IOM Covid removing restrictions

[John Wright]

9 minutes ago, yorik said:

Beg to differ, I’ve regularly walked along the prom into town while they’ve been doing their seaweed redistribution and every time they were driving up the beach with the bucket down pushing sand/shingle ahead of them and then scraping a small portion of it back.

There’s been plenty of times they’ve left small lagoons up near the sea wall in their half-arsed attempts to correct what they’ve done. I’d swear the bank they’d made was higher than the prom level at times

It’s not a significant factor in beach level change

[Andy Onchan]

19 minutes ago, John Wright said:

 

 

I don’t think DBC push sand and shingle up the beach. 

Beach height and composition is a mix of factors.

Its cyclical. Look at photos of the prom over the last 150 years. Sometimes the beach has been to walkway level, sometimes it hasn’t.

Changes occur naturally and as a result of human intervention, things like sea walls, groynes, breakwaters.

But the main effect is the Canute effect. Nature!

The late John Morely of the Empress suggested that the breakwater had something to do with the build up. Pre-breakwater construction the level of sand opposite the hotel was significantly lower, he said. Perhaps there's some truth in that.

[yorik]

33 minutes ago, John Wright said:

It’s not a significant factor in beach level change

But it’s a factor nonetheless. Are you saying that shoving sand up to the sea wall outwith normal tidal action isn’t going to affect the level at the prom side? When you build up a berm to the level of the walkway you’re giving the sea a direct route onto the prom.

Yes, beach movement is cyclical and dependent on a number of factors, DBC have exacerbated the problem by creating a perpetual non-job for the boys

[Roger Mexico]

2 hours ago, Out of the blue said:

It is unfortunately going to take a little time for mindsets to change from elimination/zero cases to accepting that Covid is likely always going to be present to some extent. 

Given that a number of attendees at a cancer fundraiser are likely to be immunocompromised, "Come to our Dinner, we might kill you" is always going to be a hard sell.

[Utah 01]

2 hours ago, Out of the blue said:

that is likely to change over the coming months

...and probably disappear in long run.

[Utah 01]

57 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Given that a number of attendees at a cancer fundraiser are likely to be immunocompromised, "Come to our Dinner, we might kill you" is always going to be a hard sell.

...but for the rest of you  it's 'Party On!'

if you don't want to come. please don't.  If you don't want to sit in a packed pub, don't.  The choice is YOURS, not Mr Toad's or the MBE's.

[ptarmigan]

But it’s not just ‘your choice’ that’s why everywhere else with community cases has proper mitigation measures in place.  But there are still limited beds in ICU,  not everyone has been vaccinated and some people can’t be vaccinated..

[ptarmigan]

In fact I’ll go further, at the stage we are at in this, it’s irresponsible and reckless for government to just wash its hands of everyone’s behaviour.   
 

 

[Ham_N_Eggs]

11 minutes ago, ptarmigan said:

In fact I’ll go further, at the stage we are at in this, it’s irresponsible and reckless for government to just wash its hands of everyone’s behaviour.   
 

 

Combined with the limited symptoms list they will actually test for COVID it's a bold decision to say the least. I really hope it works but I just can't shake the feeling that this isn't going to go the way they hoped it would. 

[Uhtred]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

 "Come to our Dinner, we might kill you" is always going to be a hard sell.

And besides has already been adopted as a catchphrase by 'President' and Mrs. Putin.

[TerryFuchwit]

32 minutes ago, ptarmigan said:

In fact I’ll go further, at the stage we are at in this, it’s irresponsible and reckless for government to just wash its hands of everyone’s behaviour.   
 

 

Jesus wept.

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, ptarmigan said:

But it’s not just ‘your choice’ that’s why everywhere else with community cases has proper mitigation measures in place.  But there are still limited beds in ICU,  not everyone has been vaccinated and some people can’t be vaccinated..

And just as important vaccination doesn't protect everyone 100% - and we don't really know how long existing vaccinations will last for or if the delayed second dose will be effective.  This explains the decisions of nursing homes to stop visitors - even if there is 90% effectiveness that mean 10% of your residents might be vulnerable.

Looking at the figures from the recent outbreak that I quoted on a previous page, you can use those to work out how likely Covid was to put you in hospital.  Overall it was 4%, but it varied a lot by age range:

0-9:  1%

10-19:  0%

20-29:  2%

30-39:  3%

40-49:  5%

50-59:  5%

60-69:  19%

70+:  25%

We're use to the virus having a devastating effect on the extremely elderly, but this shows that those in their 60s seem almost as vulnerable.

Edited to add:  It's worth emphasising that over half those hospitalised were under 60, because the higher rates of infection among younger groups meant the smaller percentages of hospitalisation still produced a lot of patients.

Edited April 24, 2021 by Roger Mexico
Add link

[Banker]

1 hour ago, ptarmigan said:

In fact I’ll go further, at the stage we are at in this, it’s irresponsible and reckless for government to just wash its hands of everyone’s behaviour.   
 

 

Well people who aren’t happy can make their own choices & avoid crowds etc & stay in as much possible 

[trmpton]

23 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

And just as important vaccination doesn't protect everyone 100% - and we don't really know how long existing vaccinations will last for or if the delayed second dose will be effective.  This explains the decisions of nursing homes to stop visitors - even if there is 90% effectiveness that mean 10% of your residents might be vulnerable.

Looking at the figures from  the recent outbreak that I quoted on  the previous page, you can use those to work out how likely Covid was to put you in hospital.  Overall it was 4%, but it varied a lot by age range:

0-9:  1%

10-19:  0%

20-29:  2%

30-39:  3%

40-49:  5%

50-59:  5%

60-69:  19%

70+:  25%

We're use to the virus having a devastating effect on the extremely elderly, but this shows that those in their 60s seem almost as vulnerable.

Edited to add:  It's worth emphasising that over half those hospitalised were under 60, because the higher rates of infection among younger groups meant the smaller percentages of hospitalisation still produced a lot of patients.

"Hospitalised" makes in sound like COVID put them all in hospital.  We know it didn’t. 

In hospital - would be a better phrase to reflect that they were in hospital and tested positive.  Some were in hospital because they had covid, some weren't.

Our leaders are yet to let us know how many of each.

[Banker]

1 minute ago, trmpton said:

"Hospitalised" makes in sound like COVID put them all in hospital.  We know it didn’t. 

In hospital - would be a better phrase to reflect that they were in hospital and tested positive.  Some were in hospital because they had covid, some weren't.

Our leaders are yet to let us know how many of each.

Exactly, it’s been made quite clear that the person in hospital at present is because Of underlying health reasons & not COVID after returning from Liverpool hospital