IOM Covid removing restrictions

[TerryFuchwit]

15 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

I’m getting a new found softness for Hetty too now. I think they’re both under the thumb. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if that awful smiley stuff with PM was suggested by HQ as some sort of ‘softening’ measure.

The similarities with Trump are apparent once more. She is Dr Fauci.

More to be pitied than laughed at, as my dad used to say.

I think there’s only one real villain here. And like Trump, he may be dangerous when prodded. 
 

Jesus wept.

 

[Barlow]

3 minutes ago, manxman34 said:

Doubt anyone thought it was 'literal' - just stupid

Your hero John clearly did.

[Dirty Buggane]

Here's the question. Would you trust any thing the Government Dashboard will show, considering the way they have been with divulging any information so far. I for one will take it with a pinch of salt, as with the fall in cases. You have to test the same amount of people each day for the figures to have any meaning. Or will it be down to logarithm's to prove there figures.

[TerryFuchwit]

10 minutes ago, Dirty Buggane said:

Here's the question. Would you trust any thing the Government Dashboard will show, considering the way they have been with divulging any information so far. I for one will take it with a pinch of salt, as with the fall in cases. You have to test the same amount of people each day for the figures to have any meaning. Or will it be down to logarithm's to prove there figures.

They don't need to test the same amount of people everyday. 

[Dirty Buggane]

3 minutes ago, TerryFuchwit said:

They don't need to test the same amount of people everyday. 

So they are working on a percentage when they say the numbers are dropping?

[John Wright]

5 minutes ago, Dirty Buggane said:

So they are working on a percentage when they say the numbers are dropping?

They still mainly test on symptoms, or day 1, 6/7 and 13 testing. Although also track & trace.  It’s been approx 14% detected this week,  daily. 

[Roger Mexico]

39 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Her PhD was on Irish migration in the 19th century I think.

No mid-20th Century.  Last great wave of Irish immigration (we'll all know some of then) but I would have thought 19th would have been more interesting if you were looking at public health.  Perhaps already very well studied and there's no obligation for your hobbies to tie in with your professional life.

[Annoymouse]

58 minutes ago, rachomics said:

The only reference I've made to looking at the data was on here the other night. I've not announced anything to the world that I'd do a report and then publish it online. Jesus, it's going to be enough of a battle to get access to the data.

Ok but whilst this forum might seem small it can be read by anyone, at any time and if it’s talked about here then it’s going to get talked about elsewhere. My only concern was the risk of the data/samples being compromised.

[Gladys]

5 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

No mid-20th Century.  Last great wave of Irish immigration (we'll all know some of then) but I would have thought 19th would have been more interesting if you were looking at public health.  Perhaps already very well studied and there's no obligation for your hobbies to tie in with your professional life.

Thanks, I was misquoting from memory.  Yes, 19th century would be more interesting from a public health viewpoint, what with the potato famine. Absolutely no reason that your interests should tie in with your profession at all. 

[Uhtred]

47 minutes ago, Banker said:

Yes it’s tasteless and insensitive, no one knows full story other than family 

Of course it's tasteless - it's the product of IOM 'Newspapers'.

[Uhtred]

1 hour ago, Roxanne said:

Yes, last year the first death was announced at a meeting where it was announced the Guv would also be present. This, together with the news blackout, led to huge speculation on island. The internet was full of it.

It was also the day the senior nurse at Nobles reported the truth of what was going on at Nobles. It was widely reported that day but has never been referred to since  

Last year I mooted this but it all sounded a bit too conspiracy theorist at the time. Knowing what we know now, with what we’ve seen, I’m convinced now more than ever that it was the case.

They’re really dirty players. 

It's rather harder to rebuff calls for an inquiry into this debacle now.

[Uhtred]

2 hours ago, Banker said:

Briefing at 4pm from our leaders 

I'll be washing my hair.

[Gladys]

55 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

 It’s not anything special - 

For a split second, I was bursting with pride, then read that bit!

[Galen]

In pulling together some earlier points

I think you will find that Dr Couch qualified as psychiatrist and not a psychologist. He then went into tax for one of the big oil companies ending up here as Assessor of Income Tax.

Medics traditionally qualify with two first bachelors degrees (usually medicine and surgery) and given the length of study (5 years) are awarded the honorary title "Dr". Some then do doctorates as shown by the post nominal 'MD' if the doctorate is in medicine or 'PhD' if in another subject. Some do academic endeavours outside of medicine and can get PhDs too as Dr Ewart has! Some medics on retiring, and removing themselves from the GMC register, (as registration costs) cease using the title "Dr" but others retain it. Dr Couch does not appear on the GMC register but has kept the title.

Dentists, who study usually for the first two years of their 5 year degree alongside medics and then specialise 'above the neck' traditionally were not given the honorary title 'Doctor' until a few years ago when as I recall, they complained to some EU Board who considered the medical qualification equivalence of EU member states so that clinicians could work in other EU countries without having to take additional exams (unlike the USA where medics can be qualified in one state but not the adjacent one!). As many EU countries called their dentists "Dr" similar to the medics, UK dentists were allowed to use the title without further qualification, training or study. This is why IOM dentists can call themselves 'Dr'.

Psychologists on graduating are not called 'Dr' (unless they do a post graduate qualification at doctorate level) but on becoming professionally qualified (ie experience plus relevant experience and  CPD) can apply, are vetted and interviewed, and if approved can become Chartered Psychologists. This is their professional qualification and is in keeping with Chartered Accountants, Chartered Engineers etc and as with most other professions, are required to undertake CPD activities which are monitored for suitability, have a code of ethics and their names on a public register. 

As to Directors of Public Health (affectionately known in some quarters as 'The Drains Doctors' after the findings of the 1980 'Black Report' which stated the importance of good housing and sanitation in keeping populations healthy) do not need to be medics, though many are. You can become a Director of Public Health with a Masters Degree (usually in Public Health) but also have to have considerable relevant training as one IOM Director of Environmental Health with a Masters in Public Health frequently would tell anyone who would listen! Pub Health Doctors expertise is the health of populations whereas the hospital doctors /GPs specialise in individuals and their health. 

As to IOM CEOs of health service, in the last 25 years, none as I recall have been medically qualified, a couple have had first degrees but not in health, and one a HND and a certificate in management for attending a one week's course at the Kennedy School of Management, Harvard.

[rachomics]

26 minutes ago, Annoymouse said:

Ok but whilst this forum might seem small it can be read by anyone, at any time and if it’s talked about here then it’s going to get talked about elsewhere. My only concern was the risk of the data/samples being compromised.

I wouldn't worry too much. Any samples sent to Liverpool for sequencing as part of the COG-UK project will *have* to become open access over the next couple of months as it's a key part of taking part in the research project. At the moment COG-UK have got an issue with IoM/Guernsey/Jersey samples not being geographically linked to those locations so the difficulty in getting the data is likely to be on the COG-UK side of things, rather than IoM Gov.