IOM Covid removing restrictions

[NoTailT]

11 minutes ago, AlanShimmin said:

@rachomicsany chance you could get back to me about whether you are contracted to supply materials to Government for testing? 

Didn't Ashford say at a briefing they had a new supplier that was a lot cheaper?

[Danoo]

18 minutes ago, AlanShimmin said:

@rachomicsany chance you could get back to me about whether you are contracted to supply materials to Government for testing? 

Why would she tell a random bloke on the internet?

[AlanShimmin]

1 minute ago, Danoo said:

Why would she tell a random bloke on the internet?

The good doctor has been open about pretty much everything else to do with Government. 

[Roger Mexico]

21 minutes ago, AlanShimmin said:

@rachomicsany chance you could get back to me about whether you are contracted to supply materials to Government for testing? 

From memory her company only ever supplied the testing materials to the Government to help them out because they didn't have the knowledge or the contacts to get their own when testing was being set up.  They also supplied at cost price.  I think this stopped last Autumn, but it was discussed around that time and in her testimony to the PAC.

When anyone ever asks for proof of your assertions, you say they should do your own research.  Maybe @rachomics would say the same back to you?

[AlanShimmin]

9 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

When anyone ever asks for proof of your assertions, you say they should do your own research.  Maybe @rachomics would say the same back to you?

Research is ongoing. Thanks for your concern fella.

[The Chief]

.

Edited August 11, 2021 by The Chief

[kevster]

3 minutes ago, The Chief said:

so no 4pm social media updates from 3FM, IOM Today or Manx Radio would suggest numbers dropped again, nothing to doommonger about and nothing for the lockdown junkies to get their teeth into.

Check the dashboard and only 71 +ve results, funny that, if it was 171 it would be splashed all over FB and Twitter.

That's yesterdays data - hasn't been updated yet today

[Dave Hedgehog]

3 minutes ago, The Chief said:

so no 4pm social media updates from 3FM, IOM Today or Manx Radio would suggest numbers dropped again, nothing to doommonger about and nothing for the lockdown junkies to get their teeth into.

Check the dashboard and only 71 +ve results, funny that, if it was 171 it would be splashed all over FB and Twitter.

Or it could be that the dashboard hasn't been updated today yet

[the stinking enigma]

I wouldn't worry too much the chief. You are not even the first person to make a twat out of themselves quoting that very days figures while doom monger baiting.

[the stinking enigma]

Its being updated, ashie hasn't flicked the death switch game show style yet. These things are very complicated.

[Roger Mexico]

Now updated :

One more in Hospital, despite being initially two down from the deaths.  And we don't really know how many are actually in the Hospital but not being counted because they are 10 days past testing positive or it's been decided that they are not really there from Covid.

[Gladys]

14 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Now updated :

One more in Hospital, despite being initially two down from the deaths.  And we don't really know how many are actually in the Hospital but not being counted because they are 10 days past testing positive or it's been decided that they are not really there from Covid.

Yes, we do.  Ashie said at the last briefing that people on hospital who have tested positive do not drop off the figure at 10 days. 

[AlanShimmin]

14 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Yes, we do.  Ashie said at the last briefing that people on hospital who have tested positive do not drop off the figure at 10 days. 

Don't try to undo their conspiracy theories with facts. 

[the stinking enigma]

Maybe he was meaning we would start to do it that way in a couple of weeks time

[Happier diner]

5 hours ago, Danoo said:

It is THE crux of the argument. If the viral load is so low your body doesn't even bother mounting an immune response against it, it is almost impossible to be spreading any, unless you French kiss everyone you walk past.  

If you read the thread the 'crux' was about the difference in how unvaccinated and vaccinated people present different risks in how much they might infect other people. What @Zarleysays is correct but it wasnt the discussion. I am not saying viral load is not a factor, of course it is, but in my view in a different context.

How infectious someone is, is dependent upon many factors. This being just one of them. The infection process and the lifecycle of the virus and the illness it causes in the body is complex and there are many other factors. 

IMO viral load is a misleading phrase and is not properly understood by many.

In the lifecycle of the illness there is a peak in how infectious someone becomes. This is when the virus has replicated to a point when the infected person is literally spreading it everywhere. Because a vaccinated persons system would kill off the virus in a shorter time as the same person would unvaccinated you would expect that period to be shorter and at a lower level. If you want to refer to that as viral load then ok, but other factors such as rate of  coughing/sneezing are probably just as important.