IOM Covid removing restrictions

[Gladys]

Agree, but the biggest issue is that 111 and testing seem unable to cope.  That should have been factored in before any changes made.  It wasn't, so now we have lots of people isolating because they can't get through to 111 and/or can't get an early test.  How the increased demand on those services was not foreseen is beyond me. 

What we now have is people isolating pre-test and then having to isolate for a further 10 days if positive.  That is fine, except it doesn't allow for the pre-test perod of isolation, so effectively you are isolated for well over the 10 days.  Inconvenient for locals, but just awful for visitors, like Pieman, which could do untold harm to our tourist industry. 

[the stinking enigma]

Ashford still has managed to avoid saying exactly how many people staff the 111 line. Moulton had him nailed down to promising an answer months ago, then let him off the hook. We have an emergency covid line that only functions if there's not an emergency.

Edited July 17, 2021 by the stinking enigma

[WTF]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

either the EAG has a valued input or it is just a token arrangement. 

the latter, but it helps make government look like they care about what RG has to say.

Edited July 17, 2021 by WTF

[Zarley]

6 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the whole team were put together to make the public think they were being very reasonable and fair to invite Dr Glover to participate. A sort of consolation prize for her, made to look like an olive branch from them.

I suspected as much when it was first announced that Dr Glover was to be a member of the EAG. I decided to give them the benefit of doubt, but sadly it's pretty damn obvious I should have just got on with being cynical. 

[Roger Mexico]

2 hours ago, Gladys said:

So the EAG were not consulted on the latest changes, but DA thought they had been and it didn't matter anyway as Comin make the decision.  

It underlines that the EAG is just a sop to look like they are consulting.  On such an important change you would think that an actual response would have been sought even if it was just a "nothing to add".

Not only that, it indicates that CoMin and the civil service (and the Chief Secretary in particular through whom all information is channelled) simply aren't interested in taking scientific or any outside advice at all.  The country is being run simply on what suits them and nothing else.  Maintaining that absolute power is the only important thing - what the outcomes of it are is irrelevant.

2 hours ago, 747-400 said:

There’s also questions over how quickly the EAG can assemble for (urgent) meetings. I have read recently about members not being available for meetings; they are all working professionals and maybe taking holidays themselves. 

That's true of any meeting of any group, but anyway the Minutes show that off-Island based EAG members (such as Peter Edge) normally participate remotely anyway.  And if these people are willing to give up their time for free, they'll be OK with meetings set up outside normal working hours.  And if our six-figure civil servants object to working past 16:30, tough.

[quilp]

20 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the whole team were put together to make the public think they were being very reasonable and fair to invite Dr Glover to participate. A sort of consolation prize for her, made to look like an olive branch from them.

The CoMin equivalent of the 'Crackerjack' pencil.

Tokenism in the extreme.

 

[Happier diner]

42 minutes ago, WTF said:

the latter, but it helps make government look like they care about what RG has to say.

 

23 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the whole team were put together to make the public think they were being very reasonable and fair to invite Dr Glover to participate. A sort of consolation prize for her, made to look like an olive branch from them.

No, I wouldn't be at all surprised. Spin, the whole bloody lot of it and while they're busy spinning (and it must take some hours in the week) they have no time left to do the right thing for the people rather than the right thing for themselves.

Oh, but that lovely Howie and gin o'clock and all that. And he kept us safe, he did for all those months...

It didn't take long for GEF to see that they were in bed with a load of incompetent shysters.

 

13 minutes ago, Zarley said:

I suspected as much when it was first announced that Dr Glover was to be a member of the EAG. I decided to give them the benefit of doubt, but sadly it's pretty damn obvious I should have just got on with being cynical. 

I think you are all wrong. What would have been the point of reconvening the EAG group. There position was made clear at the one meeting and its output. It was advice of caution and more waiting and seeing. Keeping the boarder closed.

I'm not saying they are wrong but government has taken a bold and courageous approach. Might end badly, might end well. But it was never in a million years going to be supported by the EAG so what would have been the point in asking.

[quilp]

So it's 'don't consult with the scientists we're doing it our way.'

