Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, yootalkin2me said:

It's the compliance I'm.concerned about, the ones caught out and jailed thus far have presented themselves on a plate to the authorities. We, as an island do not have the intelligence or resources or system for that matter to ensure every single person is being compliant 

It's worth saying that they have made things more difficult for themselves by introducing the exercise hour for those isolating.  At first it looks reasonable - according to Quayle's statement[1]:

One final point worth mentioning, is on the topic of exercise for households isolating because of a traveller, but which are free of the virus. So long as no one is displaying symptoms of COVID-19 and has not tested positive for the virus, the traveller and other members of the household can exercise outdoors for up to one hour each day, but you must wear a face covering, you must physically distance yourself from other people and you must exercise alone or only with members of your own household.

But of course it now means that any isolatee found out and about can just point to their mask and claim they're on their statutory hour.  Unless you expect the police to monitor all returnees and anyone in their household 24/7, there's no way in which isolation can now be enforced.  Of course most people will behave responsibly, but it can't be proved someone is breaking the rules.

I suspect what has happened here is the usual.  Someone recently described Boris Johnson as a cushion which always bore the marks of whoever had sat on him last, and his Mini-Me is the same.  Some mate no doubt complained about not being able to get out for a bit a fresh air when isolating, and they ended up making the system unenforceable because they didn't think things through.

 

[1]  Though why (as we all have been regularly pointing out for nine months) it should be Quayle to make these announcements is a mystery.  Especially now they have discovered they have a Director of Public Health who has to sit there hoping to get a word in after the Dynamic Duo have finally finished speaking.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 15.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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

If it were me, the people present at the particular venues would have been offered a test 10 days post-exposure (whatever date that happens to be) and told to isolate in the mean time. That wouldn't h

Posted Images

2 hours ago, yootalkin2me said:

[...]once all returning people get to the Island ahead of Christmas there will be more and more infections in the community.

2 hours ago, boswellian said:

Infections or positive test results?

Obviously if no one is tested then there won't be any positive test results, but there could still be infections - hopefully only among those isolating.  But every positive test result is an infection - as Rachel explained in her excellent presentation 'false positives' are very rare indeed in the type of testing we use on the Island.

What may lie behind this question is the belief that a positive test somehow doesn't mean that it is a 'proper' case of Covid-19 if there are no symptoms.  This simply isn't true - the definition of the disease is a lab test showing the presence of the organism that causes it.  What is more this is true of every infectious disease, not just Covid-19.  It has to be this way, because no disease has a unique set of symptoms which every infected person has and which no person suffering from any other disease does.  It's the way medicine works.

And in this infection there's also the fact that we know those not showing any symptoms can infect others - even if they never go on to show any later.  The number of completely asymptomatic people may be lower than has been thought - latest estimates are about 20% - but they can still give it to others.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

They do need to seriously police these 'returnees'. Especially those arriving weeks commencing Mon 6th and 13th in the build up to xmas.

Two infected people out and about in those weeks could cause carnage and a lockdown in January...ironically when the vaccine starts rolling out.

I can see that lockdown needing to happen all down to complacency.

There's a £multi-million economy at at stake here Jan to March.

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

It's worth saying that they have made things more difficult for themselves by introducing the exercise hour for those isolating.  At first it looks reasonable - according to Quayle's statement[1]:

One final point worth mentioning, is on the topic of exercise for households isolating because of a traveller, but which are free of the virus. So long as no one is displaying symptoms of COVID-19 and has not tested positive for the virus, the traveller and other members of the household can exercise outdoors for up to one hour each day, but you must wear a face covering, you must physically distance yourself from other people and you must exercise alone or only with members of your own household.

But of course it now means that any isolatee found out and about can just point to their mask and claim they're on their statutory hour.  Unless you expect the police to monitor all returnees and anyone in their household 24/7, there's no way in which isolation can now be enforced.  Of course most people will behave responsibly, but it can't be proved someone is breaking the rules.

