Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Filippo

Recommended Posts

If you get away from the "Jersey is best" keyboard warriors and actually look at the test data that we have, you'll immediately see that the introduction of a voluntary test, and its subsequent withdrawal, have not had a significant effect on the number of tests completed. Any data produced by the testing outside of a positive case is of dubious value.

We are unlike a lot of places with mass testing. We currently have no community transmission.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not many people were buying the Day 7 test because they didn't think the additional benefits were worth fifty quid, nor the risk of potentially adding a week to quarantine. So the removal didn't have much of an effect really, except symbolically making travel to the UK less appealing.

If there is a community case then it's likely come via a cross-household infection, which has always been the weak point of the quarantine rules.

I don't think the test on arrival effectiveness is as low as 7%, which is a figure based on effectiveness on day 1 of infection. But even 50% effectiveness is no better than flipping a coin.

Edited by tetchtyke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 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. 

And that's because some think that because they don't have symptoms then they must be negative, which as we all know (well, most of us do) being asymptomatic means that others are still at risk. If they were tested on arrival some, granted not all, would have been picked up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

And that's because some think that because they don't have symptoms then they must be negative, which as we all know (well, most of us do) being asymptomatic means that others are still at risk. If they were tested on arrival some, granted not all, would have been picked up.

The issue is that if the arrival test picks up 60% of infections, for instance, you have 4 in 10 positive people who think they're negative and less likely to quarantine.

I genuinely think false negatives are worse than no tests at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

And that's because some think that because they don't have symptoms then they must be negative, which as we all know (well, most of us do) being asymptomatic means that others are still at risk. If they were tested on arrival some, granted not all, would have been picked up.

The point is EVERY arrival is assumed positive. No household mixing is allowed. Any cross infection is poor isolation. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, tetchtyke said:

Not many people were buying the Day 7 test because they didn't think the additional benefits were worth fifty quid, nor the risk of potentially adding a week to quarantine. So the removal didn't have much of an effect really, except symbolically making travel to the UK less appealing.

There were about 3200 tests done in September, which was about twice the number done in August, so I think quite a number must have opted for it.

13 minutes ago, tetchtyke said:

I don't think the test on arrival effectiveness is as low as 7%, which is a figure based on effectiveness on day 1 of infection. But even 50% effectiveness is no better than flipping a coin.

That would only be true if all arrivals were infected, but it's certainly true that an arrival test on its own is completely inadequate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Cambon said:

The point is EVERY arrival is assumed positive. No household mixing is allowed. Any cross infection is poor isolation. 

It may not be allowed but it happens and can't be policed, but those testing positive on arrival would take more care and anyone else in household would have to isolate which they don't at present 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do wonder why the plan to vaccinate is back to front.  I know it's tradition and all but wouldn't it be better to vaccinate the ones who want to get out of lockdown and get back to work?  Wouldn't it also be better for the economy that everyone keeps banging on about?

ETA - And the medics of course.

I'm one of the vulnerable (but not elderly - no way!) but it's quite easy for me to hide myself away and only come out when it's all over. I'd far rather my son got mine tbh and I'm sure other (not elderly) folks might feel the same.

I'd love to know the reasoning behind the elderly first and look forward to being educated forthwith.

 

Edited by Roxanne
Add a para x2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cambon said:

The older or more vulnerable you are the more likely you are to die. Of all the deaths in the uk, only a few hundred have been under 50 and without underlying health conditions

Thanks but I already knew that. To make it clearer, why can't the vulnerable and the elderly isolate themselves and let the working population crack on - if getting the economy started again is so very important?

Link to comment
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...