Roger Mexico Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 48 minutes 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? 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. While track and trace is always mainly about identify those who the infected person may have passed on the disease, it can also be used very successfully to track back as well. If you can identify who your case caught it off, it may also tell you when and so who the case may have also infected in the meantime. If you can't link it with existing clusters, you have to assume that there are undiagnosed cases out there transmitting and so continue with lockdowns and so on. They've only given the analysis of new cases since the 8th, but I reckon of the 38 cases since 9 were travel-related, 23 were close contacts already in isolation (but for how long?) and 6 were unknown, so about 16%. But even one should be source of worry. I'm not really sure how you could reduce isolation using testing because that's trying to do what you queried before - using a very small Manx sample to determine how the science works. Regarding pre-arrival testing, it seems a bit pointless in the current situation where most arrivals are returnees and there aren't many of them. You could possible require it of keyworkers I suppose - they may do so already. Why they keep repeating the 7% I don't know, but it suggests (along with other things) that there's no understanding of the science or review of the information they're using. Or if there is it's not getting through to the Minister. My last line was obviously more ambiguous than I thought - obviously I meant 'community in the country' or similar, and I'll change it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 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? 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. I have to agree with JW. Irrespective of my bans, I have great respect for him and his professional views. They carry weight as opposed to the chancers who try to belittle JW’s views. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 5 minutes 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 We have to learn to live with the virus, lockdowns are utterly unsustainable. It is my considered belief that a combination of stringent border controls and exceptional tracking is the only way to do so. It has been that way for months and months, and one of my concerns has been that during all that lovely covid free time that our test and trace abilities were not being strengthened. Having access to very fast genomic testing is a valuable part of that track and trace process. I don't really care about what the rest of the world are doing, I'm concerned with here, right now, and in the future. We have a huge advantage in that our rates are already low, and hopefully basically zero when this stupid lockdown is over. Proper measures, including paying people to stay at home if asked to is the way forward. You yourself think a better border testing regime is required - of course it is! But we also need the absolute best in how to respond when someone slips up. I have been consistent throughout that we must not got backwards, we now have, everyone is pissed off about it and it is the governments fault. Hopefully (although I doubt it) this preposterous lockdown has woken them up from their self-congratulationary wankfest and they'll do it properly this time. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxst Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 2 minutes ago, dilligaf said: I have to agree with JW. Irrespective of my bans, I have great respect for him and his professional views. They carry weight as opposed to the chancers who try to belittle JW’s views. He’s an advocate, and moderator. There are other advocates, doctors, engineers, ship workers, teachers, MHKs, and people from all walks of life who post here. It’s one of the advantages in that a wide variety of people can have their say, and relay from their own life experiences. Just because someone doesn’t agree with JW doesn’t mean they’re a ‘chancer’ or even incorrect with what they’re saying. I’m sure John will be first to admit that at times, he himself has got things wrong. Get a grip, and remove your tongue. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 37 minutes ago, Terminal said: Genomics would tell us. Yeah...those little people know everything... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 (edited) 49 minutes ago, Terminal said: Genomics would tell us. The contact tracers and people who organised the tests could also tell us without the need for genome testing. I am not saying that genome sequencing doesn't have it's place, but not in answering this particular query Edited January 17, 2021 by Newbie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 23 minutes ago, dilligaf said: I have to agree with JW. Irrespective of my bans, I have great respect for him and his professional views. They carry weight as opposed to the chancers who try to belittle JW’s views. 1 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 8 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said: Amazing that you imagined that post, having put me on ignore. Some pup Albert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 More juvenile to-ing and fro-ing in this thread as well? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 31 minutes ago, manxst said: He’s an advocate, and moderator. There are other advocates, doctors, engineers, ship workers, teachers, MHKs, and people from all walks of life who post here. It’s one of the advantages in that a wide variety of people can have their say, and relay from their own life experiences. Just because someone doesn’t agree with JW doesn’t mean they’re a ‘chancer’ or even incorrect with what they’re saying. I’m sure John will be first to admit that at times, he himself has got things wrong. Get a grip, and remove your tongue. Aye. Whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxst Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 2 minutes ago, dilligaf said: Aye. Whatever. Maturity is obviously not your strong point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 Just now, manxst said: Maturity is obviously not your strong point. Interpretation not yours fella 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Helmut Fromage Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 40 minutes ago, dilligaf said: I have to agree with JW. Irrespective of my bans, I have great respect for him and his professional views. They carry weight as opposed to the chancers who try to belittle JW’s views. Having considered all options Dilli - you are one brown nosing snivelling Govt Shill - Flounce away please 3 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadAsHell Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 1 hour 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. The timing suggests they relate to the day 13 tests connected to Truth bar and the other new years venues. St Mary's are having their day 13 tests next week. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted January 17, 2021 Share Posted January 17, 2021 3 minutes ago, Mr Helmut Fromage said: Having considered all options Dilli - you are one brown nosing snivelling Govt Shill - Flounce away please I have no reason to be, so why your concern ? 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.