IOM Covid removing restrictions

[AcousticallyChallenged 855]

8 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

Your very poor country mention - why are many very poor countries not fairing any worse even though they have many people below the poverty line and living in squalid and over crowded conditions?

 

Well, look at the average age. If you've got a massively young population, then for the most part, it'll pass through quite readily. There aren't nearly as many people in anywhere near the vulnerable age groups.

The problem we have is that there's no way to keep it in the young population. They mix at too many points, from care settings to family homes.

[The Dog's Dangly Bits 1,709]

1 minute ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

Well, look at the average age. If you've got a massively young population, then for the most part, it'll pass through quite readily. There aren't nearly as many people in anywhere near the vulnerable age groups.

The problem we have is that there's no way to keep it in the young population. They mix at too many points, from care settings to family homes.

Places like India and Brazil have massive populations living in very close proximity to each other.  Of all ages.  Yet, the numbers are relatively low.

I'm not sure these huge lock downs and the associated damage being caused has really achieved much more than countries who have imposed lesser measures.

[Feelslike 84]

1 minute ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

I don't think it's a "plan".  But that is what is happening. 

The main problem appears to be the government simply can't be seen to take a more sensible tack because it would be a glaring admission they have been wrong.

The government simply seem to stumble from one shambolic approach to the next.

 

I would largely agree with this.

To build on your point a little - Ostensibly, nothing with Covid-19 itself has changed since it first reached Europe and shortly thereafter decimated Italy. There is no vaccine and no definitive evidence that it has mutated into a significantly less dangerous version. So how do they walk-back the measures they took before and not apply it again now that cases are increasing at a seemingly near out of control rate? 

They shut the country, encouraged people to work from home, closed schools, set up a separate pot of money to pay those who needed it - how can they now say "Yeah, we probably didn't need to do that". And how do we definitely know they didn't need to do it? Are we now, after over half century of social care and doing everything we can to prolong everyone's lives, deciding that entire swathes of society aren't worth protection and telling them to get on and shield themselves if they want to minimise exposure? 

At what point do we decide, after telling parents and carers that they can take their children out of school if they're not comfortable with the risk to their household, that those children and families are not as 'valuable' a part of society as others? How do we bridge the education gap between the kids who will be removed from school, and the kids whose parents are happy to manage the risk themselves?

It's a class thing too, poor families are more likely to have underlying health conditions and be affected by Covid. It affects races differently too, and very obviously the elderly. These are known facts. So the Government now are to write those people off as "collateral damage" in getting the country to return to normal prior to a viable vaccine being developed and given? 

I don't know, I wouldn't like to be in possession of all of the facts that those higher in Government should have and then have to try to make these decisions. It's obvious that there does need to be a more balanced approach, but where you make those compromises, I have no idea.

I am generally happy with the fact we are separated from it at the moment and I think that currently, our Government wouldn't make the compromises that are needed to get a better balance so on the whole, the current border situation is preferable to what they will deem a second wave and the inevitable lockdown that would follow. 

[trmpton 1,133]

2 hours ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

There wouldn't be any point in testing everyone anyway.

I disagree.  I am convinced it would turn up some Positive cases in the wild and so maybe people would realise the COVID free thing isn’t going to happen and might start chilling out a bit.

[TheTeapot 9,748]

10 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

Places like India and Brazil have massive populations living in very close proximity to each other.  Of all ages.  Yet, the numbers are relatively low.

I'm not sure these huge lock downs and the associated damage being caused has really achieved much more than countries who have imposed lesser measures.

In what way are the numbers low in Brazil? They have the second highest number of confirmed deaths of any country. Their deaths per million are higher than the UK. The whole of South America is having a very hard time of it really.

[The Dog's Dangly Bits 1,709]

19 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

In what way are the numbers low in Brazil? They have the second highest number of confirmed deaths of any country. Their deaths per million are higher than the UK. The whole of South America is having a very hard time of it really.

That isn't really true I'm afraid.

Worldometer confirms the rates.    Brazil about 10% more per million.  Not a huge difference. But most other LatAm countries lower than the UK.

India and Bangladesh are ridulously low.

[TheTeapot 9,748]

Just now, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

That isn't really true I'm afraid.

Worldometer confirms the rates.    Brazil about 10% more per million.  Not a huge difference. But most other LatAm countries lower than the UK.

India and Bangladesh are ridulously low.

What isn't true? 

• They have the second highest confirmed deaths of any country - TRUE
• Their deaths per million are higher than the UK - TRUE
• The whole of South America is having a hard time of it - OK, not all of it. But a lot of it.

It was you who claimed Brazil had low numbers, which is incorrect. 

