Lost Login Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 6 minutes ago, manxst said: Dr Glover has been recommending various testing as you state, from at least Oct (I didn’t bother checking before that). But Covid testing and genome sequencing are different issues. I don't thinks many would disagree with the points made with regard to testing for Covid. As others have said that, in respect of testing, was a matter of logic. As I have said before it should be remembered that the 7 day test though was not compulsory, you only took if you wanted to be able to have a days exercise. I think you also had to pay for it unless you were a medical transfer so it was never introduced as a means of picking up cases. By banging on about that she could do same day genome sequencing, in my view, Ms Glover is giving the view that there is a continued failure in testing , which I believe is wrong, and I am concerned about that messaging since it appears that whether or not we gave rapid genome sequencing is fairly irrelevant in stopping the current outbreak. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AcousticallyChallenged Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 Just now, Lost Login said: But Covid testing and genome sequencing are different issues. I don't thinks many would disagree with the points made with regard to testing for Covid. As others have said that, in respect of testing, was a matter of logic. As I have said before it should be remembered that the 7 day test though was not compulsory, you only took if you wanted to be able to have a days exercise. I think you also had to pay for it unless you were a medical transfer so it was never introduced as a means of picking up cases. By banging on about that she could do same day genome sequencing, in my view, Ms Glover is giving the view that there is a continued failure in testing , which I believe is wrong, and I am concerned about that messaging since it appears that whether or not we gave rapid genome sequencing is fairly irrelevant in stopping the current outbreak. I think what you're missing is a key piece of information. Genomic testing is simply an opportunity that isn't typically available for outbreaks in communities the size of the island. In the UK, they take a sampling approach for surveillance, testing 1 in N samples, but don't have the luxury of being able to trace the outbreak to such a fine level, especially not in conjunction with contact tracing data. Whilst trace, test, isolate can be effective, we have an opportunity to be a trailblazer in combining the data from that, with the data from the genomic sequencing. This will not only identify how it has spread, but help us avoid a repeat scenario in the future. Understanding how it spreads on a small community level would also contribute to the scientific body of knowledge. Pray tell, where's the downside? 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 6 minutes ago, AcousticallyChallenged said: Well, understandably, one would be inclined to believe the microbiologist's opinion. And there is the issue. Ms Glover's tweets are, I believe, giving many a misleading impression and because of her position people will take far more notice of what she says. A local nutter screaming the world is about it end is different to Brian Cox stating it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxst Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Lost Login said: But Covid testing and genome sequencing are different issues. I don't thinks many would disagree with the points made with regard to testing for Covid. As others have said that, in respect of testing, was a matter of logic. As I have said before it should be remembered that the 7 day test though was not compulsory, you only took if you wanted to be able to have a days exercise. I think you also had to pay for it unless you were a medical transfer so it was never introduced as a means of picking up cases. By banging on about that she could do same day genome sequencing, in my view, Ms Glover is giving the view that there is a continued failure in testing , which I believe is wrong, and I am concerned about that messaging since it appears that whether or not we gave rapid genome sequencing is fairly irrelevant in stopping the current outbreak. Firstly, ‘by banging on’ and refusing to call Dr Glover by her officially accredited title, I find it incredibly hard to take anything of what you say seriously, being as rude as you are to her- I’m sure most if not all would agree with me, and don’t see why you cannot have some humility and respect. Secondly, I’m pretty sure everyone is aware of there being a difference in yes/no Covid testing, and genome testing. Obviously one is more important than the other, but to exclude a further potential ‘weapon’ (however limited you believe it to be) in our armoury in the fight against the virus is negligent, remiss, and inexcusable (especially when it’s being offered for free!). Edited January 17, 2021 by manxst 9 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 Just now, AcousticallyChallenged said: I think what you're missing is a key piece of information. Genomic testing is simply an opportunity that isn't typically available for outbreaks in communities the size of the island. In the UK, they take a sampling approach for surveillance, testing 1 in N samples, but don't have the luxury of being able to trace the outbreak to such a fine level, especially not in conjunction with contact tracing data. Whilst trace, test, isolate can be effective, we have an opportunity to be a trailblazer in combining the data from that, with the data from the genomic sequencing. This will not only identify how it has spread, but help us avoid a repeat scenario in the future. Understanding how it spreads on a small community level would also contribute to the scientific body of knowledge. Pray tell, where's the downside? No downside and I have said repeatedly it would be good to have. What I wanted to understand was there a serious downside in stopping the current outbreak from not presently having. From the recent posts it appears there is no serious downside from not presently having but that appears not to be the impression Ms Glover wishes to give the general public. I appreciate that may be totally unintentional but I do not see that as good. If there was a serious downside then yes, scream it from the rooftops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AcousticallyChallenged Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 2 minutes ago, manxst said: Firstly, ‘by banging on’ and refusing to call Dr Glover by her officially accredited title, I find it incredibly hard to take anything of what you say seriously, being as rude as you are to her- I’m sure most if not all would agree with me, and don’t see why you cannot have some humility and respect. It screams to me 'well, we cannot trust the Lady so-called Doctor'. Whether or not it's some obtuse personal principle that @Lost Login professes, that's how it comes across. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AcousticallyChallenged Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 Just now, Lost Login said: No downside and I have said repeatedly it would be good to have. What I wanted to understand was there a serious downside in stopping the current outbreak from not presently having. From the recent posts it appears there is no serious downside from not presently having but that appears not to be the impression Ms Glover wishes to give the general public. I appreciate that may be totally unintentional but I do not see that as good. If there was a serious downside then yes, scream it from the rooftops. I suppose the best question to ask would be: would you type at your computer wearing oven gloves, or would you take them off? Even now, the genomics would tell us what contact tracing missed. Knowing what contact tracing missed, would reduce the likelihood of that happening again. Science is about constantly re-assessing your position based on the evidence. Currently, that evidence is being lost. