Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 17.7k
  • 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

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

That is exactly the kind of emotional blackmail used to try and get compliance with unwelcome measures.  The problem with it is the less questioning amongst us interpret it as being indicative of the real threat and short cut it in their heads to mean "it is certain that if granny meets a student she will get covid and die". 

I am doing this tongue in cheek, students interviewed in media keep referencing mental distress so this slogan might work:

"If Spoons shutting makes you sad, just wait until you need to bury granny"

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Could do poster aimed at high risk groups to advertise IoM, which is bit borderline but not posting thinking people will take 100% seriously:

"Find it hard to find a bed in UK, don't worry we got plenty free at Nobles"

The hard hitting AIDS ads from 80s did actually change behavior. Now as an examples medics refuse to tell me to lose 5-10KG (and I assume everyone else) because it a "lifestyle choice". Sure it a choice to (over) eat but surely medics can tell me if it is a good idea. Ditto COVID situation.   

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

Could do poster aimed at high risk groups to advertise IoM, which is bit borderline but not posting thinking people will take 100% seriously:

"Find it hard to find a bed in UK, don't worry we got plenty free at Nobles"

The hard hitting AIDS ads from 80s did actually change behavior. Now as an examples medics refuse to tell me to lose 5-10KG (and I assume everyone else) because it a "lifestyle choice". Sure it a choice to (over) eat but surely medics can tell me if it is a good idea. Ditto COVID situation.   

?

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, trmpton said:

So.  News from the uk that the spread has plateaued or is dropping.

Of course intelligent people knew that anyway.

Hail Boris & his three tier lockdowns!

National Lockdown II will be his victory lap, what a guy.

Edited by Nom de plume
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Nom de plume said:

Hail Boris & his three tier lockdowns!

The National Lockdown will be his victory lap, what a guy.

Govt's cannot win. Labour must be so happy not to be in government.

On the one hand they've got to try to keep people safe and the economy ticking over by expanding the money supply.

On the other hand they've got to deal with blowhards, conspiracy nutters and Twitter people who believe that the whole thing is either a hoax or an over-reaction. Plus Steve Baker and co.

Edited by pongo
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, trmpton said:

So.  News from the uk that the spread has plateaued or is dropping.

Of course intelligent people knew that anyway.

Liverpool looks to have past the peak of its 2nd wave, Liverpool council has data here UK 2nd wave evolving with shallowing peak than much of Europe now, but now from what I can tell the gold standard states have NZ and IoM alone.  

5 minutes ago, Nom de plume said:

Hail Boris & his three tier lockdowns!

The National Lockdown will be his victory lap, what a guy.

Will never know if tier 3 would of been enough in Liverpool, I think it likely would have, but without global lockdown nothing to stop people from driving from higher infection area to lower ones and restarting new chains of infection. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, monasqueen said:

I picked those comments because most people on here seem to think that the Channel Islands systems are wonderful.

While the Channel Islands may not be the best of solutions, they are trying different methods of testing at the borders, which in reality may be fruitless, at least they are doing something as opposed to us doing nothing and hoping someone else will come up with a feasible resolution to the current virus, I feel we have buried our heads in the sand and will try and sit it out. We could be waiting a long time!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/6/2020 at 1:57 AM, BenFairfax said:

For IoM the shielding group taking into account these peoples likely immediate social network could mean 30K people. Idea is simple particularly for 1st degree relatives, if an outbreak occurred then all social network would change behaviour. At least people I know would opt to lose (say) going out to pub over risk of potentially passing on pathogen to a family member at significant risk of serious illness from that pathogen. Theoretically you could split island onto two and say all people who want tight controls go into one area and other with no controls into other..... But in practice that not workable. The networks are embedded. You have front line medics on IoM (who I know) who have close family members who are at high risk, ditto I assume all other sections of economy, biggest fear for such people is risk of infecting their own family. You can say high-risk people should isolate themselves, brings number down to 3,400; which likely to happen anyway in significant outbreak, but the effect on society particularly economically will be disproportionate. Remember the shielding group are typically 35-70 (over 70 not in this group [explain why I think later], young rarely have chronic disease) bulk of years when have greatest earning power. Reason I believe over 70s not put in this group is because of metric used by NICE (National Institute of Clinical Excellent) which measures expected value of 'addition quality life years' as a measure of whether a procedure/drug if effective. Clearly as get older your years left reduces, so COVID interventions have less life expectancy years to win. But besides 4% shielding people I would expect over 70s to also radically change behaviour on significant outbreak. Whatever NICE says, I do not think they are keen on risk of becoming very ill.

