IOM Covid removing restrictions

[x-in-man]

That bloke from press briefing  is behind you - Snapshut.

[Non-Believer]

2 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Thank you.  I started watching an interesting documentary on Smithsonian and the link with bats.  The bats carry all kinds of viruses but never seem to be affected by them.  It was something to do with the body temperature, but if they understand it, it may be useful in treating covid as well as understanding how other viruses jump species. 

I watched all of that, it was fascinating, repeated tonight at 6pm incidentally.

Bats carry myriads of viruses and because bat's bodies "run hotter" than humans (because flying is hard work), the viruses they carry adapt to that. When the virus "makes the jump", via other species, to humans it leaves the human body unable to fight the virus by raising its temperature which is one of the the usual methods of resistance; it can't raise high enough to attack the virus.

[TerryFuchwit]

26 minutes ago, Banker said:

That’s interesting from Henny, once you’ve completed 14 days after being infected and had negative test you’re released from isolation even if others in your household are infected so you don’t get stuck in continuous isolation 

Seems fair and logical.

[horatiotheturd]

14 minutes ago, Zarley said:

Not anywhere as many as this time, I'd wager. It didn't get the chance to get into the schools last spring before lockdown. Everyone was staying at home much more once lockdown started than appears to be the case now. 

Also, the original version of covid wasn't quite as contagious as the Kent variant and it didn't seem to be infecting children as readily.

I don't buy that.

It was well through the population last year before we closed schools or locked down.

Anecdotal but I don't know a single school age child who was tested last year.

I know loads this time.

Of the ones who have tested positive I don't know a single one who has even had a sniffle or an ache.

That would suggest to me it was in schools last time but we never knew or cared.

Remember St Mary's after Christmas.  A kid tested positive in a routine test prior to hospital admission for something else.  If they hadn't been going to hospital we would have never known.

Anyone want to do the maths and tell me what the odds are of that particular kid just happening to test positive on the particular day they were tested without any other kids in schools on the Island having had it?

You will need a lot of numbers.

It is far more widespread than testing shows just like it was both previous times.

If we only tested those ill enough to be a concern cases would likely be around 30

[Zarley]

33 minutes ago, horatiotheturd said:

Serious question.

If we hadn't locked down and had tested so many people, with the current rates of vaccination what do people honestly think the situation would be now?

Would there be hundreds dead, or would there have been thousands of people infected who had now largely recovered and so had natural protection sufficient to really help limit further spread.

With hindsight, who would have done what they have done with lockdown and who would have just asked people to be cautious and cracked on - with the option to shield for those who wanted to.

Serious answer. 

During the briefing, Helen McKenna from IOM newspapers asked for the figures of symptomatic/asymptomatic cases. 

Of course Dr Ewart, as usual, had to wake up the hamster that powers her laptop before she could answer. She does this every briefing, you'd think she know to have things ready by now.  

Anyway, Ashford came to her rescue with the figures; symptomatic = 594  asymptomatic = 253. 

I think if we hadn't locked down when we did, we'd be in big trouble. I'm not going to speculate on any specific numbers, but given how many are symptomatic vs asymptomatic currently, there would likely be more in hospital, possibly overwhelming Nobles and a good chance of more than one death so far, not to mention possible deaths caused by the hospital being overwhelmed. 

I also think we'd be storing up more problems for the future health-wise as the more infections you have, the more people you'll have suffering from long covid. 

And then there's the added financial damage.

We were right to lockdown and should have done so earlier, by four days at the very least. I just hope things keep moving in the right direction so we can safely begin to open back up. 

[Albert Tatlock]

36 minutes ago, horatiotheturd said:

Serious question.

If we hadn't locked down and had tested so many people, with the current rates of vaccination what do people honestly think the situation would be now?

Would there be hundreds dead, or would there have been thousands of people infected who had now largely recovered and so had natural protection sufficient to really help limit further spread.

With hindsight, who would have done what they have done with lockdown and who would have just asked people to be cautious and cracked on - with the option to shield for those who wanted to.

Most research papers (including Imperial) put the UK deaths figure as circa 470K, which implies >600 deaths here.

