Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Recommended Posts

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

I watched the half hour.

I thought, on the whole, he handled things OK.   He is of course at the mercy of a number of civil servants who are supposed to provide in depth answers to pre asked questions.  Many of those people are simply not up to scratch and making life harder than it needs to be for this type of thing.

The comical one was the question about the CM making decisions on his own.  I mean, seriously?

He constantly refers to his need to ask someone or refer to others before answering, conveniently forgetting he is the one in charge. Supposedly.

Edited by Lxxx
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 20.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

OK. For what it's worth I'm going to try and explain why genomics is important in a ssRNA virus epidemic. No doubt it will end up being recited badly at a briefing, but, well, whatever. You read it he

Rachel has tried every which way to re-offer her services. This last tweet wasn't the first time she's reached out. Government has made it very clear they do not want her to be involved. I want h

I think you'll find most so called anti-government rhetoric is focused on government-stupidity and government-selfishness. In recent times - under Brown, Bell and now Quayle - all too many govern

Posted Images

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

Really?

That seems delusional.  Whist I dont agree with certain aspects of the policy you're free to leave any time you want and go and live someone else.

 

That's not really how it should work. You shouldn't be encouraged to move countries because you're not happy with policy. 

I don't agree that we - the general public - should be privy to all of the information that goes into decision making processes at CoMin. There will be advice and papers on the theoretical affect their proposals have; the economic impact, how much assistance they can give businesses, the number of business that might go bust, how many job losses they anticipate. What the impact limiting DHSC leave will have if cases pick up, how many cases or deaths are expected as a trade-off to sustain or increase economic turn-over, at what point they might shut schools and the impact that will have.

All of those issues are too personal for many members of the pubic. As is constantly demonstrated on social media, it is not the moderate voices that are heard. The vocal minority on both sides are extreme and no good can possibly come from all of that information being in the public domain. Any report commissioned, knowing the public will see it, will not be as impactful or as forthright as it needs to be. 

If you want an input on policy, if you want to be in a position to make these decisions then become a politician. 

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nom de plume said:

Maybe one or two [Facebookers] will start to then realise we are being held prisoners here for political gain rather than what is being advised by people who actually know what they’re taking about!

You can't really complain that politicians are doing things because they would be politically popular - that's sort of the point of politicians.  You can always start a political party based on "Don't do what the people want, do what I want!", but don't expect it to get more than one vote.

It's not even that everything that Quayle said was wrong.  He even made the point, very similar to what I have here, that restrictions have to alter in response to levels of infection in the UK[1].  The real problem here is that the means of making those decisions are being hidden, so that even if the right decisions are made, it may be for the wrong reasons and that might mean the next decisions are wrong.  As with the DoI, protecting the egos of those involved is more important than doing the right thing.

 

[1]  Naturally this was in response to a question about something entirely, but baby steps.  It also doesn't really explain why they introduced the 7 day test just as infections were starting to increase, rather than fall.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Derek Flint said:

It’s hard to see what the big secret is? 

Juan W. Made a good point in tha once policy was made, the working out should be a matter of public record. The exceptions of National Security Clearly apply, but we are not at war here. We are trying to take the public with us in all this, and secrecy has no valid part to play. It is even more telling when COMIN are unable to add any validation to their approach.

It's particularly bizarre when you're discussing scientific advice, because the whole way that science is supposed to work is out in the open.  And that has been particularly marked during this crisis - I've seen scientific papers effectively being peer-reviewed on Twitter and amended accordingly.  And that's meant that some people and governments have been able to react with speed and accuracy to changing circumstances.

But the problem here is that there doesn't seem to have been much in the way of scientific advice in the input to these meetings.  It's not just the Director of Public Health that feels she isn't being listened to or even asked - @rachomics was tweeting the other day after listening to this debate:

Quote

[...] very interested to hear of the briefing paper on testing which will be going to COMIN on Thursday. Anyone know who's writing it? If "senior officers" are writing these briefings what scientific qualifications do they have to do so?

