IOM Covid removing restrictions

[Nom de plume]

2 minutes ago, pongo said:

You keep on writing about testing on entry but you still haven't explained what it is you disagree with about @rachomics 's considered expert response to you - how testing after 7 days makes better sense.

 

Actually I fully concur with her rationale, explanation & reasoning with the caveat that all is based on a short > medium term approach.

There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that 7 day Q (+1) will mitigate the risk of virus transmission over entry testing (+1, +7). By how much is debatable.

I think those that are championing testing on entry (+1, +7) of which I obviously include myself, are doing so for two reasons (neither of which are the prospect of a week on the hack in Magaluf).

1) The situation in the UK and beyond is likely be 'as is' for many months, perhaps years yet. There has to be a viable, effective alternative (with risk) to 7 day Q (+1) given we are a small Island population with a large proportion of our families overseas & residents here seeking medical care off island. There are a number of other reasons but the compassionate & medical grounds are the primary drivers even though the economic arguments will continue to rage.

2) We are witnessing first hand in the Channel Islands how a compromise can be found. Jersey have implemented and are operating a very successful entry, traffic light based, testing regime. It can't be denied - it's working. There is a model we can replicate and better if thought through.

That's it, nothing more. 

Semi-permanent paralysis as far as the eye can see or an alternative that seemingly fits the bill.  

[Roger Mexico]

32 minutes ago, Utah 01 said:

5 hours ago, Nom de plume said:

for answer by HQ & DA over this whole matter

You're making a huge assumption of their ability to give cogent answers on anything.

These will be Written Questions (answers out next Tuesdays), Ministers won't have written the replies; they might not even have read them.

[Max Power]

Whilst we are rabbiting on about our borders and travel, this is a secondary issue to the problems which are affecting us around the world. Customers and suppliers of island based businesses are struggling to survive, this is what is going to be the major issue for the island very shortly, not whether we can get away to see granny or have a break in Cyprus. We are really just passengers in all this, it's what happens in the UK and beyond which dictates what our government can and cannot do. Sooner or later, the world is going to have to make big decisions, we will have to go with what is decided.  

[Banker]

14 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Whilst we are rabbiting on about our borders and travel, this is a secondary issue to the problems which are affecting us around the world. Customers and suppliers of island based businesses are struggling to survive, this is what is going to be the major issue for the island very shortly, not whether we can get away to see granny or have a break in Cyprus. We are really just passengers in all this, it's what happens in the UK and beyond which dictates what our government can and cannot do. Sooner or later, the world is going to have to make big decisions, we will have to go with what is decided.  

Totally agree but a number of posters on here keep saying the economy is booming and basing their opinions on pubs busy at weekend and people wanting patios built.

[Roger Mexico]

25 minutes ago, Nom de plume said:

[...] 2) We are witnessing first hand in the Channel Islands how a compromise can be found. Jersey have implemented and are operating a very successful entry, traffic light based, testing regime. It can't be denied - it's working. There is a model we can replicate and better if thought through. 

Except it isn't really working.  Jersey is still operating under all sorts of restrictions to cope with the possibility that they may still have the virus and that it can be reintroduced at any time.  They may have reduced the risk of those things, but not to a sufficient level that they can open up internally in the way that we have.  And those restrictions have affected their internal economy, which is why they are giving out £100 vouchers in a desperate attempt to get things going.

And it's very expensive:

Quote

Jersey's chief minister has revealed the island's government spent almost £5m on its Covid-19 testing regime in July and August.

The sum of £4.8m paid for both on-island testing and swabs at the harbour and airport.

It also went towards staff wages, as well as the cost of transporting swabs and having them processed.

 

[Nom de plume]

2 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Except it isn't really working.  Jersey is still operating under all sorts of restrictions to cope with the possibility that they may still have the virus and that it can be reintroduced at any time.  They may have reduced the risk of those things, but not to a sufficient level that they can open up internally in the way that we have.  And those restrictions have affected their internal economy, which is why they are giving out £100 vouchers in a desperate attempt to get things going.

And it's very expensive:

 

Yes, understood.

However, I think we could live with 1m social distancing, groups limited to 20 persons, table service in pubs & nightclubs closed if it meant there was a viable alternative or compromise.

Jersey’s restrictions are not draconian, they are very liveable.