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 18 minutes ago, Lost Login said: Sorry I will refer to Ms Glover in future. I appreciate she is qualified but I do have an aversion to referring to individuals by their qualification or occupation in general conversation. We don't a general rule refer to John Wright as advocate John Wright or refer to people's qualifications in their names so I always wonder why we do as for a certain qualification or profession. You have retired armed forces personnel who still want to be called by their rank when enlisted. That is just an aside. It's not an aside, it is a deliberate denigration of her status and is very petty of you. She has a title and it is not Mrs, just as it is not Mr or Lady. This is not just a chat down the pub, it is about the very thing in which she holds a doctorate so it is entirely appropriate to use her correct title, whether you are averted to it or not. John Wright, like all advocates, doesn't have a title arsising from his profession or qualifications (in Europe many countries do give titles to lawyers such a Maitre Wright or Notary Wright) other than Mr. Perhaps when he is posting about legal stuff we should address him as Mr. It may be old fashioned, but many titles are earned and so should be respected. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarley Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Lost Login said: Sorry I will refer to Ms Glover in future. I appreciate she is qualified but I do have an aversion to referring to individuals by their qualification or occupation in general conversation. We don't a general rule refer to John Wright as advocate John Wright or refer to people's qualifications in their names so I always wonder why we do as for a certain qualification or profession. Sorry, but you are being extremely rude, dismissive and disrespectful. By insisting on referring to DOCTOR Glover as Mrs or Ms, you are implying that she's just another person with an opinion, rather than an expert in her field. And funny how you use JW as an example of not using a person's title, when he is another one who insists on using Ms rather than Dr. Your refusal to use Dr Glover's proper title makes you look like a petulant child with an axe to grind, a child who doesn't care - or doesn't care to understand - how offensive you're being. Also, your petulant refusal to use Dr Glover's proper title makes you sound petty and, for me, renders much of your opinion worthless. Edited January 17, 2021 by Zarley AutoINcorrect 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 @Lost LoginIt has been explained to you numerous times in pretty clear terms that the genomics would be a valuable tool to aid the shoe leather work of the contact tracing team. You seem to be purposefully ignoring this point. Would you care to explain why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 4 minutes ago, manxst said: Secondly, I’m pretty sure everyone is aware of there being a difference in yes/no Covid testing, and genome testing. Obviously one is more important than the other, but to exclude a further potential ‘weapon’ (however limited you believe it to be) in our armoury in the fight against the virus is negligent, remiss, and inexcusable (especially when it’s being offered for free!). I don't think they are. Certainly in the media briefings some of the journalists appear to struggle to understand. It is fine, I came on here to try and understand if I was missing something as to why some where giving the impression that the failure to have rapid local genome testing would seriously compromise stopping the current outbreak. It appears fairly clear from recent posts it does not. I am happy with that so will cease posting for another long period as I have, to my satisfaction, answered my own curiosity. I had really hoped that somebody could have posted in way that I understood why rapid genome testing was so important in stopping the local outbreak since the noise over it and I am disappointed that it appears that really it will make little difference one way or another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxst Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 2 minutes ago, Lost Login said: I don't think they are. Certainly in the media briefings some of the journalists appear to struggle to understand. It is fine, I came on here to try and understand if I was missing something as to why some where giving the impression that the failure to have rapid local genome testing would seriously compromise stopping the current outbreak. It appears fairly clear from recent posts it does not. I am happy with that so will cease posting for another long period as I have, to my satisfaction, answered my own curiosity. I had really hoped that somebody could have posted in way that I understood why rapid genome testing was so important in stopping the local outbreak since the noise over it and I am disappointed that it appears that really it will make little difference one way or another. People have already explained it to you, but given your lack of understanding over a Doctorate, it’s also of little surprise that you fail to grasp (or perhaps fail to want to grasp) what the genome testing would do. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AcousticallyChallenged Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 5 minutes ago, Lost Login said: I don't think they are. Certainly in the media briefings some of the journalists appear to struggle to understand. It is fine, I came on here to try and understand if I was missing something as to why some where giving the impression that the failure to have rapid local genome testing would seriously compromise stopping the current outbreak. It appears fairly clear from recent posts it does not. I am happy with that so will cease posting for another long period as I have, to my satisfaction, answered my own curiosity. I had really hoped that somebody could have posted in way that I understood why rapid genome testing was so important in stopping the local outbreak since the noise over it and I am disappointed that it appears that really it will make little difference one way or another. We've given you the reasons, you've chosen to ignore them. That's your issue. Not a matter of genomics, COVID or qualifications. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 4 minutes ago, TheTeapot said: @Lost LoginIt has been explained to you numerous times in pretty clear terms that the genomics would be a valuable tool to aid the shoe leather work of the contact tracing team. You seem to be purposefully ignoring this point. Would you care to explain why? I don't think I am. I want to stop the outbreak as soon as possible. The best way to do that is the test trace and isolate. I may have missed it, and for that I apologise, but it appears that the rapid genome testing is not going to make the slightest bit of difference to that, so giving it such a high profile to make it seem vitally important I think is misleading. I appreciate that not all do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 5 minutes ago, TheTeapot said: @Lost LoginIt has been explained to you numerous times in pretty clear terms that the genomics would be a valuable tool to aid the shoe leather work of the contact tracing team. You seem to be purposefully ignoring this point. Would you care to explain why? Would it be equally petty to suggest it is because he is an accredited Associate of the Royal Society of Eejits? ( I was thinking he may have been something to do with the University of the Northern Territories, but wasn't sure what his denominator would be). 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.