Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

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

Freedom is worth nothing to you.

If you get your way, yes you are going to have your geriatric island for you and your care home chummies.

I won't be here in that case.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 23.9k
  • 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

2 minutes ago, Hard Truth said:

Freedom is worth nothing to you.

If you get your way, yes you are going to have your geriatric island for you and your care home chummies.

I won't be here in that case.

What the fuck?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s not been much discussion of infectivity, and how it correlates with positive testing and symptoms. Being infectious is clearly a more important determinant of how long quarantine should last for than whether someone is likely to test positive. 
 

There’s been some work on viral culture - that’s growing viable virus from swabs, as opposed to just finding bits of them by PCR. It’s apparently not possible to grow virus from samples taken 8 or 9 days post onset of symptoms, but PCR can be positive for a month or more. People are infectious for a day or two before getting symptoms. 
 

When it comes to border policy then it could be like this. Isolate on arrival. If symptoms develop - test, if positive isolate until day 10 post onset then free to go. If no symptoms test day 7 - if negative get on with it, if positive isolate another 7 then get on with it. I can still see no point in testing on arrival, and once the uk prevalence drops even less so. 

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

There’s not been much discussion of infectivity, and how it correlates with positive testing and symptoms. Being infectious is clearly a more important determinant of how long quarantine should last for than whether someone is likely to test positive. 
 

There’s been some work on viral culture - that’s growing viable virus from swabs, as opposed to just finding bits of them by PCR. It’s apparently not possible to grow virus from samples taken 8 or 9 days post onset of symptoms, but PCR can be positive for a month or more. People are infectious for a day or two before getting symptoms. 
 

When it comes to border policy then it could be like this. Isolate on arrival. If symptoms develop - test, if positive isolate until day 10 post onset then free to go. If no symptoms test day 7 - if negative get on with it, if positive isolate another 7 then get on with it. I can still see no point in testing on arrival, and once the uk prevalence drops even less so. 

Well Guernsey are picking up a number on testing on arrival, another one today think that makes it about 6 this week so there’s obviously some benefits.

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

Statistics. This was supposed be an evidence based policy making Government. But when offered the chance to gather evidence they rebuke it. At the moment they seem to be doing things on gut instinct.

Correct, if they don’t test, they don’t get cases so they have no data or evidence so they can’t make decisions which is exactly what Howie wants and his followers like Cambon 

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

Statistics. This was supposed be an evidence based policy making Government. But when offered the chance to gather evidence they rebuke it. At the moment they seem to be doing things on gut instinct.

I’m not sure it’s even instinct. Just the cheapest and easiest way of managing resources, stifling all debate, and managing all the keep the borders closed idiots. Best not give them any data they can get all frightened about. I now find it very hard to believe that we do not have any community cases to be honest but the minute that genie is out of the bottle all hell is going to break loose which they’re trying to avoid at all costs rather than go down the route of sensible science based options.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

Statistics. This was supposed be an evidence based policy making Government. But when offered the chance to gather evidence they rebuke it. At the moment they seem to be doing things on gut instinct.

 

2 hours ago, Banker said:

Correct, if they don’t test, they don’t get cases so they have no data or evidence so they can’t make decisions which is exactly what Howie wants and his followers like Cambon 

@BankerHow many years do you think it would take to gather enough data for it to be statistically meaningful or useful? The number of people arriving here is tiny.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

Sad news, sympathies.

BUT this means little Ashford has been lying to us surely if they died FROM COVID?

He said only the other day that two in hospital weren’t in hospital with COVID, but had tested positive as part of a process. Also that we didn’t have any critical cases, all safely self isolating at home.

What has drastically changed? Were one of the hospital cases in fact seriously there with COVID?

Edited by NoTailT
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

He said only the other day that two in hospital weren’t in hospital with COVID, but had tested positive as part of a process. Also that we didn’t have any critical cases, all safely self isolating at home.

What has drastically changed? Were one of the hospital cases in fact seriously there with COVID?

Yes. Firstly massive condolences as this is awful news that no family wants to get. But you’re right - they either died of covid when Ashford was clear that nobody was admitted with covid or was being treated primarily for covid at the hospital, or they died of something else (those two were said to have been away for treatment for existing conditions which could be cancer etc) after testing positive for covid. Either way questions now need to be answered. 

Edited by thesultanofsheight
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, thesultanofsheight said:

Yes. Firstly massive condolences as this is awful news that no family wants to ge. But you’re right - they either died of covid when Ashford was clear that nobody was admitted with covid or was being treated primarily for covid at the hospital, or they died of something else (those two were said to have been away for treatment) after testing positive for covid. Either way questions now need to be answered. 

I hope they’re not up to their ‘cause of death’ tricks again as justification for something or to keep the fear of god in the population.

  • Like 2
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...

×
×
  • Create New...