Clearly no information should ever be received form anyone who knows about the subject.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

It's particularly bizarre when you're discussing scientific advice, because the whole way that science is supposed to work is out in the open.  And that has been particularly marked during this crisis - I've seen scientific papers effectively being peer-reviewed on Twitter and amended accordingly.  And that's meant that some people and governments have been able to react with speed and accuracy to changing circumstances.

But the problem here is that there doesn't seem to have been much in the way of scientific advice in the input to these meetings.  It's not just the Director of Public Health that feels she isn't being listened to or even asked - @rachomics was tweeting the other day after listening to this debate:

Clearly no information should ever be received form anyone who knows about the subject.

Publik 'elf Ingerlund?

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

Publik 'elf Ingerlund?

Could be. Helicopters were quick enough to arrive here in the early days too. Maybe our Govt's calls and judgements in respect of our COVID situation aren't as "independent" as they'd like everybody to think they are? Because if they're not taking qualified local scientific opinion, whose are they taking?

Edited by Non-Believer
Extra bit
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, paswt said:

would it be possible for the DDB's to take a week  as well and perhaps WTF for calling me a "twat" ( in response to a polite post about the Onchan election) 🤣, asking for a friend.:flowers:

Only if you do, as well.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm personal freedoms. I can go to work, meet friends, go shopping, eat out, go to the pub and pretty much come and go as I please. Yes there is a 14 day self-isolation thing, but when I look around at the rest of the British Islands right now, I'll take that.

I'm not really bothered about the basis on which it was done and the medical evidence is of no interest to me as I have no medical qualifications.

PS Nice work JW - long overdue.

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

It's particularly bizarre when you're discussing scientific advice, because the whole way that science is supposed to work is out in the open.  And that has been particularly marked during this crisis - I've seen scientific papers effectively being peer-reviewed on Twitter and amended accordingly.  And that's meant that some people and governments have been able to react with speed and accuracy to changing circumstances.

But the problem here is that there doesn't seem to have been much in the way of scientific advice in the input to these meetings.  It's not just the Director of Public Health that feels she isn't being listened to or even asked - @rachomics was tweeting the other day after listening to this debate:

Clearly no information should ever be received form anyone who knows about the subject.

HQ seemed to intimate the Director of Public Health has been a party to meetings and discussions?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

HQ seemed to intimate the Director of Public Health has been a party to meetings and discussions?

He went on about her appearing remotely to advise CoMin.  This suggests he was thinking about earlier in the pandemic when people were still having to work remotely.  But the argument here is about advice on current and more recent policy and input into that at earlier stages rather than just talking to CoMin when all the options have already been laid out.

There also seems to be a question about how the 7-day testing was introduced.  Thomas tried to pin this down (line 460 on): [...]why wasn’t there a policy paper before the decision was made about seven-day testing? People are saying, and I would like the Chief Minister to answer this please, that the Chief Minister made that decision, it was not the Council of Ministers.  And in reply Quayle just babbled (lines 475-491) and of course didn't even attempt to answer any of Thomas's questions or even discuss them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my honest opinion the last time I was present and heard from Dr Ewart she sounded quite dismayed and almost angry that the (my words) lack of planning or development that had gone on before her arrival with regards to Public Health. Frankly I don't think she could believe how it had been run beforehand (or financed) and almost seemed disenchanted with the political system that had allowed it become the way it was. Just my view so may be misleading. I still rate her and think she has been good for the island with her sometimes quite frank approach. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Apple said:

In my honest opinion the last time I was present and heard from Dr Ewart she sounded quite dismayed and almost angry that the (my words) lack of planning or development that had gone on before her arrival with regards to Public Health. Frankly I don't think she could believe how it had been run beforehand (or financed) and almost seemed disenchanted with the political system that had allowed it become the way it was. Just my view so may be misleading. I still rate her and think she has been good for the island with her sometimes quite frank approach. 

Indeed. I recall listening to her when she made her first appearance at a Tynwald Committee sitting. She was scathing about the lack of basic data, particularly statistics on cancer treatments, subsequent deaths and mortality reporting in general, as I recall. 

  • Like 3
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...