Par for the course, really. 

[Sheldon]

9 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

it was never in a million years going to be supported by the EAG so what would have been the point in asking.

I started drafting a response that was intended to eviscerate that contention, and the mindset that underlies it throughout government, but it just wouldn't come out right. I tried again, and then again, and then eventually I realised that I couldn't counter it because you're absolutely right, which is perhaps the saddest outcome of all.

[Sheldon]

42 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

It didn't take long for GEF to see that they were in bed with a load of incompetent shysters.

People are still going to vote for Ashford, though.

[AcousticallyChallenged]

5 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

I think you are all wrong. What would have been the point of reconvening the EAG group. There position was made clear at the one meeting and its output. It was advice of caution and more waiting and seeing. Keeping the boarder closed.

I'm not saying they are wrong but government has taken a bold and courageous approach. Might end badly, might end well. But it was never in a million years going to be supported by the EAG so what would have been the point in asking.

That's factually incorrect. Moving back to Level 3 borders was a minority view.

https://www.gov.im/about-the-government/council-of-ministers/the-council-of-ministers/council-of-ministers-emergency-advisory-group-eag/

From their first advice to CoMin on the 9th June.

There was one person on the EAG who wanted to close the borders. The EAG actually list an exemption only for vaccinated travellers in their meetings as a discussion point for relaxing borders before opening them up to all. This was before 2+2 was announced.

The EAG essentially point out that the Manx public aren't used to measures outside of lockdowns, and that, a prudent messaging around ventilation, masks etc. would be advisable.

There's also discussion as to whether the guidance for not isolating close contacts should go as far as household members, or just those outside the house, and highlights that a less stringent approach lessens social and economic impacts.

From the 1st July:
Their criticisms center around the unclear messaging over who needs to isolate when when travelling, who can visit and isolate and who can't come to the island yet, as well as the access to first dose vaccinations for under 40s.

Misinformation being rife is another one of their concerns in that document.

[Gladys]

5 minutes ago, quilp said:

So it's 'don't consult with the scientists we're doing it our way.'

Par for the course, really. 

The EAG is not made up of scientists, there are other perspectives represented there.  What is the point if they are not consulted?  

[AlanShimmin]

What are people hoping to get out of 111? 

 

If you're seriously ill and have a positive result then it would be 999. 

If you've got no symptoms and a positive LFT then just isolate yourself for a bit.

[Gladys]

3 minutes ago, AlanShimmin said:

What are people hoping to get out of 111? 

 

If you're seriously ill and have a positive result then it would be 999. 

If you've got no symptoms and a positive LFT then just isolate yourself for a bit.

How do you get the LFT if you haven't been identified as a close contact?   What if you have mild symptoms?  What do you do about your work or other household members? That is what people are hoping to get out of 111.

[Happier diner]

22 minutes ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

That's factually incorrect. Moving back to Level 3 borders was a minority view.

https://www.gov.im/about-the-government/council-of-ministers/the-council-of-ministers/council-of-ministers-emergency-advisory-group-eag/

From their first advice to CoMin on the 9th June.

There was one person on the EAG who wanted to close the borders. The EAG actually list an exemption only for vaccinated travellers in their meetings as a discussion point for relaxing borders before opening them up to all. This was before 2+2 was announced.

The EAG essentially point out that the Manx public aren't used to measures outside of lockdowns, and that, a prudent messaging around ventilation, masks etc. would be advisable.

There's also discussion as to whether the guidance for not isolating close contacts should go as far as household members, or just those outside the house, and highlights that a less stringent approach lessens social and economic impacts.

From the 1st July:
Their criticisms center around the unclear messaging over who needs to isolate when when travelling, who can visit and isolate and who can't come to the island yet, as well as the access to first dose vaccinations for under 40s.

Misinformation being rife is another one of their concerns in that document.

Fair points and yes I see that arguement.

My overarching point though was that they did not want to know what the EAG thought as it was extremely unlikely to have supported the action.

Doesn't make it right no, but sometimes those who are in positions where decisions have to be made, have to make them and cannot dither for weeks trying to keep everyone happy.