IOM Covid removing restrictions

[TheTeapot]

Hmmmmmmmmmm.

That's what I'm have to say.

[AlanShimmin]

1 hour ago, Andy Onchan said:

Rear Admiral Woodcock (sometimes known as the CEO of IOMSPCo) has been unusually quiet about this saga. He's normally straight on to the media defending the IOMSPCo but so far I haven't heard or seen anything from him. I wonder why?

Running down the months until retirement. 

 

Why would you want to rock the boat? There's nothing to be gained for him even if IOMSPC were in the right. 

[Albert Tatlock]

13 minutes ago, Gladys said:

But a company cannot isolate, have a swab test or vaccination, so even if the exemption was given to the company it could only be implemented by the humans  ie the staff and crew.

But the crew haven't technically travelled to another country...not set foot there? Just parked next to it as a place of work...working with others from a different country who don't set foot here...analogous to Tesco or the DOI working alongside visiting key workers here surely?

[Mr Helmut Fromage]

@Phillip Deardenyou're usually good for a balanced view and as a Non Exec Director of the IOMSPC any comments ?

[Gladys]

1 minute ago, Albert Tatlock said:

But the crew haven't technically travelled to another country...not set foot there? Just parked next to it as a place of work...working with others from a different country who don't set foot here...analogous to Tesco or the DOI working alongside visiting key workers here surely?

So why have an exemption?

[Happier diner]

3 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said:

But the crew haven't technically travelled to another country...not set foot there? Just parked next to it as a place of work...working with others from a different country who don't set foot here...analogous to Tesco or the DOI working alongside visiting key workers here surely?

That's a good point. But surely though if you sail into the pot of heysham (regardless of whether you disembarked) and then return to IOM then technically you have travelled off the island and then returned.

[AcousticallyChallenged]

1 minute ago, Happier diner said:

That's a good point. But surely though if you sail into the pot of heysham (regardless of whether you disembarked) and then return to IOM then technically you have travelled off the island and then returned.

For quite a long time, you could, if collecting a pet, or taking a child over to boarding school, stay in a cabin for both legs and not have to isolate upon return.

[manxst]

7 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said:

But the crew haven't technically travelled to another country...not set foot there? Just parked next to it as a place of work...working with others from a different country who don't set foot here...analogous to Tesco or the DOI working alongside visiting key workers here surely?

By sailing outside territorial waters with differing legislation covering that land/water, you have theoretically ‘travelled’ to that country, whether you set foot there or not. As per licensing laws on the boat also. 

[Andy Onchan]

26 minutes ago, Mr Helmut Fromage said:

@Phillip Deardenyou're usually good for a balanced view and as a Non Exec Director of the IOMSPC any comments ?

His lips will be sealed.

IOMG stuff IOMSPCo with experts, but they did't see this coming did they? 

[ballaughbiker]

Quote

There are a great many unknowns about the SP, what directive were they operating under up to 21 Jan, what was the directive or other guidance given to them on that day, who was subject to the exemption certificate and why did all go so seriously wrong when people started asking questions on the arrangements?

Sorry Gladys, I might be being thick here but what is the significance of January 21st in this context?

[John Wright]

42 minutes ago, manxst said:

By sailing outside territorial waters with differing legislation covering that land/water, you have theoretically ‘travelled’ to that country, whether you set foot there or not. As per licensing laws on the boat also. 

Not really.

[Dave Hedgehog]

Interesting story from January

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/steam-packet-denies-crew-mixing-claims/

You would think something like this may have triggered a review of procedures.

 

[kevster]

14 minutes ago, ballaughbiker said:

Sorry Gladys, I might be being thick here but what is the significance of January 21st in this context?

Wasn't that the day when it was found out that the SPCo had different views to the Govt?

[Happier diner]

11 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Not really.

Perhaps you have not travelled to the Country but you have left the Isle of Man?

[Declan]

Let's bring it back to fundamentals ...

1. we need the Steam Packet to keep sailing.

2. It's not reasonable to expect the crew to isolate their entire down time.

So the situation we should have been aiming for is ...

1. Accept that this presents some risk

2. Mitigate that risk by use on onboard protocols, PPE etc. (Just like medical staff treating actual COVID patients).

3. Address issues as they arise. i.e. adjust protocol, use disciplinary action where needed. 

It's worked for almost a year with one breach now. Instead of addressing that Quayle's acting like the entire crew have been acting recklessly and illegally all this time.

If there's been technichal infringement of the rules, by crew not isolating whilst off-ship, it's because they wrote the rules wrong.