IOM Covid removing restrictions

[Utah 01]

48 minutes ago, Gladys said:

For example, of those admitted to hospital, how many have been admitted because of covid, and how many have been admitted for other reasons but who have tested positive for covid.  Of those admitted because of covid, how many have been vaccinated, and so on. 

Gladys, they won't reveal the numbers because the 'fear factor' has to be sustained, albeit a weakening factor as the days tick by.

[Southernman]

17 hours ago, Banker said:

I understand from friends living there that Guernsey briefings are very highly regarded as is their Director of Public Health who regularly does extra briefings via Facebook on her own to give more information.

The questions are normally very professionally answered with none of the sarcasm of our leaders 

The questions are seeking information and clarification. They are never critical so easier to answer.

[The Old Git]

2 hours ago, Apple said:

Early written questions published.

This one:

Between 3 March 2021 and 9 March 2021, there have been 144 arrivals into the island as follows:

Patient transfer 43

Returning resident 70

Compassionate exemption 8

Contractual exemption 23

In respect of Key workers for the same dates, there have been 25 arrivals, as follows:
Department
DFE     3

DHSC 18

DOI     4
                 

 

What’s the actual question?

[Zarley]

4 minutes ago, Southernman said:

The questions are seeking information and clarification. They are never critical so easier to answer.

It would appear they have fewer reasons to be critical on Guernsey.

[Gladys]

47 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Thanks. I was really thinking though of scenarios rather than individuals and personal information.For example matters of national security.

Yes, and those matters are subject to formal classification. 

[Albert Tatlock]

'Setting up vaccine hubs cost £373,500"

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/setting-up-vaccine-hubs-cost-373500/

Bargain! All for a third of the price of one broken train.

[Zarley]

3 minutes ago, The Old Git said:

What’s the actual question?

 

[Apple]

15 minutes ago, piebaps said:

Patients' medical information is absolutely confidential,

...and needed to remain so in as much as sharing outside of the GP and hospital formats. Linking those information systems to say tax and census records poses the risk of inappropriate or accidental misuse.

It is currently hard enough to access patients records in their entirety as much of what impacts on any persons treatment and care is currently not deemed to be a part of the patients record. 

Some patients / relatives have indicated to me that because of the injustices they feel they have experienced that social media and self reporting of their conditions would be another option.

The Duty of Candour currently proposed goes some way to deal with some peoples difficulties and frustrations in my view but still does not give patients and relatives full access to the information they may require.

For example - if there is an adverse event on a ward at night like wrong medication an adverse event can be triggered. Overall hospital staffing levels may be an issue, but that would never be revealed to any relatives. Neither would the details  used on the Datix system.

[Gladys]

18 minutes ago, Utah 01 said:

Gladys, they won't reveal the numbers because the 'fear factor' has to be sustained, albeit a weakening factor as the days tick by.

Well, I think this is a major factor, information is being 'managed' either to avoid giving out bullets to be fired back or to manipulate the public response.  It is a rather ham-fisted attempt to do what Stalin did so well.  

[Andy Onchan]

3 hours ago, Zarley said:

Who would be a good replacement for James Davis? Who would be acceptable to both the public and government?  

Jezzer Paxman.

[Nom de plume]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

I would say there is a difference between private and confidential and personal info.  There is quite a bit of mixing up between the three.  Pretty certain there are well defined parameters for all terms, including Private and Confidential, Confidential,  Commercial in Confidence, Staff in Confidence, and so on.  

Are the briefings private or confidential? 

Personal information is protected if it identifies a person.  There is no data protection reason to withhold some of the information that has been requested and denied on that basis. The information must be made anonymous, of course and can be presented in a way that is useful but not identifying.

For example, of those admitted to hospital, how many have been admitted because of covid, and how many have been admitted for other reasons but who have tested positive for covid.  Of those admitted because of covid, how many have been vaccinated, and so on. 

Not rocket science and other small jurisdictions like Gibraltar seem to be able to solve the conundrum. 

I made this very point yesterday or the day before in amongst my usual shit (Jersey is ace, Govt. workers are lazy arses, insert other lies here ...).

There is absolutely zero reason to hold back this information. 

They do not wish for us to form our own opinions on risk. It is a form of control - Propagating fear is the raison d'etre. 

Edited March 18, 2021 by Nom de plume

[Apple]

30 minutes ago, Barlow said:

James Davis is a jolly enough and likeable chap but on a number of occasions he asked a question and basically answered it before asking Dr Ewart. The questions were done and dusted and handed on a plate to Dr Ewart.

Here are 3 examples:

good post.

[Beelzebub3]

2 hours ago, trmpton said:

If this is their new policy it seems madness given that people going in for simple outpatient procedures (think in and out in less than an hour) had to test and isolate for three days beforehand while we were covid free last summer.

What possible reasoning would there be for making people do that then which meant unpaid time off work and not now midst outbreak?

Good question? I only know what occurred on tuesday was factual.

[Gladys]

1 minute ago, Nom de plume said:

I made this very point yesterday or the day before in amongst my usual shit (Jersey is ace, Govt. workers are lazy arses, insert other lies here ...).

There is absolutely zero reason to hold this information back. 

They do not wish for us to form our own opinions on risk. It is a form of control - Propagating fear is the raison d'etre. 

I know, just reiterating. People are falling into two camps - childish trusting reliance on being looked after by government  or teenage rebellious questioning of authority and seeking explanation and accountability. 

Quite happy to be aligned with a teenager after all these years! 

[Apple]

Just received:

The UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) both support continued use of the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine.
 
Dr Phil Bryan, MHRA Vaccines Safety Lead said: ‘We are closely reviewing reports [of a link between AZ vaccine and blood clots] but the evidence available does not suggest the vaccine is the cause. Blood clots can occur naturally and are not uncommon. More than 11 million doses of the AZ vaccine have now been administered across the UK, and the number of blood clots reported after having the vaccine is not greater than the number that would have occurred naturally in the vaccinated population.’
 
Emer Cook, EMA Executive Director said: ‘Vaccines for Covid-19 help to protect individuals from becoming ill, especially healthcare professionals and vulnerable populations such as older people and people with chronic diseases. This is a very important consideration in our assessment of the benefit-risk. So while the investigation is ongoing currently we are still firmly convinced that the benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine in preventing Covid-19, with its associated risk of hospitalisation and death, outweigh the risk of these side effects.’

 

Do you think someone should tell our European colleagues or not..?