Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Cambon said:

Situation is simple. As with any flu vaccine, the elderly and infirm/ high risk need to be vaccinated. Let the rest of us get on with it. 

 

We can't wait for the vaccine to prove if it's viable or not. Testing has to happen as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 30.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Banker

    2287

  • TheTeapot

    1329

  • Gladys

    1178

  • horatiotheturd

    1015

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

4 minutes ago, asitis said:

Just had a text from my son in law to tell us there is a community case here ! 

..... let us hope this rumour is unfounded though without testing we were in a ticking time bomb situation.

If ... and it’s a big if, we do have a community case outbreak I’m afraid to say (actually I’m not) this will fall firmly at the doors of HQ & DA who still, without explanation, dropped testing.

They can then face the wrath of the Manx people & it would be justifiable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, BenFairfax said:

Do you have link to these groups, be interesting the hear what they have to say.

Finally, we got some hard numbers, thanks for posting this, do you have link to source article so can read testing procedure? Had 3rd year student on Radio 4 this morning, who said not getting tested because if positive means cannot go home for Christmas. I imagine such views would exist but expected would not be voiced (and broadcast) on national state media. The self swabbing of students in UK, could well mean some (and certainly girl on radio 4) will be sticking swabs in ear to assure a negative result.

 

It’s sky media, so it’s airline and travel industry. That probably means it’s skewed. 
 

Why would being tested now, 11 November, stop students going home?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Nom de plume said:

..... let us hope this rumour is unfounded though without testing we were in a ticking time bomb situation.

If ... and it’s a big if, we do have a community case outbreak I’m afraid to say (actually I’m not) this will fall firmly at the doors of HQ & DA who still, without explanation, dropped testing.

They can then face the wrath of the Manx people & it would be justifiable.

More rubbish. Nothing to do with testing. Everything to do with poor isolation. 

If it is true, it is hardly unexpected. 

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

More rubbish. Nothing to do with testing. Everything to do with poor isolation. 

If it is true, it is hardly unexpected. 

That’s fine, appreciate the rubbish comment.

You don’t believe that testing adds any benefit in detecting cases & mitigating risk of transmission.

I can’t understand why the world is spending literally billions & billions on the practice then - what a load of idiots they must be.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Cambon said:

More rubbish. Nothing to do with testing. Everything to do with poor isolation. 

If it is true, it is hardly unexpected. 

Of course it is testing issue, if we tested on arrival and got the positive cases then they would be much stricter on quarantine as well as those sharing house

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, asitis said:

Just had a text from my son in law to tell us there is a community case here ! 

Facebook will be fun reading tonight if true.

 

Got to remember the mess with Zurich though We were all going into lockdown because the whole of Zurich were infected

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, x-in-man said:

They stopped testing?  When?

They never really started properly.  The only people who have been regularly tested since the Spring have been hospital admissions, some health staff on an occasional basis and those triaged from 111 or similar with symptoms - which presumably wasn't very many.  There's only about 50-60 tests done a day, despite all the capacity.

Stopping the 7-day £50 test was sensible (in fact they were stupid starting it when they did) and the new exemption for frequent flyers is even dafter.  As so often with Covid responses here both were made on the basis of who was nagging the right people the hardest rather than on any scientific advice and the details weren't thought through.  But the end of the seven day test meant even less data was collected.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, John Wright said:

It’s sky media, so it’s airline and travel industry. That probably means it’s skewed. 

Found the article your conclusions based on 'Review of evidence on testing on arrival scheme', as said funded by airlines. Situation we find ourselves here is analogous, we are not an airline, but source of importation of COVID will be via one airport or one ferry port.

59 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Why would being tested now, 11 November, stop students going home?

Good point if testing now, but I thought this was not case across UK. Impression I was getting (via media) is testing will happen week or so before the are due to leave. Whatever happens between now and 11th Dec students need to be back if want to eat Christmas dinner with family and been told (I assume) to maintain good infection control protocols for 14 days after the arrive. By 'good' I mean after returning to family home will lock themselves in well ventilated bedroom, clean toilet/bathroom after every use (if do not have their own), avoid passing other household members in hallways, eat and prepare food either in own kitchen or clean kitchen after use, naturally use separate utensils/saucepans etc and eat alone I assume in bedroom. Just saying controlling infection in a household setting takes some doing. For me, if I was looking at 14 days of following all these controls, to allow 2 weeks after that to spend time with family, we would have likely concluded that best I stay in UK (but that just me, that is I would likely be in 10% of Manx students who are staying in UK). 

For everyone students themselves, student families in particular, and rest Manx residents to a lesser extent Manx students returning should get tested. Ideally before leave, so can stay in UK (which I assume they would general choose under that scenario), but if not..... Where is Dr Rachel Glover? She needs to tell us what needs to happen? 

Edited by BenFairfax
Typo, grammar
Link to post
Share on other sites

Testing hasn't stopped. Non-resident key workers get tested before they can work. Resident key workers can have a test on day 7 if they're returning from work in the UK, or sooner if they're working here, such as doctors. Anyone with symptoms can have a test. Patient transfers get tested.

There's plenty of data from those groups. We know where they're catching it: England.

Testing on arrival is not accurate, so rather than assisting with quarantine compliance it's likely to do the opposite. A false negative is worse than no test at all.

Ending the Day 7 test was clearly more about discouraging non-essential travel off the island. I just wish the CM had explicitly said that.

Edited by tetchtyke
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Cambon said:

More rubbish. Nothing to do with testing. Everything to do with poor isolation. 

If it is true, it is hardly unexpected. 

Well.  If it’s true you can possibly say that without knowing more details.

Let’s assume it someone who has been away, infected someone else in their house who has then been out an about.

If that person had been tested two days before travel it might have picked something up and they could have waited.  If they had been tested on arrival they might have been picked up and either asked to isolate somewhere else or make the whole house hold stay home. Likewise a test after 3 and 7 days.

Chances of doing the above and not picking a case up are very low - so why not?  What’s the possible harm?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Banker said:

Of course it is testing issue, if we tested on arrival and got the positive cases then they would be much stricter on quarantine as well as those sharing house

The problem with that is that you don't get all the cases.  You do get more than the 7% that Ashford seems to have gotten into his head, which as I pointed out last week is based on a complete misreading of something that was inappropriate to start with.  But it's nothing like enough and some people feel that a negative result will encourage those who don't test positive to become lax in quarantine - even though some are infected.

The main argument for testing on arrival is convenience and biosecurity.  You get to swab everyone in what are (hopefully) the safest conditions you can manage.  Later testing would have to be done in people's homes.  But you need to do a second test as well and the same problems apply then. 

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...