 

[pongo 4,340]

52 minutes ago, trmpton said:

I am convinced it would turn up some Positive cases in the wild and so maybe people would realise the COVID free thing isn’t going to happen and might start chilling out a bit.

If that we true we would also likely be seeing some hospital cases too.

[trmpton 1,133]

2 minutes ago, pongo said:

If that we true we would also likely be seeing some hospital cases too.

Why?

Huge numbers of people have it and never know.

If it’s as deadly and contagious as people say, there must be cases out there because based on the small number of incoming people we test we know that quite a few are coming here while positive.  I forget how many key workers they said come here but it was a lot more than the five we tested because they happened to end up in Jurby and one of them had it.

The odds on him being the only one are minute.

[AcousticallyChallenged 855]

1 minute ago, trmpton said:

Why?

Huge numbers of people have it and never know.

If it’s as deadly and contagious as people say, there must be cases out there because based on the small number of incoming people we test we know that quite a few are coming here while positive.  I forget how many key workers they said come here but it was a lot more than the five we tested because they happened to end up in Jurby and one of them had it.

The odds on him being the only one are minute.

Surely though, there's an element, especially for returning residents of not shitting where you eat.

It's a small island, a bit too Hot Fuzz sometimes but when you know everyone and their dog will snitch, you tend to be a bit more careful and very much don't want to be patient zero of a community outbreak.

It's pretty much guaranteed that the welder isn't the only key worker and other residents have come back with it too, but, if the distancing is implemented, who else can actually catch it? Surely it's more telling that we've not had any community cases because we're effectively breaking the chain of transmission?

[Andy Onchan 4,078]

3 minutes ago, trmpton said:

Why?

Huge numbers of people have it and never know.

If it’s as deadly and contagious as people say, there must be cases out there because based on the small number of incoming people we test we know that quite a few are coming here while positive.  I forget how many key workers they said come here but it was a lot more than the five we tested because they happened to end up in Jurby and one of them had it.

The odds on him being the only one are minute.

But may be the others did what they were required to do in accordance with the regulations and obeyed our laws, go straight to their digs and then straight to their job and back to their digs.

The Famous Five didn't.

That's the difference.

[Roger Mexico 9,324]

3 minutes ago, pongo said:

56 minutes ago, trmpton said:

I am convinced it would turn up some Positive cases in the wild and so maybe people would realise the COVID free thing isn’t going to happen and might start chilling out a bit.

If that we true we would also likely be seeing some hospital cases too.

It wouldn't even need to be people badly affected enough to be admitted to hospital - just someone with enough symptoms to get worried and ring 111 to get tested would be enough.  I've always said that we should do more testing in part because it would pick up a new outbreak in the community earlier, but there's no way in which a re-infection could be being passed around for months without it being picked up.

[Banker 1,034]

37 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

But may be the others did what they were required to do in accordance with the regulations and obeyed our laws, go straight to their digs and then straight to their job and back to their digs.

The Famous Five didn't.

That's the difference.

You wouldn’t know if they obeyed rules as no one is checking up on them as Howie was asked this question last week and didn’t know!

As long as they didn’t have face masks on & didn’t say they were over from UK no one would notice if they were in pub or not

[Roger Mexico 9,324]

1 hour ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

That isn't really true I'm afraid.

Worldometer confirms the rates.    Brazil about 10% more per million.  Not a huge difference. But most other LatAm countries lower than the UK.

India and Bangladesh are ridulously low.

According to Worldometers, Brazil is currently sixth highest in deaths per million - and two of those above it (San Marino and Andorra) are tiddlers.  It's true that its rate is only 10% worse than the UK's, but that's because the UK is at #12.  Being slightly less shit than Brazil is not really something to be bragging about. 

Of course with the UK at #12 and about 26-33 countries in Latin America having over half of them above the UK would be rather difficult but six of them are, and there are among the biggest.

India is densely populated and urbanising fast, but it is still 66% rural.  And like other developing countries such as Brazil, there will be substantial under-recording of deaths, especially among the poor, something that in both cases will encouraged by  right-wing governments which have been keen to play down the importance of the pandemic.

[Andy Onchan 4,078]

4 minutes ago, Banker said:

You wouldn’t know if they obeyed rules as no one is checking up on them as Howie was asked this question last week and didn’t know!

As long as they didn’t have face masks on & didn’t say they were over from UK no one would notice if they were in pub or not

It does happen. My niece who arrived two weeks ago last Thursday was called three times during her two weeks isolation and visited twice. My next door neighbour who isolated for the first week got a visit during that week and then went on to pay the £50. She had a negative test result and returned to work this morning after semi-isolation for the second week.