Gladys Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 47 minutes ago, horatiotheturd said: Let's all hope that the other recent news story isn't COVID/lockdown related. Which one? If it's the one I am thinking about, the cause of an earlier similar incident has yet to be determined, I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 14 minutes ago, manxst said: 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. Actually the Monday figures also included at least one that was a new community case if you listen the the audio when they issued a correction to their previous figure of six. And there were also 3 untraced ones announced in the previous two days (Sat and Sun). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 13 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said: 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. 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. 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 in a country that already has no or few cases. I think it’s you who misunderstand, Roger. The main purpose of track and trace isn’t to trace back where you caught it from. It’s to look for who you may passed it onto. I accept that running genomics may be an interesting look backward. And it may inform about the dangers of major variations. But, having read all the articles and links posted today I’m not convinced how it would actually have reduced our recent spike or avoided or lessened the circuit breaker. The source of less than 10% of recent transmission is unknown. I think that’s really the problem. The two different imperatives of science for the sake of knowledge that won’t really help us now, but may in future, and public health imperatives that deal with the here and now. How would sequencing pick up more cases on the Island? Unless we are tracing back to a previously unidentifiable superspreader? Fully accept that genome sequencing won’t allow reduced isolation. But day 1, 6 and 13 may allow reduction if, for instance, it identifies that no one who tests negative on 1 & 6 tests positive on 13. You could do it in downward increments. Im fully aware that pre entry testing is window dressing to a degree. But it will identify some and stop travel, which has the economic and capacity benefits you identify. Does raise the question why IOM is so against it and continues to quote the 7% figure. Your last sentence is of course wrong. Arrival and in isolation testing is not designed to prevent cases arriving. It’s to stop cases that have arrived from spreading into the community, which is also the raison d’etre of isolation/quarantine. They are clearly, now, being used, in IOM to reduce isolation. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kipper99 Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 1 hour ago, horatiotheturd said: Let's all hope that the other recent news story isn't COVID/lockdown related. If you mean Andreas, I’m afraid it’s a mental health tragedy with someone diagnosed with a serious mental health condition, and their family, being totally let down by mental health services, with tragic results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 3 minutes ago, Kipper99 said: If you mean Andreas, I’m afraid it’s a mental health tragedy with someone diagnosed with a serious mental health condition, and their family, being totally let down by mental health services, with tragic results. Really sad to hear that, as has been said previously Mental Health provisions are terrible here, all the money spent on promenade, Covid etc but never any for mental health. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxst Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 1 minute ago, Banker said: Really sad to hear that, as has been said previously Mental Health provisions are terrible here, all the money spent on promenade, Covid etc but never any for mental health. Given the last year and our current situation, mental health illnesses must surely be well on the rise, sadly. I’m amazed there haven’t been more sad stories like this. And yes, from an outsiders view, MH treatment comes well down the spending priority list, compared to say....the NSC flumes or digging random roads up. Travesty. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, John Wright said: I think it’s you who misunderstand, Roger. The main purpose of track and trace isn’t to trace back where you caught it from. It’s to look for who you may passed it onto. I accept that running genomics may be an interesting look backward. And it may inform about the dangers of major variations. But, having read all the articles and links posted today I’m not convinced how it would actually have reduced our recent spike or avoided or lessened the circuit breaker. The source of less than 10% of recent transmission is unknown. I think that’s really the problem. The two different imperatives of science for the sake of knowledge that won’t really help us now, but may in future, and public health imperatives that deal with the here and now. How would sequencing pick up more cases on the Island? Unless we are tracing back to a previously unidentifiable superspreader? Your first point isn't really correct. It isn't just looking for who you might have passed it on to, it is looking backwards to try and find people who may have caught it along with you. he genomics testing is ALL about helping the contact tracing. Take those few examples where the source of transmission is unknown. It's here that the genomics really comes into its own. If you can match those to existing clusters that you couldn't with normal methods you can target your action a bit better, and really