I’d even go with the £50 test paid for by the traveller over the state paying.

We will have to come up with an alternative soon, though none are without risk.

[Banker]

5 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Except it isn't really working.  Jersey is still operating under all sorts of restrictions to cope with the possibility that they may still have the virus and that it can be reintroduced at any time.  They may have reduced the risk of those things, but not to a sufficient level that they can open up internally in the way that we have.  And those restrictions have affected their internal economy, which is why they are giving out £100 vouchers in a desperate attempt to get things going.

And it's very expensive:

 

But it is working as they have had significant numbers traveling to Jersey which generated a lot of income for the island and is protecting many jobs.

yes they have some restrictions but the vast majority of residents are happy with trade off for more freedoms and saving jobs.

[Cambon]

1 hour ago, Nom de plume said:

Yes, understood.

However, I think we could live with 1m social distancing, groups limited to 20 persons, table service in pubs & nightclubs closed if it meant there was a viable alternative or compromise.

Jersey’s restrictions are not draconian, they are very liveable.

I’d even go with the £50 test paid for by the traveller over the state paying.

We will have to come up with an alternative soon, though none are without risk.

Problem is, that would cost us another 1000 or so jobs. Our tourist season is over. We may benefit from 1000 or so visitors a week coming here and spending. Would those visitors be enough to offset the increase in unemployed? Additionally, those 1000 or so unemployed would be from the entertainment sector. Less entertainment, less tourists. 

The flip side of this to the economy is that the ease of return to the island means more locals travelling and spending off island, myself included. I would be gone like a shot for some new clothes. 85,000 people spending locally versus 1000 tourists and reduced local spending? It is a no brainier! 

We would be mad to follow jersey's lead.

[Banker]

9 minutes ago, Cambon said:

Problem is, that would cost us another 1000 or so jobs. Our tourist season is over. We may benefit from 1000 or so visitors a week coming here and spending. Would those visitors be enough to offset the increase in unemployed? Additionally, those 1000 or so unemployed would be from the entertainment sector. Less entertainment, less tourists. 

The flip side of this to the economy is that the ease of return to the island means more locals travelling and spending off island, myself included. I would be gone like a shot for some new clothes. 85,000 people spending locally versus 1000 tourists and reduced local spending? It is a no brainier! 

We would be mad to follow jersey's lead.

More bollocks from someone who thinks local economy is booming!

where the hell do you get 1000 job losses from for doing 1m SD , total rubbish .

[Andy Onchan]

1 hour ago, Banker said:

But it is working as they have had significant numbers traveling to Jersey which generated a lot of income for the island and is protecting many jobs.

yes they have some restrictions but the vast majority of residents are happy with trade off for more freedoms and saving jobs.

So why is the Jersey government handing out £100/person?

[Banker]

3 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

So why is the Jersey government handing out £100/person?

Boost spending to help economy more same as NI cut just announced.

[Nom de plume]

7 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

So why is the Jersey government handing out £100/person?

One might suggest it is to get the locals out & about in bars, restaurants, cafes, etc spending & helping preserve jobs, which in turn produce tax & NI contributions.

They are being pro-active.

[Max Power]

2 hours ago, Banker said:

Totally agree but a number of posters on here keep saying the economy is booming and basing their opinions on pubs busy at weekend and people wanting patios built.

There's certainly been an upturn in people spending money that was probably set aside for travel, that can't last forever either. There's bound to be a downturn in the near future as businesses begin cutbacks and shedding staff, cutting salaries etc.

[Andy Onchan]

8 minutes ago, Banker said:

Boost spending to help economy more same as NI cut just announced.

But they have, you said:

Quote

significant numbers traveling to Jersey which generated a lot of income for the island 

I think not all is rosey in the Bailiwick if they are giving their own taxpayers money away. That's all I am saying.

The costs to administer this must be horrendous.

[Banker]

3 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

But they have, you said:

I think not all is rosey in the Bailiwick if they are giving their own taxpayers money away. That's all I am saying.

The costs to administer this must be horrendous.

It’s not rosy anywhere! But Jersey have taken steps to boost economy & protect jobs which will save on benefits.

IOM support schemes finish this month and no steps taken to do anything similar , perhaps they are awaiting return of ztynwald in October after their 12 weeks break .