Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Filippo

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, trmpton said:

Well thats good news then isn't it.

I am sure iomg will roll out a plan to get them all jabbed imminently (they won't.  We will be weeks behind everywhere else because we will need special indemnity and will have to build a new hub with a PlayStation in each booth)

And skirting boards. Don't forget the skirting boards! 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Cambon said:

Oops! 12-15 year olds just approved!

Well when they decide to start vaccinations then they will no doubt amend statistics but at the moment the whole world uses the % of those eligible for vaccinations .

Uk Government say no plans to vaccinate children yet

Edited by Banker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Utah 01 said:

Just for Mr Toad, the MBE and the wicked witch of the north's benefit (and all the other 'lockdown' lovers here): tucked away on page 5,340 of today's DT and never likely to see any exposure by the BBC -

image.png.8ffc0184b5a73615b7d8a654babb5ecb.png

What a load of nonsense. I thought germans were clever. Clearly not the statisticians.

Viruses spread through contact. Reduce the contacts you reduce the spread. 

Maybe their lockdowns were not tight.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Pfizer vaccine was approved for use in the UK for 16 and 17-year-olds in December 2020.

The UK's medicines regulator is not the first to authorise the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in children aged 12 and over.

The European Union regulator, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), approved the use of the vaccine in adolescents last week, while the US and Canada both approved the jab for use in the age group earlier in May.

A trial, which published its results in March, showed 100% efficacy and a strong immune response from the vaccine in children aged 12 to 15.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

What a load of nonsense.

Please declare your qualifications for making such a stupid statement, specifically your qualification in statistics; just so the Munich statisticians know what they'll be up aginst?

Every, and I repeat every (just so that it might sink in) 'lockdown' that Johnson instigated (and unerringly followed by our muppets) came when case-loads were already in decline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Utah 01 said:

Please declare your qualifications for making such a stupid statement, specifically your qualification in statistics; just so the Munich statisticians know what they'll be up aginst?

Every, and I repeat every (just so that it might sink in) 'lockdown' that Johnson instigated (and unerringly followed by our muppets) came when case-loads were already in decline.

Well I say what I see. We have lockdowns, numbers fall. We open up, numbers go up.

It's a fundamental of disease control. Cant see how you cant see that.

Would be great news if it was true. Probably just a load of attention seekers playing with numbers.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Utah 01 said:

Just for Mr Toad, the MBE and the wicked witch of the north's benefit (and all the other 'lockdown' lovers here): tucked away on page 5,340 of today's DT and never likely to see any exposure by the BBC -

image.png.8ffc0184b5a73615b7d8a654babb5ecb.png

 

It isn't as simple as the lockdown simply hasn't worked because the rate had started to fall beforehand.

My questions would be:

Would R continued to fall at the same rate without the lockdown restrictions? Did the rate at which R fell change with the lockdown restrictions?

Without seeing the study, it could just be cherry-picking something that sounds good for the headlines.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Utah 01 said:

Please declare your qualifications for making such a stupid statement, specifically your qualification in statistics; just so the Munich statisticians know what they'll be up aginst?

Every, and I repeat every (just so that it might sink in) 'lockdown' that Johnson instigated (and unerringly followed by our muppets) came when case-loads were already in decline.

The latest lockdown started on 05 Jan, at about that time daily new cases were peaking. Total active cases peaked on 30 Jan,deaths peaked mid February. So no, case-loads were not in decline at the time of lockdown and it would have got considerably worse if he had delayed it even longer (although Christmas and new year were pretty much cancelled, because schools were out and lots of people were already off work, he let Christmas and N.Y. kind of happen.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love this island sometimes.

Test yesterday, you have a unique booking ref on your confirmation email, but they don't use that, no sir.

Instead they pass a pen and yellow post it pad  through your window and get you to write you name on it, using the same pen and pad as all the other cars in the queue.

Doesn't bother me in the slightest as sure the risk is non existent but seems funny that in some ways as an island we are super paranoid, but in others they take a group of people who statistically have the highest risk of being lhergyfied and share a pen and paper between them.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Cambon said:

The latest lockdown started on 05 Jan, at about that time daily new cases were peaking. Total active cases peaked on 30 Jan,deaths peaked mid February. So no, case-loads were not in decline at the time of lockdown and it would have got considerably worse if he had delayed it even longer (although Christmas and new year were pretty much cancelled, because schools were out and lots of people were already off work, he let Christmas and N.Y. kind of happen.

Ask any experienced scientist. If you start to read an article in anything but an industry recognized publication, and its starts with "a recent study by.......university showed........."

Skip to next article🤭

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I see Jersey has outlined the situation with respect to an International traveller inbound to their island who transit in England.

(For example Gibraltar - London - Jersey)

 

https://www.gov.je/Health/Coronavirus/Travel/Pages/CoronavirusTravelAdvice.aspx

 

I imagine the IOM will at some point update their website with this information. 

 

Quote

 

Transit to Jersey through the UK
All international arrivals into the UK are required to provide proof of a negative COVID-19 test taken within 72 hours of departure for the UK. This includes passengers transiting through the UK to Jersey.

Arrivals into England who have visited or passed through a country where travel to the UK is banned must also isolate for at least 10 days in a Managed Quarantine Hotel at their own cost; this includes passengers transiting through England to Jersey. 

Red, amber and green list rules for entering England on gov.uk

International arrivals into the UK from countries on the UK Amber and Green List must provide proof of a negative COVID-19 test taken within 72 hours of departure for the UK and book a test package prior to arrival in the UK but do not need to complete the required isolation period, nor any remaining tests in the test package, before completing their travel to Jersey.

 

 

Edited by snowman
Spelling
  • 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...