Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Out of the blue said:

Although disappointing news about the positive child, we are still very early in lockdown so it is a bit soon to assume it will be extended. In fact it will be a good indicator of widespread transmission as you assume that they are now going to have to test thousands of pupils and associated contacts. Who knows it may be a false positive. Whatever the test results we still have enough time for track and trace to mop up. Stay positive (not that type of positive 🙂). 

I’m just hoping the poor kid who tested positive wasn’t in for anything major, in that instance what happens? I would assume if it’s a major operation it would have to go ahead regardless?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 30.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Banker

    2280

  • TheTeapot

    1328

  • 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

6 minutes ago, doc.fixit said:

........and replace with what?

An entirely new set of talentless chancers!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Blackajah said:

Candidates who are less arrogant, entitled, shortsighted, but who are willing to listen to ALL instead of civil servants with their own agendas.   Also candidates who understand that being honest with the public doesn’t make them appear weak, as HQ and his ilk seem to think.   Oh yes, & candidates who follow more progressive policies than we have at present.       

Totally agree, but do you know where we can find someone like that? I can't think of many folk off hand.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Banker said:

Yes wondering do they test the positive cases again to check not false bones or do they just assume all 100% correct.

Didn’t Rachel say we’ll start getting false positives when they start using the kit they have rather than her more accurate ones?

No.  What Rachel's test guarded against was false negatives caused by swabs not being taken correctly.  False positives with this sort of testing seem pretty rare unless there is some sort of contamination problem.

I'm actually worried about testing here - the fact they are using the limited number rapid tests  (though the standard PCR was being done fairly rapidly before) suggests there are problems in the lab.  There was only one person who was really trained to interpret the PCR so there will be a lot of pressure on them.

  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

No.  What Rachel's test guarded against was false negatives caused by swabs not being taken correctly.  False positives with this sort of testing seem pretty rare unless there is some sort of contamination problem.

I'm actually worried about testing here - the fact they are using the limited number rapid tests  (though the standard PCR was being done fairly rapidly before) suggests there are problems in the lab.  There was only one person who was really trained to interpret the PCR so there will be a lot of pressure on them.

The lab & staff must be under pressure with amount of tests, friends got their negative results at 23.20 last night, time to eat humble pie and ask Rachel for help?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Blackajah said:

Candidates who are less arrogant, entitled, shortsighted, but who are willing to listen to ALL instead of civil servants with their own agendas.   Also candidates who understand that being honest with the public doesn’t make them appear weak, as HQ and his ilk seem to think.   Oh yes, & candidates who follow more progressive policies than we have at present.       

Unlikely  - I know of a chap who if he decides to run in November (which he will), he will get elected given his likely competition, but unfortunately he has a messiah complex with a huge ego. Morally bankrupt may be a stretch, but not far off it. Unfortunately he believes his own hype, as although he is a capable individual, it is all about him. We fish in a small pool and who would put up with all of the public hassle for a middle manager salary...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a reminder.

If you have family in Manchester, then it's likely that their relatives who live in - say Carlisle - haven't been able to see them for some time either.

Its not just an IOM problem.

Edited by jaymann
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just take comfort that at some point in the near future,  Quayle will be getting up at 4 in the mornings to shovel bullshit again.  

From a shovel and not in front of a camera.

 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Barlow said:

Just for the record and for @horatiotheturd, my closest relative is in Nobles right now, and it's about as serious as it gets. 

There's a pandemic going on. We are in lockdown. I accept that.

I Stay at Home.

 

Point is if the government had done their job you would be able to go and see them.

There is no reason people can't travel here and test.  None at all

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

The lab & staff must be under pressure with amount of tests, friends got their negative results at 23.20 last night, time to eat humble pie and ask Rachel for help?

It's been time for that for months.  But their main skill seems to be digging their heels in.

It's worth pointing out that there isn't a problem with capacity for tests, but with interpretation of results, which may explain the late notification.  I suspect losing Rachel has also meant they've lost the capacity to train more people, though there may also be admin problems (as there so often are at the Hospital) with cumbersome and inaccurate bureaucratic procedures imposed from on high.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether by design or luck, after the initial surge in March/April 2020, and the very unfortunate Abbottswood deaths, they’ve actually achieved a very good result.

We were told that even with 14 days isolation, the gold standard, there was a very small risk. It’s all about risk assessment in a pandemic containment plan. You can’t completely avoid, not without total cut off from the outside world. And that brings its own risks. So you have to balance.

One of the plans they’ve had, from very early on after community spread was eliminated in June, was a short sharp circuit breaker if Covid reappeared. That’s just what they’ve done.

That being said I do have criticisms.

The advice, anonymised, should be released, in précis, no more than 4 weeks in arrears. All our criticism is based on assumptions and what we are told by one person. That person,  with all their qualifications and experience, wasn’t a government adviser as such. And has obviously strong views and, at present, an axe to grind. Advocates have been engaged, and there’s a polite social media fisticuffs going on.

Presentational skills are terrible. Howie and Ashie have taken the lead. They shouldn’t. We needed a good government spokesman, plus experts. That’s resulted in mixed messages, contradictions, retractions, and lack of confidence/trust.

Then we have the statistics, or lack of them, and their total unreliability. Other jurisdictions have been much more surefooted and clear, and better at openness and number crunching. They’ve just admitted on MR that they don’t know the break down between community testing and the rest. Why? They should have it clearly recorded, patient transfer, Patient pre admission ( broken down between Nobles and off island), key workers ( infrastructure and medical/social care ), returning residents, new contractual residents, travellers. They also need the day 1, 7 and 13. 

I can’t see the need for borders being closed if we have a consistent and safe and secure isolate and test policy. The same policy should apply whichever reason the arrivals are using. All arrivals should test day 1, 6/7 and 13. All arrivals in a family group should isolate together and away from the rest of their household, unless all household members are to be tested.

I never understood the  7 day testing and partial isolation release. Can’t see it did anything. 

 

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 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...

×
×
  • Create New...