yet.

Well it's only a flu after all (/sarcasm)

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Gladys said:

When it represents a greater risk to life than  most other causes of death. 

So maybe we should let this unknown thing run rampant and kill lots of people until it becomes a bit of a pest and the graveyards and hospitals are full. 

Which would have been the case if we had all taken the opinion that it was just a bit of flu?

 

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

Well in UK at present and contrary to the belief of some I haven’t seen masses of bodies piled up and everything is normal except for the face masks and hand washing which we all should be doing 

I've gotta back Banker up on this. Even though I have lived here many years I do have two daughters and a son, two step daughters, two sisters and their children. Two aunties, 1 uncle (slightly dodgy) and numerous cousins that live all over England and Wales in different parts. Not one of them has had the illness and not one of their relatives or friends have contracted it either and with only one exception, none of them know of anyone who has contracted/tested positive. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, P.K. said:

That was former Pizza Express chairman Luke Johnson, who is a big player in the UK entertainment industry, trying to put pressure on the gov. So no vested interest there then.

He also claimed that of the 3m on furlough 1m would be made redundant. Which wouldn't bother him in the slightest what with so many being on zero hours contracts....

Everyone has a vested interest in this. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

I've gotta back Banker up on this. Even though I have lived here many years I do have two daughters and a son, two step daughters, two sisters and their children. Two aunties, 1 uncle (slightly dodgy) and numerous cousins that live all over England and Wales in different parts. Not one of them has had the illness and not one of their relatives or friends have contracted it either and with only one exception, none of them know of anyone who has contracted/tested positive. 

So out of a population of approx 66 million why would that fill anybody with confidence? I too have numerous family members who live in the UK and they all wish the UK government were doing as well as the IOM has been doing

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Barlow said:

So maybe we should let this unknown thing run rampant and kill lots of people until it becomes a bit of a pest and the graveyards and hospitals are full. 

Which would have been the case if we had all taken the opinion that it was just a bit of flu?

 

That is not what I am saying, I am saying the measures should be commensurate with the risks including the economic, other health, mental health etc risks and the vulnerable should be protected in a humane and risk based way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TheTeapot said:

Is that 1% of all deaths this year? Or something else? I didn't watch newsnight so have no idea of context or what that means, but it seems awfully low. In the US it is apparently now the third highest cause of death this year, following heart disease and cancer, according to Sanjay Gupta on cnn.

Sounds like they've taken a very small period of time rather than the whole year because....

Based on the latest data set published by the UK gov of deaths for the year from Jan 1st to 31st August, there have been 194,806 deaths of which 41,501 tested positive for Covid19 using the gov's metric but according to the death certs 57,200 had Covid19 mentioned. So  a conservative figure of 21% or  based on death certs 29%. Bear in mind the first death from Covid19 wasn't registered till 7th March so if I ran that again excluding January and February it would be 148,279 deaths and respectively 28% and 39%.

Either way very much not 1%. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked it up, the 1% was the percentage of deaths from covid for a single week at the end of August, according to the ons. So about a month after the week with the lowest amount of cases. Taking that stat on its own without proper context is disingenuous at best.

Edited by TheTeapot
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

Sounds like they've taken a very small period of time rather than the whole year because....

Based on the latest data set published by the UK gov of deaths for the year from Jan 1st to 31st August, there have been 194,806 deaths of which 41,501 tested positive for Covid19 using the gov's metric but according to the death certs 57,200 had Covid19 mentioned. So  a conservative figure of 21% or  based on death certs 29%. Bear in mind the first death from Covid19 wasn't registered till 7th March so if I ran that again excluding January and February it would be 148,279 deaths and respectively 28% and 39%.

Either way very much not 1%. 

If you already had underlying health problems, and contacted general flu, and died of it, would the death then also be recorded as caused by general flu ?

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...