IOM Covid removing restrictions

[Banker]

1 minute ago, Dave Hedgehog said:

9 new cases today. 2 travel related and 7 close contacts already in isolation.

No community spread then on government calculations 😀

[Annoymouse]

1 minute ago, Dave Hedgehog said:

9 new cases today. 2 travel related and 7 close contacts already in isolation.

So by my records that’s no community cases in 3 days, by their standards they consider that 5 days, certainly looking positive (no pun intended).

[Banker]

9 minutes ago, Annoymouse said:

So by my records that’s no community cases in 3 days, by their standards they consider that 5 days, certainly looking positive (no pun intended).

None since Wednesday so 4 days 

[horatiotheturd]

20 minutes ago, manxst said:

If it improves our tracking/tracing, and thus as a consequence our defences by 10%, 5%, or even 1%, then let’s utilise the option we have right here on our doorstep. Why people don’t want this is a mystery. (Which they still can’t explain themselves). 

Who said they didn't want it.

We can't have it, and a few people have said its not that big a deal, that's all.

[horatiotheturd]

Let's all hope that the other recent news story isn't COVID/lockdown related.

[manxst]

4 minutes ago, horatiotheturd said:

Who said they didn't want it.

We can't have it, and a few people have said its not that big a deal, that's all.

So who said we can’t have it?

[horatiotheturd]

1 minute ago, manxst said:

So who said we can’t have it?

She offered, they don't want to take her up on it.

Therefore we have what we have now which is sending them to Liverpool.

Unless you can do it? I know I can't, although I could sort a track and trace app pretty smartish but people have offered to do that for free and they don't want that either.

[Zarley]

2 minutes ago, manxst said:

So who said we can’t have it?

Howard, David and Henrietta.

And the DHSC minions behind the curtain. 

[manxst]

Just now, horatiotheturd said:

She offered, they don't want to take her up on it.

Therefore we have what we have now which is sending them to Liverpool.

Unless you can do it? I know I can't, although I could sort a track and trace app pretty smartish but people have offered to do that for free and they don't want that either.

So it’s not a case of we ‘can’t’ have it then. Just that the powers that be are too stubborn and self centred to do what’s best for the island they represent. 

[Southernman]

4 hours ago, wrighty said:

@Lost Login - let me have a go. And feel free to call me Wrighty, Ian, Dr Wright, Mr Wright - just avoid Mrs or Ms.

The genomics adds to contact tracing. My understanding is it’s good enough to come up with a family tree of virus replication. So for arguments sake, let’s say the 1886 case and the Truth case have a replication gap of one, i.e. they’re both related to a common ancestor but both cases appear to have no contacts in common.  The tracing based on phone calls makes no sense. You could then go back to them, re-interview, and find out perhaps that they both got petrol from Laxey one day - they’d forgotten to mention or whatever. Potentially you’ll uncover a new line of transmission before other random cases spring up. 
 

This is hypothetical, but hopefully illustrates potential benefits. You’re right, that if we had an absolute lockdown, China style, it wouldn’t matter. But we don’t - people are still out and about.  Genomics mapping could complement the existing contact tracing process and make it more robust. 

Let's assume then that Dr Glover got the samples and identified the ABC variant and the XYZ variant and several more. Which of the 49 active cases would have been prevented and how would you amend the current lock-down measures?  

[manxst]

3 minutes ago, Zarley said:

Howard, David and Henrietta.

And the DHSC minions behind the curtain. 

Ah. The puppeteers. Lol! 
 

Don’t think they’ve said we ‘can’t’ have it either- they just won’t discuss THAT person who cannot be named, in ANY capacity in public in case they show their arses.

[Roger Mexico]

9 hours ago, John Wright said:

Given our population size, and the fact we’ve had fewer than 70  cases since June, when lock down 1 ended, and that most of those came in, exclusively, at least until Christmas,  as returning patients, residents or key workers, and didn’t onwardly transmit, and that even since Xmas most transmission has been in the home/family ( the UK figure is 70% ), I wonder what use a very small sample size of genomics tests will be.

[...] Obviously we won’t go back to no testing. But genome testing won’t allow us to go any quicker. PCR testing may allow us to reduce the quarantine period to 1, 5 and 9 day testing with isolation ending on day 10, if no one tests positive for the first time on day 13.

It's true that because of our size, our genomics won't really add much to the wider picture in the UK area, though the government seem happy to go ahead with that.  But any general scientific usefulness from the data would come from the very fact we are so small and would be sampling every case known and be likely to pick up more cases.  So, as with New Zealand, where every case is genome sequenced, the data will give you evidence of how things work on the local scale.

But in any case what we are mainly discussing here is the use of genomics to tackle local clusters and the smaller they are the more effective it may be.  None of the small clusters in New Zealand since the August one have needed more than very local lockdowns for a very short time.

We already use PCR testing, though I would like us to go back to Rachel's test that also checks for human DNA and so that the swab has been taken correctly.  Given the increase in the number of tests recently, checking they have been done right is important. 

But even if we weren't already using it, it won't allow you to reduce the isolation period because it doesn't change the behaviour of the virus.  Whether there should be change in the protocols for the extended isolation period when someone tests positive in quarantine is another issue though.

 

9 hours ago, John Wright said:

Im not sure that 7 day testing would necessarily have picked up some of the transmissions within co-travelling co-isolating households. And I don’t recall anyone asking/recommending day 1 and 13 or 1, 6/7 and 13 day testing in October.

It would probably have picked up some though (and with individual isolators as well).  But from memory Rachel's point came more from frustration that what little information about infection that we were getting was being lost.

Also from October:

I rather like the New Zealand system where those in compulsory quarantine for 14 days are tested at days 3 and 12 or 13.  Quite a few show positive in the second test but not the first.

9 hours ago, John Wright said:

Most of that testing was, and still is, test 72 hours before travel/arrival. A route we didn’t go down. Boy David said it only catches 7%. That’s a discredited figure.  It may catch up to 50% if you shed and are detectable 7 out of 14 days. But then you’ve up to 3 days in which to get infected.

So, it may stop between 1/3 and one half of positives reaching here. But there are inherent issues with patient transfers having to be tested and hang around in UK.

I think you're confusing the purposes of two different tests.  The pre-arrival tests (which you have paid out so much for over the last year) are mainly meant to demonstrate to the public of the arrival country that their government is 'doing something' by keeping out these nasty, infected foreigners.  However they do have the result of reducing the number of potential Covid cases which the arrival country's health system has to cope with when it already has plenty of home-grown ones.

Arrival and in-isolation testing however is meant to keep any cases from arriving into the community in a country that already has no or few cases.

Edited January 17, 2021 by Roger Mexico
Clarity

[Zarley]

11 minutes ago, manxst said:

Ah. The puppeteers. Lol! 
 

Don’t think they’ve said we ‘can’t’ have it either- they just won’t discuss THAT person who cannot be named, in ANY capacity in public in case they show their arses.

Yes. Their silence speaks volumes.

[manxst]

So....6.25% of the cases in the last week are from unidentified sources. To me, that’s a significant enough figure that is worth instigating genome testing for. 

[Sentience]

23 minutes ago, manxst said:

Ah. The puppeteers. Lol! 
 

Don’t think they’ve said we ‘can’t’ have it either- they just won’t discuss THAT person who cannot be named, in ANY capacity in public in case they show their arses.

At a time when this really IS about 'lives being lost', please don't tell me this all about egos and losing face.

Boy was a certain somebody given a medal prematurely if this really is the case!