IOM Covid removing restrictions

[snowman]

1 minute ago, TerryFuchwit said:

It's an interesting question.

It's also a bit catch 22.  Airlines are not going to return unless they can fill planes.

People are unlikely to travel in sufficient numbers (be that for business or pleasure) with restrictions in place.  With restrictions in place there simply isn't the volume to have proper travel options.

The government need to provide certainty on this.  To allow airlines and people to make plans.

Personally, I'd prefer them to set a date of the 30th June.

Life is going to need to go on.  

 

It's difficult to justify anything beyond July given that the UK is removing social distancing and reopening nightclubs for example.  Perhaps the IOM will wait and see what the infection rates are in the UK following the removal of all social distancing measures. 

[John Wright]

16 minutes ago, snowman said:

It's difficult to justify anything beyond July given that the UK is removing social distancing and reopening nightclubs for example.  Perhaps the IOM will wait and see what the infection rates are in the UK following the removal of all social distancing measures. 

And that wouldn’t be an unreasonable stance if you were risk averse, as I suspect our lot are.

Of course summer showed a down turn last year. Upturn started in October/November. It’s probably going to be then before we see what effect vaccine and imported variations will have

[Banker]

30 minutes ago, snowman said:

It's difficult to justify anything beyond July given that the UK is removing social distancing and reopening nightclubs for example.  Perhaps the IOM will wait and see what the infection rates are in the UK following the removal of all social distancing measures. 

They’re waiting for consultants to advise them on exit strategy after the last document was widely criticized , then they’ll probably copy Guernsey as they normally do

[Roger Mexico]

14 hours ago, Gladys said:

Stupid question, but is there a possibility that the vaccine will actually accelerate mutations? 

It's actually a good question and apologies for not answering it last night as I got distracted by that loopy letter.  I suppose the thinking is that vaccines would act as a form of evolutionary pressure as traits that helped the virus to evade the effects of the vaccines were preferentially selected.

It's possible to some extent, but I think two things act against it.  The first is that the vaccine should reduce massively the number of people infected and that simply means that there is a lot less mutation going on and so less chance for adverse mutations to appear. I don't think it's a coincidence that a lot of the new dangerous mutations have developed in countries where the virus was allowed to get out of control (Brazil, UK, US) and so there were an awful lot of people infected and able to pass dangerous mutations on.

The second point is that vaccines are 'always on' and so protect people for a long period, unlike say antibiotics with which people are only treated for a short time.  This means any infections are hopefully short lived and the virus has less time to adapt. I've seen comments that patients who are immunocompromised and so take much longer to get rid of infections are possibly where such mutations may arise.

So on balance vaccines shouldn't act to increase mutations but the opposite.  But all this requires a population that is as fully vaccinated as possible to keep infections to a minimum (and hopefully eliminate them).  It also requires vaccines that stay effective for a long time or can be boosted to do so.

[Gladys]

2 hours ago, Happier diner said:

The virus doesnt have a brain and doesnt study the vaccine roll out figures and statistics so think about it. The virus doesnt understand vaccination programmes so cant mutate to outpace them.

It mutates in a form of accelerated evolution in the way all viruses do. 

It's TRUE the virus may evade the vaccination process but it' cant be accelerated by it. 

Have you looked at the Dr  Chris Smith you tube videos from the BBC. He explains thing brilliantly. No patronising but in layman's terms. He is a professor of virology so he knows his stuff too

I didn't say it thought, ( and I don't think it has a growly face) nor that mutation was a planned process.  All of nature evolves to eradicate unsuccessful characteristics and enhance those that increase survival. My question was whether the vaccine acting in a particular way would result in mutation to reduce that 'weakness' or enhance another characteristics to increase its survival rate. 

[KERED]

1 hour ago, Nom de plume said:

Just imagine getting off the ‘Tradewinds’ cruise liner & being faced with Western Europe’s version of Aleppo ...

... and a water wheel that doesn’t turn.

 

. . . and an 18th Century Boat that has been locked away from the Public for more than 5 years, because. . .  

"The water was lapping up against it, salt water, causing corrosion in an 18th century boat.

"How appalling to keep a boat in those conditions." 

 

Wow! Salt water causes corrosion?  Who would have guessed?

[Gladys]

2 hours ago, Newbie said:

The virus doesn't mutate in order to replicate, it is trying to replicate itself perfectly, but mutations occur by chance during that process. Some of those mutations may make the virus more effective (like the Kent variant) but most will have no effect, or will make the virus less effective. The more effective mutations become a dominant strain due to the fact that they are more effective.

If a strain were to emerge that made the virus less affected by the immunity created by vaccination (e.g. Brazil or SA), it would have an advantage over other strains that were better controlled by that immunity. Hence the possible need for boosters that have been tweaked to take account of new variants.

However, vaccinating people doesn't mean that such a mutation is more likely to emerge. Theoretically, if vaccination reduces transmission, and therefore the number of replications, the chances of such a mutation emerging should be reduced. But it is all theoretical at the moment

Thank you.

[TerryFuchwit]

1 hour ago, snowman said:

It's difficult to justify anything beyond July given that the UK is removing social distancing and reopening nightclubs for example.  Perhaps the IOM will wait and see what the infection rates are in the UK following the removal of all social distancing measures. 