With above cancer data, cancer is a disease in main of old age, and reason additional no risk for under 40, is because the set is empty (in this case). If want to consider another risk group could consider autoimmune conditions which effects all ages (even few kids, but mostly over 30). Here a BMJ study I found:

https://ard.bmj.com/content/annrheumdis/79/7/859.full.pdf

which for this group put hospitalisation risk at 46% and mortality at 9%. Break down by comorbidity but shame did not stratify by age but guess with only 600 people over various conditions data set not big enough. But there again I guess if in this box and saw COVID coming you would lock yourself in the cellar (if you had one).  

Looking at UK data on how prevalent these conditions are, I would estimate have 300 rheumatic disease patients on IoM, but load other conditions mentioned too, so 500 could be closer estimate (I just do not know). But say assume have 300 in this box, and the all get infected, report has 46% hospitalisation rate so end up with 136 of them in Nobles. Nobles has 200 beds and 6 ICU beds (in standard configuration). So just this group of 300 people could bring Nobles to its knees.

For everyone, you definitely want to reduce the risk of people who are extremely clinically vulnerable of getting infected. As said in previous post stratification of risk is particularly large for this pathogen, so you would expect behavior of different risk groups to vary and I think makes sense for state to manage risk for all for greatest common good. That means steps to reduce spread of pathogen and get such groups to take much stricter precautions than general population. 

Finally, reason I keep banging on about PPE at Nobles is because such groups are going through there all the time bunched up in enclosed indoor spaces. We have continually had patients and medics going back and forth to Liverpool, all hospitals all time have tight infection controls but bacterial and virus infections happen all time (I believe 25% infections occur in hospitals but cannot find reference, but number is large). Staff canteen upstairs and everyone there eating and chatting in close quarters, in clinics have fixed protocols but upstairs people will relax which is natural. Anyway, good to hear someone at hospital must have told someone in Government about use of PPE in Nobles and risk. Two COVID positive patients must fucused minds but I think transmission risk been present all time. Last I heard was in August management told frontline staff to stop using face coverings at Nobles, while UK Health, UK NHS and SAGE where saying exactly opposite, see:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/face-masks-and-coverings-to-be-worn-by-all-nhs-hospital-staff-and-visitors   

view of this advice varied between medics, but it appeared from various conversations, at least coincidently, that medics with family members in high-risk groups would have preferred to keep facemasks while those without had a more relaxed opinion.   

 

Thanks for your detailed reply to my observations. You come up with a truly thoughtful posting, though it takes some focus to go through it.

The problem is that you arguments rely on assumptions and estimations, and thus, should those assumptions and estimations not be accurate, you may reach the wrong conclusion.

Some other posters took a more evidence based approach by looking at other places/jurisdictions that have adopted different policies from us. Mentioned have been the examples of Jersey, which is controlling its border through extensive testing; and Switzerland, Sweden, San Marino, which are not controlling their borders. These are European examples, but we could also consider the case of several US states, Florida for instance, which are now doing very little to control Covid, and sailing through anyway.

The above mentioned “real-life” examples provide a more reliable indication of what would happen if we were to change our policy than models and estimations.

Our policy, eradication by any mean, is not sustainable for much longer without causing a lot of damage to the island. It was initially adopted because the virus was thought to be much more dangerous than it actually is. It was adopted because politics got in the way of rational thinking.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Escape Artist said:

, but we could also consider the case of several US states, Florida for instance, which are now doing very little to control Covid, and sailing through anyway.

 

Florida is a disgrace. You can't trust their data, and you certainly can't use that state as a positive example of anything. 

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...