push on looking for more in a sensible way. Knowing that mystery person A is genomically linked to family cluster B might suddenly show a place where these people had crossed paths you'd hadn't previously thought of. And of course, if one of the unknown cases shows no link to existing cases an has no travel history then you know with certainty that somewhere something has gone wrong. As has been pointed out a million times, genomics alone is not the solution. It is simply an additional tool for the contact tracers. A valuable one at that. We should be using it, it tells you things you do not otherwise know. Edited January 17, 2021 by TheTeapot 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annoymouse Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 Does anyone know if any of the new cases are likely to be those retested from the high risk locations who were told to stay isolating even if their initial test was negative? 6 is quite a high figure and I’m wondering if it’s either the group from St Mary’s or the group from Truth wine bar, I would be absolutely shocked if no one from either of these locations went on to test positive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terminal Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 8 minutes ago, Annoymouse said: Does anyone know if any of the new cases are likely to be those retested from the high risk locations who were told to stay isolating even if their initial test was negative? 6 is quite a high figure and I’m wondering if it’s either the group from St Mary’s or the group from Truth wine bar, I would be absolutely shocked if no one from either of these locations went on to test positive. Genomics would tell us. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annoymouse Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 5 minutes ago, Terminal said: Genomics would tell us. Yes it probably would, but we haven’t got it and won’t be getting it, so it’s a continual waste of time to carry on discussing it. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AcousticallyChallenged Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 2 minutes ago, Annoymouse said: Yes it probably would, but we haven’t got it and won’t be getting it, so it’s a continual waste of time to carry on discussing it. Not with that attitude. The more it is brought to the attention of MHKs, the more it becomes a pain in their rear. You get a surprising way with that in a lot of areas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 It's not even a case of turning down the genomics offer. They wont even acknowledge the offer itself. It's excruciating 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horatiotheturd Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 22 minutes ago, TheTeapot said: Your first point isn't really correct. It isn't just looking for who you might have passed it on to, it is looking backwards to try and find people who may have caught it along with you. he genomics testing is ALL about helping the contact tracing. Take those few examples where the source of transmission is unknown. It's here that the genomics really comes into its own. If you can match those to existing clusters that you couldn't with normal methods you can target your action a bit better, and really push on looking for more in a sensible way. Knowing that mystery person A is genomically linked to family cluster B might suddenly show a place where these people had crossed paths you'd hadn't previously thought of. And of course, if one of the unknown cases shows no link to existing cases an has no travel history then you know with certainty that somewhere something has gone wrong. As has been pointed out a million times, genomics alone is not the solution. It is simply an additional tool for the contact tracers. A valuable one at that. We should be using it, it tells you things you do not otherwise know. Do you think that's what they do in the rest of the world? Look back tonsee who you caught it with? Wowsers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AcousticallyChallenged Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 1 minute ago, horatiotheturd said: Do you think that's what they do in the rest of the world? Look back tonsee who you caught it with? Wowsers They don't have the opportunity, it's out of control. Their horse has not just bolted, it has lived a long life, taught a few kids to ride and then been shipped off to the glue factory. Not much point trying to trace how it spreads when 30 people in a supermarket could've given it to you. That's simply not the case here. The scientific value of understanding how it spreads is incredibly valuable. Especially somewhere like here, where the prevalence is so low. If we know how, when and why it spreads, we can respond proportionately to outbreaks. There's a scientific, economic and human benefit from that. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annoymouse Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 Just now, AcousticallyChallenged said: Not with that attitude. The more it is brought to the attention of MHKs, the more it becomes a pain in their rear. You get a surprising way with that in a lot of areas. You expect me to believe it’s taken 3 weeks and nearly 50 cases for people to see an alternative point of view? Where was the support when it first kicked off and I was called a Karen for calling out the Christmas light switch on featuring hundreds of people huddled together? People seem to have very short memories don’t they, yet want to spend the next 2 weeks discussing how to wind the clock back. 1 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.