horatiotheturd Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 19 minutes ago, AlanShimmin said: We keep hearing form the (in their own mind) very important people who need to travel. They keep telling us how vital they (think) they are and that the border restrictions just don't suit them very much. But what is more costly? A. Having a slightly more open border so people can come and go, but at the cost of social distancing, hospitality workers on MERA etc. B. A closed border with only truly essential people (medics etc.) and patients being able to come and go. 90% of the economy continues to operate as normal and most generally get buy with just targeted government support for those who can't. Where did A come from? Do what Barker was proposing in Tynwald. Level 3 with the new restrictions. At least gove it a chance. What's the issue with catching people whonare carrying the virus at the border and letting them isolate like kwc did? Best of both worlds for now. There won't be an influx because of the isolation, anyone who comes will only be doing so because they really want/need to. I really don't see the problem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 12 minutes ago, AcousticallyChallenged said: Is B actually sustainable for our economy though long-term? Whilst we've been quite fortunate in that the situation has really spurred on 'buy local' and many shops and restaurants were rammed over the Christmas period, will that persist as novelty wears off? I'm asking as I don't know the answer. The more travel the higher the risk. It's a shame they ballsed up the camp comis thing really, that could be super useful now. I know that some people probably need to travel a bit for whatever reasons, but it is completely unfair to keep the threat of lockdown hanging over the probably 82000 people who don't need to just so that 2000 can (made up approx figures but you get the point). It's another one of those tricky balancing acts. Probably a good thing I'm not in charge, cos I'd have them shut shut shut, tight as hell. 4 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nom de plume Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 17 minutes ago, TheTeapot said: The more travel the higher the risk. It's a shame they ballsed up the camp comis thing really, that could be super useful now. I know that some people probably need to travel a bit for whatever reasons, but it is completely unfair to keep the threat of lockdown hanging over the probably 82000 people who don't need to just so that 2000 can (made up approx figures but you get the point). It's another one of those tricky balancing acts. Probably a good thing I'm not in charge, cos I'd have them shut shut shut, tight as hell. I actually agree with the one caveat. As soon as that last over 50 is vaccinated, it’s time to open .. fully, no isolating. Practice good hygiene, SD etc & those that wish to scare themselves to death can still hide away in their homes & have their shopping delivered to them through the cat flap. 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 6 minutes ago, Nom de plume said: I actually agree with the one caveat. As soon as that last over 50 is vaccinated, it’s time to open .. fully, no isolating. Practice good hygiene, SD etc & those that wish to scare themselves to death can still hide away in their homes & have their shopping delivered to them through the cat flap. what about the over 50's that didn't want the vaccine ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Rushen Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 5 minutes ago, Nom de plume said: I actually agree with the one caveat. As soon as that last over 50 is vaccinated, it’s time to open .. fully, no isolating. Practice good hygiene, SD etc & those that wish to scare themselves to death can still hide away in their homes & have their shopping delivered to them through the cat flap. Any under 50s with an undiagnosed pre-exiting condition, will just have to risk it? Or........... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barlow Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 2 hours ago, piebaps said: No, they did get a bit cocky though https://metro.co.uk/2021/01/21/guernsey-chief-hails-island-ahead-of-worlds-biggest-burns-night-13945570/ I think Isle of Man could have been accused of that too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barlow Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 47 minutes ago, AcousticallyChallenged said: Is B actually sustainable for our economy though long-term? Whilst we've been quite fortunate in that the situation has really spurred on 'buy local' and many shops and restaurants were rammed over the Christmas period, will that persist as novelty wears off? I'm asking as I don't know the answer. Yes it is. I think it is going to have to be. Everywhere else (in the world) is the proverbial shitstorm. Isle of Man will just have a sort of shower of shit, or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 I know figures are difficult but are there any available for how many people over the age of 70 cannot have the vaccine because of an oversensitive immune system? I know 3 offhand so i'd imagine there's quite a few. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 1 hour ago, TheTeapot said: They don't need it to take the lockdown decision, but with 4 cases with no links it would sure as hell help figure out some details about how, where, when, who, filling in gaps in knowledge in the contact tracing program. Which has been pointed out a million times. No it would've. There would not be time to wait another 36hrs for results. Action needed to be taken immediately (which is what was done). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 3 minutes ago, Happier diner said: No it would've. There would not be time to wait another 36hrs for results. Action needed to be taken immediately (which is what was done). This post, in context to replying to mine, makes no sense. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horatiotheturd Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 What's the issue with isolating people at the borders until 3 clear tests? People keep just saying "risk" - what risk? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 3 hours ago, Roger Mexico said: Worth pointing out here how quickly they have reacted. No waiting for contact tracing to be completed; no attempt to bury the news to avoid affecting New Year bar takings; no going silent for days because it's a weekend; no announcing measures that won't be introduced for a few days. I would hope they are using genome sequencing as well - though they probably don't have on-Island facilities. Did they have to wait 48 hours for the test results though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 Just now, horatiotheturd said: What's the issue with isolating people at the borders until 3 clear tests? People keep just saying "risk" - what risk? The risk of another fucking lockdown. I don't want to get into it again with you, we've been over this. For some whacko reason you refuse to accept the basic and obvious premise that people move the virus, therefore more people travelling more virus. We all know that isolation is not watertight, the fact we're had another lockdown and the news today from Guernsey shows that once again. Didn't you also propose tagging people? That's fucking mental too. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 4 minutes ago, horatiotheturd said: What's the issue with isolating people at the borders until 3 clear tests? How many could realistically be isolated at the border ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 6 hours ago, Gladys said: Not sure you are a lone voice NDP. What many have been asking for is a holistic risk management approach, whereas what we seem to have is a focused risk elimination approach, considering only one risk. The problem with the “shield the vulnerable, let everyone else crack on” approach (and I have some sympathy with that view) is that how do you do it? Can I “crack on” and then operate on 80 year olds who break things? Can the young carers in nursing homes “crack on”? There’s no way of partitioning society into two distinct sets. This approach may be possible once the older folk are all vaccinated, but until then I see no other solution. So here, at least, local elimination has to be the way forwards until vaccination levels are satisfactory. 4 3 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.