IOM Covid removing restrictions

[Non-Believer 12,929]

CS don't like experts in subject matters, other than themselves, even if the CS are not.

Those experts produce nasty, awkward things like facts, figures and qualified expertise that makes CS look small and, even worse, sometimes have the potential to show policies up as flawed.

The best thing to do then is to sideline those experts, perhaps even attempt to belittle them and get them as far away from the subject as possible. Bollocks to whatever effect the results might actually have on anybody else.

After all, it's the CS trainset and we can't have anybody else playing with it. That's all that matters.

[Uhtred 10,253]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

Is there any MHK who will lead the charge on this?

Of course not. Half of them are lazy and stupid and the other half want to hang on to the  money.

[Uhtred 10,253]

1 hour ago, TheTeapot said:

In light of where we are now everyone who has a concern should read it, and seriously consider punching 'Howie' square in the face the next time the see him.

When you do, your alibi is sorted - I’ll say you were at home with me baking Victoria Sponge.

[Cambon 1,016]

43 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said:

Let's hope so...we're probably only a day or so away from community spread again.

All avoidable, if only they had implemented 2nd week testing in Nov when advised by Dr Rachael Glover.

Some politicians and personalities need their arses kicked.

I cannot say too much, save to say, in one case, the 14 day isolation did not work simply due to incubation timing. The Day 1 / 13 would not have worked either. That is why they brought in the day 7 test. 

The Ramsey case saw a Covid positive waiter serving the public on two of the busiest nights of the year. Hundreds of people. To put it in perspective, the Royal Yacht, Jersey one of party that caused all their issues was a couple of dozen people.

IOMG did the right thing in the circumstances.  

 

[TheTeapot 10,560]

2 minutes ago, Uhtred said:

When you do, your alibi is sorted - I’ll say you were at home with me baking Victoria Sponge.

Excellent. Did you know, the key to the perfect sponge is weigh your eggs?

[Gladys 7,569]

14 minutes ago, Uhtred said:

Of course not. Half of them are lazy and stupid and the other half want to hang on to the  money.

I would laugh at that were it not so serious. 

 

[Annoymouse 964]

1 hour ago, Albert Tatlock said:

Let's hope so...we're probably only a day or so away from community spread again.

All avoidable, if only they had implemented 2nd week testing in Nov when advised by Dr Rachael Glover.

Some politicians and personalities need their arses kicked.

Exactly, there must be at least a few asymptomatic cases in the community and that’s why the lockdown is required.

[Gladys 7,569]

9 minutes ago, Cambon said:

I cannot say too much, save to say, in one case, the 14 day isolation did not work simply due to incubation timing. The Day 1 / 13 would not have worked either. That is why they brought in the day 7 test. 

The Ramsey case saw a Covid positive waiter serving the public on two of the busiest nights of the year. Hundreds of people. To put it in perspective, the Royal Yacht, Jersey one of party that caused all their issues was a couple of dozen people.

IOMG did the right thing in the circumstances.  

 

Why wouldn't testing on day 13 have worked in the first case?  I thought the theory was that the person was infected by another household member?  If they had both been tested before the end of isolation, there would have been a positive.  Or have I missed something? 

[Annoymouse 964]

Just now, Gladys said:

Why wouldn't testing on day 13 have worked in the first case?  I thought the theory was that the person was infected by another household member?  If they had both been tested before the end of isolation, there would have been a positive.  Or have I missed something? 

Originally it wasn’t the whole household isolating, only the person returning was required to isolate so it was something of a ticking time bomb really, in that instance even 21 days might not have been enough, if there were say 3 or 4 people in the household contracting the virus at different stages.

[Roger Mexico 9,940]

2 hours ago, TheTeapot said:

I've read that whole thing, you're not wrong about extraordinary attitudes. In light of where we are now everyone who has a concern should read it, and seriously consider punching 'Howie' square in the face the next time the see him.

I think there's a queue, judging by the response he got in Tynwald.  His endless variants on "How dare you suggest we discuss public policy in public?" went down particularly badly.  It's also clear that there have been people in CoMin arguing for testing and he doesn't like it.

2 hours ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

Everything he says is scripted. He may influence what is in his speech but don't be under any illusions that he is not representing the views of the Cabinet Office. 

The initial response is scripted, and in this case he was so keen to deliver it that he ended up seconding the thing he was speaking against by mistake.  But in this case he clearly did have a lot of input, unless everyone in the Cabinet Office is as petty and obtuse as he is.  More important, once the initial speech is delivered he's on his own and he was floundering around even more than normal.

One thing that he seems to have got into his head is that testing is very expensive because Guernsey spent £4 million on it (or whatever).  But it's setting up the testing regime that's expensive, marginal cost on extra tests in actually comparatively low (much less than they are charging).  And Rachel Glover had things set up so the whole thing ran both cheaply and smoothly, though it may have got more expensive once they insisted that she take her robots and never darken their doors again.

[horatiotheturd 613]

6 hours ago, Cambon said:

It is called the law. 

Until it changes, it is tough. I cannot see mine either. Maybe I am just a bit more grown up? 

Dick

Tell you what. Come and meet me and my family and understand our personal circumstances then tell me if I need to grow up.

I would put money on it that our circumstances over the last couple of years are such that noone with a single brain cell or ounce of compassion would suggest any of us need to be more grow up.

 

[horatiotheturd 613]

6 hours ago, Cambon said:

It is called the law. 

Until it changes, it is tough. I cannot see mine either. Maybe I am just a bit more grown up? 

Dick

Tell you what. Come and meet me and my family and understand our personal circumstances then tell me if I need to grow up.

I would put money on it that our circumstances over the last couple of years are such that noone with a single brain cell or ounce of compassion would suggest any of us need to be more grow up.

 

[horatiotheturd 613]

6 hours ago, Cambon said:

It is called the law. 

Until it changes, it is tough. I cannot see mine either. Maybe I am just a bit more grown up? 

Dick

Tell you what. Come and meet me and my family and understand our personal circumstances then tell me if I need to grow up.

I would put money on it that our circumstances over the last couple of years are such that noone with a single brain cell or ounce of compassion would suggest any of us need to be more grown up.

 

[asitis 5,790]

This boils my piss ........ it is indeed Comindara as suggested ......

Members mentioned this in the earlier debate about the Eastern Area Plan. You may wonder, what does this have to do with this debate? Well, I can tell you that the Cabinet Office has already issued an exemption certificate for the developers. The developers wish to bring over an archaeologist to come across and help them work up this greenfield scheme. Whilst I cannot ignore the fact that the Cabinet Office is falling over backwards to help a developer to develop a large greenfield site, for the purposes of this debate I would challenge: why is it appropriate that we issued an exemption certificate for an archaeologist, who will not be tested, when the rest of the population in the Isle of Man has not been allowed to see immediate family since March?

[Banker 1,492]

7 hours ago, Gladys said:

Why wouldn't testing on day 13 have worked in the first case?  I thought the theory was that the person was infected by another household member?  If they had both been tested before the end of isolation, there would have been a positive.  Or have I missed something? 

The day 1/13 would have worked in both recent cases as both were 14 days isolation with no test.

I would expect Chris Thomas & others will raise the failures in Tynwald 19/01 when the regulations need formal approval 

Edited January 9 by Banker