IOM Covid removing restrictions

[pongo]

1 hour ago, Two-lane said:

A professional lifetime working on the design etc ...

That long post seems more about you than it is about Dr Ewart.

[Utah 01]

2 hours ago, Zarley said:

will engage in knee-jerkery of the highest order

You are probably 100% correct; after self-preservation it is the politician's next autonomic response to anything that is beyond their ability to understand.  It's endemic in the 'political class'.

[CowMan]

3 hours ago, The Chief said:

if todays news doesn't wake a few people up it bloody should do. This thing still has sting in it's tail.

But then nobody knows the full details yet do they so no need to panic unnecessarily. Three of Jerseys deaths were over 100 years old. 

[CowMan]

13 minutes ago, Galen said:

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.

 

He was actually a GP. 

[Roger Mexico]

13 minutes ago, Dirty Buggane said:

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

They are basing it entirely on the headline numbers and as John pointed out the percentage of tests that are positive has remained constant and very high by international standards.  Unless we know the mix of tests and whether it remains constant, there's no way of telling if the figures indicate a lessening of the epidemic.  Judging by the rest of the briefing I think they were just fumbling around for 'good' news and would distort things until they looked mildly hopeful.  You saw the same thing in the claim that active cases would start to drop because of recoveries.  Unless new cases suddenly stop altogether, that's not mathematically possible.

They stopped publishing the breakdown of new cases over a week ago, but Ewart mentioned figures for current active cases in the briefing yesterday.  She said 448 were from known contacts, but a massive 143 were from unknown sources. The balance  of 53 were presumably mostly from Wednesday and there hadn't yet been the time to work on them. 

Ewart claimed that the percentage of unknown sources was dropping, but that is pretty much automatic in any outbreak where you are operating tracing.  Given how much transmission in this outbreak has been in households, to have such a high number of unknowns suggests things are still very out of control.

[TheTeapot]

4 minutes ago, CowMan said:

But then nobody knows the full details yet do they so no need to panic unnecessarily. Three of Jerseys deaths were over 100 years old. 

"It's ok they died cos they were already old"

"Its ok they died cos they were already ill"

"its ok they killed themselves cos they were already depressed"

[Roger Mexico]

38 minutes ago, Uhtred said:

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

It's also not "the full story" as it's just a repeat of the minimal IOM Government press release with no extra information.

[CowMan]

4 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

"It's ok they died cos they were already old"

"Its ok they died cos they were already ill"

"its ok they killed themselves cos they were already depressed"

Where do I say anything is ok? Clearly if they were elderly then no matter how sad the event is there’s no need for mass public panic is there? Those trying to whip it up already to try to scare others have no context to anything so maybe wait to get the full facts later? 

[Roger Mexico]

22 minutes ago, Galen said:

Dr Couch does not appear on the GMC register but has kept the title.

Actually Couch also has a PhD in physiology according to his Linkedin, so that's why he was still entitled to use the title.

[Newbie]

16 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

You saw the same thing in the claim that active cases would start to drop because of recoveries.  Unless new cases suddenly stop altogether, that's not mathematically possible.

I don't quite follow the logic of that. If there are more cases who are deemed recovered than new cases on any particular day, then surely the number of active cases must drop that day?

[TheTeapot]

Testing centre is busy this afternoon apparently.

[Gladys]

17 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

That did actually properly make me laugh out loud. I’ve just lost one of the cats. 

In a jump-off-your-knee-and-look-at-you-in-disgust way rather than gone-and-never -coming-back way I hope. 

[doc.fixit]

You've got hair?

[Dr. Grumpy]

32 minutes ago, CowMan said:

He was actually a GP. 

Nope. You're probably thinking of his son, who's a GP in England

[John Wright]

13 minutes ago, Newbie said:

I don't quite follow the logic of that. If there are more cases who are deemed recovered than new cases on any particular day, then surely the number of active cases must drop that day?

Yes, but we aren’t at that stage yet.