Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Filippo

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Nom de plume said:

CoMin meeting tomorrow morning.

Pressure on them quite considerable by all accounts.

 

12 minutes ago, trmpton said:

Heard the same.  I will be astounded (and extremely dissapointed) if they don't announce the border dates are moving forward tomorrow.

They are rightly facing huge pressure to do it and there is no justification not to.  Figures in UK are already at levels where their own framework says we should be ahead of where we are.

 

7 minutes ago, Barlow said:

I think that is fair enough. The situation is fluid.

(Thanks for the more informative post than Nom de plume's)

Except the most recent 14 day figure for UK is 40.1 per 100,000. Our parameter is 30 per 100,000. And some areas in North West are 195 (Hyndburn) and 160 (Bolton).

Never pays to overstate your case.

0CF0EC3B-E5DD-4C6E-A1BE-77B5300DEC29.jpeg

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, John Wright said:

 

 

Except the most recent 14 day figure for UK is 40.1 per 100,000. Our parameter is 30 per 100,000. And some areas in North West are 195 (Hyndburn) and 160 (Bolton).

Never pays to overstate your case.

0CF0EC3B-E5DD-4C6E-A1BE-77B5300DEC29.jpeg

Semantics around the way figures are counted.

In reality we all know the levels are incredibly low.

NY Times update of a 7 day average published yesterday.

 

Screenshot_20210512-085520_Chrome.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, trmpton said:

Semantics around the way figures are counted.

In reality we all know the levels are incredibly low.

NY Times update of a 7 day average published yesterday.

 

Screenshot_20210512-085520_Chrome.jpg

It’s not semantics. The figures you post are calculated in a different way, they’re a 7 day new cases average.
 

The accepted international figure is the 14 day new case figure ( not an average or daily average - a total ) and it’s always 4-7 days behind because there isn’t real time reporting.

Im just pointing out that the figures in UK still are not below the 30 per 100,000 in 14 days threshold agreed by Tynwald. The time to challenge methodology or thresholds was then.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, John Wright said:

It’s not semantics. The figures you post are calculated in a different way, they’re a 7 day new cases average.
 

The accepted international figure is the 14 day new case figure ( not an average or daily average - a total ) and it’s always 4-7 days behind because there isn’t real time reporting.

Im just pointing out that the figures in UK still are not below the 30 per 100,000 in 14 days threshold agreed by Tynwald. The time to challenge methodology or thresholds was then.

Perhaps they’ll change to copy Jersey who set level at 50, 30 is far too low

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, John Wright said:

It’s not semantics. The figures you post are calculated in a different way, they’re a 7 day new cases average.
 

The accepted international figure is the 14 day new case figure ( not an average or daily average - a total ) and it’s always 4-7 days behind because there isn’t real time reporting.

Im just pointing out that the figures in UK still are not below the 30 per 100,000 in 14 days threshold agreed by Tynwald. The time to challenge methodology or thresholds was then.

We all know it makes absolutely no difference to the perceived risk how they calculate figures.

We all know the virus is now circulating in the UK at very, very low levels and causing no issues in hospitals.

Waiting based on an irrelevant statistic is just stupid.

The risk is negligible now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, John Wright said:

It’s not semantics. The figures you post are calculated in a different way, they’re a 7 day new cases average.
 

The accepted international figure is the 14 day new case figure ( not an average or daily average - a total ) and it’s always 4-7 days behind because there isn’t real time reporting.

Im just pointing out that the figures in UK still are not below the 30 per 100,000 in 14 days threshold agreed by Tynwald. The time to challenge methodology or thresholds was then.

I agree with John on the method of calculation. However if i look on the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control i gives the UK figure at 12/100,000. Am I doing something wrong?

image.png.dd906264d84fa11b61158477f35f4f08.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

I agree with John on the method of calculation. However if i look on the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control i gives the UK figure at 12/100,000. Am I doing something wrong?

image.png.dd906264d84fa11b61158477f35f4f08.png

I’ve seen that as well. I got mine from a UK government publication for 14 days to 4/5, and issued last on 10/5.

I’ll try and link later.

Im not against reduced travel restriction. It’d suit me. I’m about to have jab 2. I want to go to UK. 88 year old aunt in Norfolk not seen since late February 2020. Tenants vacating rental property and new tenants moving in Spain. And spanish home has been empty and unaired since mid October. 300 year old building.

I travelled two months last summer with figures higher than 12, 30 or 40 per 100,000.

But it doesn’t do any good to shout about the framework using irrelevant or wrong figures. That’s dangerous.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, John Wright said:

I’ve seen that as well. I got mine from a UK government publication for 14 days to 4/5, and issued last on 10/5.

I’ll try and link later.

Im not against reduced travel restriction. It’d suit me. I’m about to have jab 2. I want to go to UK. 88 year old aunt in Norfolk not seen since late February 2020. Tenants vacating rental property and new tenants moving in Spain. And spanish home has been empty and unaired since mid October. 300 year old building.

I travelled two months last summer with figures higher than 12, 30 or 40 per 100,000.

But it doesn’t do any good to shout about the framework using irrelevant or wrong figures. That’s dangerous.

I have calculated it my self and I get 44/100,000

image.thumb.png.96387baac4f933d6dcfd77cb6bab415e.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, snowman said:

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-where-are-the-coronavirus-hotspots-in-the-uk-12303591

 

Data shows that although the average infection rate in the UK has fallen by 15% to 40.1 per 100,000 people for the two-week period ending 4 May, there have been sharp rises in some areas.

Yep. Always going go happen.  I would expect "cases" to rise over the next few months.

At recent briefings they have told us not to focus on local cases numbers as it is no longer an indication of any cause for concern, yet their  own exit strategy is based around case numbers in UK rather than deaths or hospital admissions.

Madness 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...