I suspect what has happened here is the usual.  Someone recently described Boris Johnson as a cushion which always bore the marks of whoever had sat on him last, and his Mini-Me is the same.  Some mate no doubt complained about not being able to get out for a bit a fresh air when isolating, and they ended up making the system unenforceable because they didn't think things through.

Roger Mexico: I presume you are a filthy ball of fat; as most of those who want the restrictions are. If you were not the filthy ball of fat you are, you would understand and feel actually what kind of torture can be to be deprived of physical exercise.

It does not make a practical difference to me. When I was back in the island, during those 14 days, I went running on my own in the depth of the night with no problem or risk of being prosecuted. I belong to the social-economic strata that are exempt from prosecution under Covid.

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

And in this infection there's also the fact that we know those not showing any symptoms can infect others - even if they never go on to show any later.  The number of completely asymptomatic people may be lower than has been thought - latest estimates are about 20% - but they can still give it to others.

Furthermore, this is completely false. You have read it on a communist newspaper... It is actually the other way around, 80-90% of people do not have recognisable symptoms.

Unless, you count as symptoms those of the commonest type of cold. When I had Covid, my main symptom was a bloody bleeding nose; at my middle age.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Escape Artist said:

Roger Mexico: I presume you are a filthy ball of fat; as most of those who want the restrictions are. If you were not the filthy ball of fat you are, you would understand and feel actually what kind of torture can be to be deprived of physical exercise.

It does not make a practical difference to me. When I was back in the island, during those 14 days, I went running on my own in the depth of the night with no problem or risk of being prosecuted. I belong to the social-economic strata that are exempt from prosecution under Covid.

Oh dear, so excercising in the garden or in the house for fourteen days is impossible then...have you not heard of lifting bags of sugar, running on the spot, rowing machines, running up and down the stairs etc etc

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, yootalkin2me said:

Oh dear, so excercising in the garden or in the house for fourteen days is impossible then...have you not heard of lifting bags of sugar, running on the spot, rowing machines, running up and down the stairs etc etc

Not everybody has a garden. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Albert Tatlock said:

They do need to seriously police these 'returnees'. Especially those arriving weeks commencing Mon 6th and 13th in the build up to xmas.

Two infected people out and about in those weeks could cause carnage and a lockdown in January...ironically when the vaccine starts rolling out.

I can see that lockdown needing to happen all down to complacency.

There's a £multi-million economy at at stake here Jan to March.

'Carnage'? Can we just have a reality check for a moment please.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

I suspect what has happened here is the usual.  Someone recently described Boris Johnson as a cushion which always bore the marks of whoever had sat on him last, and his Mini-Me is the same.  Some mate no doubt complained about not being able to get out for a bit a fresh air when isolating, and they ended up making the system unenforceable because they didn't think things through.

I agree with you about this being a mistake and making it now unenforceable but I strongly suspect that the real reason it has been changed is because they have cottoned on to the fact that compulsory isolation of whole householders will cause serious issues for anyone unable to exercise their dogs who doesn't have a decent sized garden.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

It's worth saying that they have made things more difficult for themselves by introducing the exercise hour for those isolating.  At first it looks reasonable - according to Quayle's statement[1]:

 

All that does is highlight how daft it was not allowing the original returnees an hour of exercise.

12 hours ago, Albert Tatlock said:

They do need to seriously police these 'returnees'. Especially those arriving weeks commencing Mon 6th and 13th in the build up to xmas.

Police people in their own homes or going about their lawful business?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Declan said:

All that does is highlight how daft it was not allowing the original returnees an hour of exercise.

Police people in their own homes or going about their lawful business?

Not sure how anyone can police the hours exercise policy , how could anyone possibly know how long someone has been out walking other than electronic tags which even Howie with his controlling attitude wouldn’t allow 

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

Not sure how anyone can police the hours exercise policy , how could anyone possibly know how long someone has been out walking other than electronic tags which even Howie with his controlling attitude wouldn’t allow 

There will be plenty of people watching their neighbours. 

  • Haha 1
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...