IOM Covid removing restrictions

[Roger Mexico]

We actually mentioned this policy earlier in the week.  It's clearly completely bonkers because it doesn't matter who you co-isolate with - just that you are all tested at the end of the period to make sure that no cross-infection has taken place. 

With larger groups testing during the isolation period might also be helpful, though ideally you would try to avoid larger groups.  No one in the group would be allowed out of isolation unless all tested negative at once (some countries require more than one set of consecutive tests).

There is no rationale for what the DHSC is proposing here (never mind the cruelty of forcing a woman who's just had a heart attack to survive on her own).  It's magical thinking again, probably caused because someone co-isolating with a relative on the Island passed it on and so they've picked on the aspect of the situation that doesn't matter, rather than the one that does (not testing).

Incidentally, the alternative of isolating for 21 days without tests falls down the other way in that it is possible for someone to be cross-infected - indeed this may be what happened with the New Year's Eve cases.  So they've a policy that caused pointless and possibly dangerous suffering, while still possibly letting infection through.

[Newbie]

8 hours ago, jaymann said:

He said he was told he would be arrested if he did.

Surely they would have to arrest both of them, as they would both be breaking 'the rules'. Absolutely ridiculous situation and he should just move back in and see whether the Police are really prepared to arrest someone who has just come out of hospital after a heart attack, or her only carer.

[Albert Tatlock]

In the case of this guy sleeping in his car...taking a more independent view...this guy is no spring chicken himself. It's not just about isolating the disease itself, given a small number of hospital and ICU beds, it's also about ensuring people don't get seriously ill with it - regardless of whether it is you bringing it back yourself or it is  brought back by your partner/family member infecting you.

There is a medical judgement to be made surely? If she NEEDS support it's wholly different IMO. In these circumstances surely we have to filter 'NICE to have support' and 'NEEDS support'. So which one actually is it in this case?

And getting your name spread all over the news is hardly stress free is it?

[Derek Flint]

8 hours ago, Uhtred said:

I get where you’re coming from but I can’t sign up the the ‘been-nowhere lifetime on a rock’ analysis if by that you mean local individuals who lack experience elsewhere. And the simple reason for that is that I cannot think of a single senior civil servant (not that I have a catalogue of them) who is an indigenous local...they’re absolutely all imports.

But at what point were they imported? There’s only a few that come in at the top slot from across.

[Banker]

46 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said:

In the case of this guy sleeping in his car...taking a more independent view...this guy is no spring chicken himself. It's not just about isolating the disease itself, given a small number of hospital and ICU beds, it's also about ensuring people don't get seriously ill with it - regardless of whether it is you bringing it back yourself or it is  brought back by your partner/family member infecting you.

There is a medical judgement to be made surely? If she NEEDS support it's wholly different IMO. In these circumstances surely we have to filter 'NICE to have support' and 'NEEDS support'. So which one actually is it in this case?

And getting your name spread all over the news is hardly stress free is it?

Ashford did say that exceptions can be made for medical transfers to isolate with their household as they couldn’t be expected to isolate on their own if returning from operations, were elderly etc so not sure what the issue with this one is. 
personally I don’t know why you can’t isolate with family if you are all isolating and get tested before release 

[Happier diner]

7 hours ago, Annoymouse said:

I’ll place a bet for :

‘We can’t discuss individual cases’ 

PM asks the exactly the same question worded slightly differently

“As I’ve already said Paul, we can’t discuss individual cases, it’s between the patient and the DHSC”

 

 

Well he could push them. The persons concerned have made the story public. It's now a matter of public interest GDPR is trumped by public interest and therefore is not an excuse to not discuss the matter. In fact FOI now applies

[monasqueen]

I have no doubt that questions will be asked at Howard o'Clock today.

[jaymann]

2 minutes ago, monasqueen said:

I have no doubt that questions will be asked at Howard o'Clock today.

No doubt along with a bunch of other wasted journo questions about vaccination program being too slow, clarification on case numbers etc etc

[monasqueen]

Thanks jaymann. Apologies, by the way, I had not seen that you were already trying to provoke Molly into asking questions. 🙃

[jaymann]

2 minutes ago, monasqueen said:

Thanks jaymann. Apologies, by the way, I had not seen that you were already trying to provoke Molly into asking questions. 🙃

I'm not sure he will require too much provocation

[Andy Onchan]

Well, it's a bit sooner than I thought would happen but......... the construction industry are back at work, in Onchan at least.  Brickies up two levels of scaffolding wielding angle grinders (even without safety glasses or a helmet).

[piebaps]

1 hour ago, Happier diner said:

Well he could push them. The persons concerned have made the story public. It's now a matter of public interest GDPR is trumped by public interest and therefore is not an excuse to not discuss the matter. In fact FOI now applies

GDPR isn't trumped by public interest. Without the consent of the guy and the patient, he can't discuss their case. No ifs and no buts. Personal data is absolutely exempt from FOI too so that doesn't help either.

[Augustus]

10 hours ago, pongo said:

I was thinking along similar lines and trying to figure out the motivation.

I suppose that the job of an online content strategist is likely to often be about writing content which people click on, share and respond to. In many cases that would be about expressing controversial or provocative opinions.

This is a Brighton-based marketer who has no obvious connections to the Isle of Man. There is an agenda at play here. He didn't write that article for shits and giggles. He is doing the policy equivalent of those ghastly young people simpering and preening in front of a camera to influence others to buy products. But they do it for ... money. Filthy lucre.

[Andy Onchan]

1 minute ago, Augustus said:

This is a Brighton-based marketer who has no obvious connections to the Isle of Man. There is an agenda at play here. He didn't write that article for shits and giggles. He is doing the policy equivalent of those ghastly young people simpering and preening in front of a camera to influence others to buy products. But they do it for ... money. Filthy lucre.

Agreed. All he's doing is regurgitating what's already out there. Nothing new. The world's full of plagiarists.

[piebaps]

Agreed. All he's doing is regurgitating what's already out there. Nothing new. The world's full of plagiarists.