IOM Covid removing restrictions

[Newbie]

45 minutes ago, horatiotheturd said:

Just all do as HQ said (Jesus, did I just type that) and everyone assume they have it for a few weeks and take the relevant precautions.

If we all assume that we have it and act accordingly, then we shouldn't leave the house for any reason - at least that is what the direction notices say for people that have tested positive, or live with someone who has tested positive. That really isn't practical.

[AcousticallyChallenged]

Just now, Newbie said:

If we all assume that we have it and act accordingly, then we shouldn't leave the house for any reason - at least that is what the direction notices say for people that have tested positive, or live with someone who has tested positive. That really isn't practical.

I think the message they were trying to get across is, really think about whether your contact with other people is essential for the duration.

It's like the buy and sell groups, a tatty chair that's been upcycled? Probably not essential to go and collect it this week. A laptop that you need to work from home as a replacement for one that just died? Essential for your work. But do it socially distanced.

Same with things like vulnerable family. If a bulb goes and you need to change it, that'd count as essential grounds to enter their house, mask up if you can and go in. It probably isn't essential they're in the same room though when you do though, as much as they may want to share a cuppa.

[horatiotheturd]

2 minutes ago, pongo said:

But you were opposed to the very measures which would have helped prevent this. If the government had implemented tighter measures which would have prevented this then you are one of the people who would have been complaining.

It's not just you. Many of the people now critising government for not preventing this were previously complaining that regulation was too tight. It's utter hypocrisy.

No I wasn't.

I have always been in favour of proper testing and isolation of people coming here, since long before we were doing it - which would have prevented lockdown 2.

I was never aware the spco were mixing and not isolating and would never have agreed with that - which caused lockdown 3

I have always been in favour of short sharp lockdowns to figure out what is going on if a case emerges.  We didn't do that.

I have always been in favour of a quick and efficient vaccine program without shiny hubs and ith single doses.  We could have vaccinated well over 30,000 people by now.  We haven't.

I have always been against friends and family being kept away from loved ones assuming they were prepared to isolate and provide multiple clear tests.  I even suggested they would be willing to be tagged etc.  This maybe where you are getting confused if you are one of those who can't differentiate between a bit of common sense at the borders and the end of the world.

[Annoymouse]

26 minutes ago, The Old Git said:

Obviously not working 

 

There was a time not so long ago that 40 kids playing outside and not glued to their computers/tv screens would have been celebrated.

 

[horatiotheturd]

9 minutes ago, Newbie said:

If we all assume that we have it and act accordingly, then we shouldn't leave the house for any reason - at least that is what the direction notices say for people that have tested positive, or live with someone who has tested positive. That really isn't practical.

Its practical for an awful lot of people for a couple of weeks if that is what it takes to make people happy.

Its reay not a big deal to stay home for 2 weeks.  Thousands are doing it anyway.

[horatiotheturd]

21 minutes ago, pongo said:

But you were opposed to the very measures which would have helped prevent this. If the government had implemented tighter measures which would have prevented this then you are one of the people who would have been complaining.

It's not just you. Many of the people now critising government for not preventing this were previously complaining that regulation was too tight. It's utter hypocrisy.

If you want to share what I was opposed to that would have prevented this i would love to see it.

Thanks. 

[Newbie]

9 minutes ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

I think the message they were trying to get across is, really think about whether your contact with other people is essential for the duration.

It's like the buy and sell groups, a tatty chair that's been upcycled? Probably not essential to go and collect it this week. A laptop that you need to work from home as a replacement for one that just died? Essential for your work. But do it socially distanced.

Same with things like vulnerable family. If a bulb goes and you need to change it, that'd count as essential grounds to enter their house, mask up if you can and go in. It probably isn't essential they're in the same room though when you do though, as much as they may want to share a cuppa.

What you are saying is that we should all observe the rules of the current lockdown and behave accordingly, which we should. That is different to saying everyone should assume that they have the virus. That is a sure fire way of increasing peoples anxiety, which is high enough as it is.

 I appreciate that the sentiment behind the comment was as you describe, but saying that everyone should act as though they have it may well undermine the actions people take when they actually do have it. There has to be some distinction between the people that have the virus and those that don't in respect of how they are expected to behave

[Newbie]

16 minutes ago, horatiotheturd said:

Its practical for an awful lot of people for a couple of weeks if that is what it takes to make people happy.

Its reay not a big deal to stay home for 2 weeks.  Thousands are doing it anyway.

What you are saying is that everyone should stay at home for the next 2 weeks and not leave the house for any reason? No going to the shops or out for exercise? No work of any sort.? Everyone?

[horatiotheturd]

3 minutes ago, Newbie said:

What you are saying is that we should all observe the rules of the current lockdown and behave accordingly, which we should. That is different to saying everyone should assume that they have the virus. That is a sure fire way of increasing peoples anxiety, which is high enough as it is.

 I appreciate that the sentiment behind the comment was as you describe, but saying that everyone should act as though they have it may well undermine the actions people take when they actually do have it. There has to be some distinction between the people that have the virus and those that don't in respect of how they are expected to behave

I think the point is then when it is circulating like it is none of us can say with any certainty that we don't have it.

You can't rely on symptoms to let you know, so at the moment we should all assume we have it.

[horatiotheturd]

Just now, Newbie said:

What you are saying is that everyone should stay at home for the next 2 weeks and not leave the house for any reason? No going to the shops or out for exercise? No work of any sort.? Everyone?

If we want to eradicate it - and I don't- then that is the quickest way.  Dont ever leave the house unless you absolutely have to and when you do mask up and distance.

If eradication is what thebisland wants then that is the quickest and most certain way to achieve it.

Those who do need to be out and about do so as little as possible and have access to tests etc.  The rest of us just stay at home.

[slinkydevil]

1 hour ago, yorik said:

This piece of art worthy of van Gogh?

 

[Barlow]

38 minutes ago, pongo said:

Many of the people now critising government for not preventing this were previously complaining that regulation was too tight. It's utter hypocrisy.

Nah, you're making that up for effect.

How I see it, the majority backed the tight regulations, and many would have even wanted further tightening up.

 

[pongo]

1 hour ago, The Old Git said:

Obviously not working 

 

Is this true?

Why would the parents allow this?

[Newbie]

12 minutes ago, horatiotheturd said:

If we want to eradicate it - and I don't- then that is the quickest way.  Dont ever leave the house unless you absolutely have to and when you do mask up and distance.

If eradication is what thebisland wants then that is the quickest and most certain way to achieve it.

Those who do need to be out and about do so as little as possible and have access to tests etc.  The rest of us just stay at home.

I agree that we should only be going out when absolutely necessary and and that when we do we should all observe social distancing, masks etc, but asking everyone to behave as though they are infected is different. People who have the virus shouldn't be going out at all at any time, and neither should any of their family.

[horatiotheturd]

Just now, Newbie said:

I agree that we should only be going out when absolutely necessary and and that when we do we should all observe social distancing, masks etc, but asking everyone to behave as though they are infected is different. People who have the virus shouldn't be going out at all at any time, and neither should any of their family.

Are you 100 percent certain you don't have it?  If so, how?