But that didn't include variants and any subsequent  'laps around the population'. It also doesn't assume blocks such as having only one hospital such as here - and the limited amount of treatment that could only be offered to a few at a time.

In short, without lockdowns it would have been a nightmare for many here.

 

[horatiotheturd]

8 minutes ago, Zarley said:

Serious answer. 

During the briefing, Helen McKenna from IOM newspapers asked for the figures of symptomatic/asymptomatic cases. 

Of course Dr Ewart, as usual, had to wake up the hamster that powers her laptop before she could answer. She does this every briefing, you'd think she know to have things ready by now.  

Anyway, Ashford came to her rescue with the figures; symptomatic = 594  asymptomatic = 253. 

I think if we hadn't locked down when we did, we'd be in big trouble. I'm not going to speculate on any specific numbers, but given how many are symptomatic vs asymptomatic currently, there would likely be more in hospital, possibly overwhelming Nobles and a good chance of more than one death so far, not to mention possible deaths caused by the hospital being overwhelmed. 

I also think we'd be storing up more problems for the future health-wise as the more infections you have, the more people you'll have suffering from long covid. 

And then there's the added financial damage.

We were right to lockdown and should have done so earlier, by four days at the very least. I just hope things keep moving in the right direction so we can safely begin to open back up. 

 

OK another question.

How many of those Symptomatic would have known they were ill without a positive test.

"Hi Sharon from Facebook, its superted from 111.  I am afraid you have tested positive for COVID following being identified as a high risk individual.

Can I ask if yiu have had any symptoms?

Er, well, I sneezed on Tuesday.

That's a yes then, thanks"

Would she have called 111 with the "symptoms" if she wasn't being tested and had to go out and earn a living?

Its a big fat no.

The ONLY relevant statistics is those who have ended up in Nobles BECAUSE they contracted COVID.

They won't tell us what that figure is.

Edited March 15, 2021 by horatiotheturd

[horatiotheturd]

5 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said:

Most research papers (including Imperial) put the UK deaths figure as circa 470K, which implies >600 deaths here.

But that didn't include variants and any subsequent  'laps around the population'. It also doesn't assume blocks such as having only one hospital such as here - and the limited amount of treatment that could only be offered to a few at a time.

In short, without lockdowns it would have been a nightmare for many here.

 

Are those figures from pre or post the existence of the vaccines and the much better understanding of treatments?

We aren't in the same place we were last year.

Edited March 15, 2021 by horatiotheturd

[TheTeapot]

absolute state of you

[Albert Tatlock]

2 minutes ago, horatiotheturd said:

Are those figures from pre or post the existence of the vaccines and the much better understanding of treatments?

We aren't in the same place we were last year.

They are for 2020 and the virus running rife.

[Major Rushen]

Bet my wife £20 that Moulton would ask about blood clots......double or Quits that glover would save me ...no! Maybe next week.

[horatiotheturd]

5 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said:

They are for 2020 and the virus running rife.

So before the vulnerable were vaccinated and not relevant to March 2021.

Cheers

[Albert Tatlock]

Just now, horatiotheturd said:

So before the vulnerable were vaccinated and not relevant to March 2021.

Cheers

The point is...there wouldn't have been many vulnerables left to vaccinate.

[horatiotheturd]

7 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

absolute state of you

You seem very scared of a virus which as far as I can make out, despite ravaging our schools and wider community has resulted in about 4 or 5 hospital admissions.

[Cassie2]

42 minutes ago, Lord Vincent Trouserbag said:

So, in summary: On the whole the figures look better; but no one really knows if the figures can be trusted. Minister Ashworth and Dr Ewart continue to talk utter rubbish. The Chief Minister continues to look as though he's caught in the headlights. and The Steam Packet is investigating itself - and no doubt will find itself 'not guilty' Tune in next time..........

An excellent summary, thank you. You omitted to mention H. Quayle speaking early on with his face expressionless and with his eyes buried continuously in the script saying: ''Some people with Covid19 are going to work as normal. Please don't.''

Edited March 15, 2021 by Cassie2