IOM Covid removing restrictions

[winnie]

2 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

Well i am thinking about returnees at the moment.   There should be a regime whereby 7 days later people are being tested and if the test is negative then release them from quarantine.

I think Guernsey are trialling this now?  Seems a minimal risk strategy to me.

Spot on. 

[P.K.]

22 minutes ago, wrighty said:

Who do you suggest we test, that we don't currently think need to be tested? There has to be a testing strategy, rather than a free-for-all just to use up the kits.  The main reason is that we don't have sufficient people who need to be tested.  Which is a good thing, isn't it?

So presumably the tests have to be batch processed?

Does that define what the strategy is?

[Nom de plume]

4 minutes ago, thommo2010 said:

I dont think there will be another lockdown on the scale we saw in march we cant afford it. People seem to have forgotten the whole point of lockdown was to ease the strain on the NHS not eradicate the virus and basically slow down the spread. 

 

Exactly this.

We now know the elderly or those with underlying medical conditions, are overweight, from a diverse ethnic background etc are more susceptible to the virus. Protect these people.

The general population must be allowed to move on but be sensible.

 

[quilp]

Isn't this slowly happening anyway..? 

[ellanvannin2010]

6 minutes ago, Nom de plume said:

 

Exactly this.

We now know the elderly or those with underlying medical conditions, are overweight, from a diverse ethnic background etc are more susceptible to the virus. Protect these people.

The general population must be allowed to move on but be sensible.

 

Genuine question. How would you achieve that protection (that would be politically and socially acceptable)?.

 

Edited July 14, 2020 by ellanvannin2010

[wrighty]

4 minutes ago, P.K. said:

So presumably the tests have to be batch processed?

Does that define what the strategy is?

There are two tests - a rapid test, which is result in 90 minutes, but access to kits is on an allocation basis - we have about 15 per day - and tests are done singly.  The main test is done in batches of 100 (I think - if @rachomics is on she'll confirm or correct) a couple of times per day.

The strategy is designed with an eye on testing capabilities obviously - there's little point having a strategy that tests all staff daily if we physically couldn't do it for example - but in general I'd say that no, testing capacity doesn't define strategy.

[wrighty]

16 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

Well i am thinking about returnees at the moment.   There should be a regime whereby 7 days later people are being tested and if the test is negative then release them from quarantine.

I think Guernsey are trialling this now?  Seems a minimal risk strategy to me.

The median incubation period is 5-6 days.  So if you test at 7 you risk missing almost half of any cases there may be.  There's less than 2.5% at 14 days.  Guernsey's strategy is riskier than ours in terms of importing cases of covid.  You may argue that the risk is minimal, and as incidence (hopefully) continues to decrease in the UK then it may be that we feel comfortable introducing a slightly riskier border policy. 

[P.K.]

3 minutes ago, wrighty said:

There are two tests - a rapid test, which is result in 90 minutes, but access to kits is on an allocation basis - we have about 15 per day - and tests are done singly.  The main test is done in batches of 100 (I think - if @rachomics is on she'll confirm or correct) a couple of times per day.

The strategy is designed with an eye on testing capabilities obviously - there's little point having a strategy that tests all staff daily if we physically couldn't do it for example - but in general I'd say that no, testing capacity doesn't define strategy.

Thanks for that. I'm trying to understand what is actually taking place to move things forward.

The rapid tests - are they available commercially? I'm just wondering why there is a "daily allocation" of about 15 per day.

[Nom de plume]

9 minutes ago, ellanvannin2010 said:

Genuine question. How would you achieve that protection (that would be politically and socially acceptable)?.

 

It's a good question.

I'm thinking dedicated supermarket slots as we've done, home delivery pharmacy, etc etc

We need to be coming up with solutions rather than 'keep the borders closed'.

[Cascarino]

6 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

Well i am thinking about returnees at the moment.   There should be a regime whereby 7 days later people are being tested and if the test is negative then release them from quarantine.

I think Guernsey are trialling this now?  Seems a minimal risk strategy to me.

Exactly, I have no problem with the Govt. being cautious but we need to enact a way of allowing travel with reasonable restrictions. We will get more cases here but they can be controlled.

 

The majority do not want it yet, but our economy is not driven locally and businesses need to be able to travel.

 

Two weeks quarantine is not sustainable, but one week may be if testing is in place. It will not eliminate the risk of new cases, but it will bring the odds down to an acceptable level

[wrighty]

19 minutes ago, P.K. said:

It seemed to me that you could isolate folks for fouteen days and then release asymptomatic spreaders into the general populace?

Or is that not correct.

That is probably not correct.  It's difficult to be certain, but asymptomatic spreaders are likely to be most contagious in the early phase.  Later on they may still test positive for viral fragments, but at 14 days post-inoculation the risk of transmission is minimal/negligible, particularly if symptom free.

[Cascarino]

3 minutes ago, wrighty said:

The median incubation period is 5-6 days.  So if you test at 7 you risk missing almost half of any cases there may be.  There's less than 2.5% at 14 days.  Guernsey's strategy is riskier than ours in terms of importing cases of covid.  You may argue that the risk is minimal, and as incidence (hopefully) continues to decrease in the UK then it may be that we feel comfortable introducing a slightly riskier border policy. 

Do we not have to align with the Guernsey policy if we have an open border?

[wrighty]

2 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Thanks for that. I'm trying to understand what is actually taking place to move things forward.

The rapid tests - are they available commercially? I'm just wondering why there is a "daily allocation" of about 15 per day.

I think more were needed in the US - it may be that The Donald has bought them up.  Our allocation was reduced a few weeks ago.  So whereas they are commercially available, it's not as simple as just ordering a few more from eBay - worldwide supply is limited, and we get our allocation through the NHS supply chain.  If it were possible to bypass that I'm sure we would - our lab people have been most innovative in procuring stuff through this crisis.

[Nom de plume]

I'd much prefer to see the borders opened, business and hospitality back up to speed BUT with the vulnerable protected.

Forget the testing (it's sketchy at best). We need to work through herd immunity here.

Edited July 14, 2020 by Nom de plume

[wrighty]

4 minutes ago, Cascarino said:

Do we not have to align with the Guernsey policy if we have an open border?

You could argue that they should align with ours, given theirs is riskier.  The open border is just for direct IOM-Guernsey travel, with both sides being covid free hence no isolation required.  Somebody will no doubt argue that someone from, for example, Florida, might come to Guernsey, isolate for only 7 days, test negative, and then come over here and roam free, thereby bypassing our policy.  I'm not quite sure of the finer technical points of the open policy, but I think it's only for people ordinarily resident in each jurisdiction who have had no travel elsewhere in the previous 14 days.  As far fetched as my example may seem, these things have been thought about.