Infection rates will be what they will be.  Once people are vaccinated it would makr sense to stop obsessing over how many people have covid.  Rather than consistently headline report statistics of how many people have it, how many die etc.

If the government are going to continue down a path of not accepting covid as a part of every day life then we will never get out of this cycle of lockdowns we are in and the UK and the rest of the world seem to have been in.

 

[Gladys]

12 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

It's actually a good question and apologies for not answering it last night as I got distracted by that loopy letter.  I suppose the thinking is that vaccines would act as a form of evolutionary pressure as traits that helped the virus to evade the effects of the vaccines were preferentially selected.

It's possible to some extent, but I think two things act against it.  The first is that the vaccine should reduce massively the number of people infected and that simply means that there is a lot less mutation going on and so less chance for adverse mutations to appear. I don't think it's a coincidence that a lot of the new dangerous mutations have developed in countries where the virus was allowed to get out of control (Brazil, UK, US) and so there were an awful lot of people infected and able to pass dangerous mutations on.

The second point is that vaccines are 'always on' and so protect people for a long period, unlike say antibiotics with which people are only treated for a short time.  This means any infections are hopefully short lived and the virus has less time to adapt. I've seen comments that patients who are immunocompromised and so take much longer to get rid of infections are possibly where such mutations may arise.

So on balance vaccines shouldn't act to increase mutations but the opposite.  But all this requires a population that is as fully vaccinated as possible to keep infections to a minimum (and hopefully eliminate them).  It also requires vaccines that stay effective for a long time or can be boosted to do so.

Thanks Roger, it was the evolutionary pressure that I was thinking about.  Thank you also for replying in a non- condescending manner unlike Wimpy Boy. 

[Utah 01]

53 minutes ago, John Wright said:

risk averse

..............a plague on modern society.

Sir Francis Drake: 'Ma'am, I going to sail around the world'.

Queen Elizabeth I: (sharp intake of breath) 'Are you sure you want to go ahead with this? We've not got any vaccinations ready yet, GPS isn't going to be up and running for another 500 years and you're going to rely on a sextant and dead-reckoning? You know, of course, that after 10 days you will almost certainly fall off the edge of the world? Have your ships done roll-over testing and I want to know that the crews will comply with all our diversity requirements.  And what about your Twitter feed? How will we find out............anything?  No, sorry Franky, without a full risk-assessment and clearance from H&SE, you're not going anywhere!'

Rinse, repeat and, thank ghod, never applied! 

Can you imagine risk-aversity applied to any of our feats of discovery and exploration over the past 500 years?  Livingstone, Burton, Curie, Scott, supersonic flight testing, the moon-shots: we'd still be living in caves and even the invention of the wheel would probably have been scrapped: 'the committee has decided that the wheel, if developed to its full potential, will lead to man traveling at speeds greater than walking pace thereby leading to potential injury and death'.

[Utah 01]

12 minutes ago, Gladys said:

All of nature evolves to eradicate unsuccessful characteristics and enhance those that increase survival.

Gladys, your theory falls at the first hurdle - the parish councillors in Douglas.

[bonatti]

2 hours ago, snowman said:

 

Any guesses when IOM residents will be able to travel without having to do isolation upon return?

I guess that'll be when we decide to move from eradication to mitigation. At the moment, according to exit plan, that is September isn't it?

One thing for certain, when we do allow covid back into our community, it is going to spread through the younger population very quickly. Wouldn't it be better to allow this to happen over the summer months rather than wait till kids go back to school? 

[Barlow]

 

11 hours ago, TerryFuchwit said:

Should be easy enough to answer.

Dear Ian,

Fuck off you absolute nutter.

All the best

Dr. Ewart

 

PS

TLDR

[Barlow]

 

10 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

Those are my favourites!  I particularly like the idea that recovering alcoholics might be triggered back on the booze by having minuscule amounts of alcohol injected into their muscles.  But not by drinking it.

Sirry, I couldn't resist posting this again:

[Itsmeee]

Me and OH we’re discussing exit strategy yesterday. Let me first say I have skin in the game as my entire wider family, one adult child and a bereaved parent who I haven’t seen since the event are in England. So I have good reason for wanting to be able to leave and return to the island without restrictions. We were talking about the impossibility of being able to resume our so called tourist industry with self isolation requirements still in place. Personally I don’t think any easing will happen until after the election, as they who shout loudest about “keeping the boarders (sic) closed” are listened to by our spineless and unimaginative politicians, all of whom have made the epidemic and in particular the vaccination programme a political football. If we accept that eradication is no longer a realistic prospect, we have to decide what mitigation measures  we are prepared to accept in exchange for freedoms. Personally I would happily accept the requirement to wear face masks in shops etc and/or social distancing in exchange for freedom to see my family without the disruption and financial costs involved in self isolating away from my own home if I travel off island. I suppose if you are Manx born and bred and your family are all here, then the need to travel is less. But we have been given little idea what mitigation looks like or when it will start. Our health minister seems in total thrall to our very insular chief minister and I really don’t think they have any empathy, despite DA’s creepy weasel words about ‘it’s ok not to be ok.’