IOM Covid removing restrictions

[the stinking enigma]

2 hours ago, Itsmeee said:

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/further-10-covid-related-deaths-confirmed/
 

stand back and watch the howling!

I don't see it. Why must people like you always include this caveat?

[TheTeapot]

Like seriously, what is the end game for these people? 

 

[Out of the blue]

Travel restrictions within CTA effectively removed from 16th Sept. Still require landing cards but no permits exemption or testing/quarantine. 

[Ham_N_Eggs]

 

1 hour ago, Out of the blue said:

Travel restrictions within CTA effectively removed from 16th Sept. Still require landing cards but no permits exemption or testing/quarantine. 

Well they had to do something to take the focus off the fuck up with the deaths.

[Roger Mexico]

3 hours ago, Numbnuts said:

I do. They should have procedures in place to establish cause of death before Covid reared its head. A procedure to make sure guidelines are there to stop this happening. And then to take this long to re visit the issue is just wrong on so many levels . 

Well of course they do have procedures to establish cause of death.  These don't just proceed Covid they go back to 1878 and the compulsory registration of deaths.  That's why if you read contemporary newspaper accounts of the post WWI flu epidemic on the Island they have the numbers of deaths in them.

What has been completely lacking until recently has been any analysis or comparison with other places to see how well or badly we are doing.  Ewart was horrified to find how little public health information there was when she can here.  But analysis of death certificates was outsourced to the UK where there who were more used to doing this sort of analysis and because they wanted the analyse previous years as well.

I've frequently quoted on here from the weekly figures for England and Wales produced each Tuesday based on death certificates (not just for Covid of course - all deaths are included.   If you had wanted to produce weekly figures just for Covid it should be easy enough - there's normally less than 20 deaths a week on the Island in total - how difficult can it be to examine 20 death certificates?  So the fact that these figures are only starting to be published now, 18 months after the start of the pandemic, tells us that they've not been keen to tell the public what the truth is.

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

Well of course they do have procedures to establish cause of death.  These don't just proceed Covid they go back to 1878 and the compulsory registration of deaths.  That's why if you read contemporary newspaper accounts of the post WWI flu epidemic on the Island they have the numbers of deaths in them.

What has been completely lacking until recently has been any analysis or comparison with other places to see how well or badly we are doing.  Ewart was horrified to find how little public health information there was when she can here.  But analysis of death certificates was outsourced to the UK where there who were more used to doing this sort of analysis and because they wanted the analyse previous years as well.

I've frequently quoted on here from the weekly figures for England and Wales produced each Tuesday based on death certificates (not just for Covid of course - all deaths are included.   If you had wanted to produce weekly figures just for Covid it should be easy enough - there's normally less than 20 deaths a week on the Island in total - how difficult can it be to examine 20 death certificates?  So the fact that these figures are only starting to be published now, 18 months after the start of the pandemic, tells us that they've not been keen to tell the public what the truth is.

Do you think they have been hiding the truth, or have just been naive in how the data should have been gathered?

The argument is that they are only doing what the UK is doing by reviewing causes of death since the start of last year.  TBH, I don't know what purpose it has served, other than to call into question the veracity of information that has been previously provided. 

It would be interesting to know when these additional deaths occurred. 

[asitis]

Another clear as mud dissemination of information. I have no idea why it has to be like this, except to say if Comin told me it was daylight, I would have to go outside to make sure !

[TheTeapot]

Denmark has decided that owing to high vaccination rates the pandemic no longer classes as a societal risk. 

Any chance people here can come to the same conclusion please?

[Roger Mexico]

16 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Do you think they have been hiding the truth, or have just been naive in how the data should have been gathered?

The argument is that they are only doing what the UK is doing by reviewing causes of death since the start of last year.  TBH, I don't know what purpose it has served, other than to call into question the veracity of information that has been previously provided. 

It would be interesting to know when these additional deaths occurred. 

My basic point was that they have taken so long to produce something that could be done so easily, it can't really be naivety.  Especially when there was a clear and much discussed parallel data series in the UK.  So there must have been a decision, probably political, not to publish.

In addition one of the things I'm suspicious about is your last point.  They're claiming that there have been ten additional unreported Covid deaths since the start of 2020.  But no less than six of these effectively occurred in the last month[1].  You'd expect this sort of mistake to happen mainly in the chaos of the initial outbreak, not when all the systems should be all sorted out, 18 months later.

 

[1]  One was on 1 September and one may have happened just before the start of the month - it's difficult to match up the death certificate dates with the dates of reporting on the dashboard and via the rather formulaic and unfeeling way government social media mentioned them. 

[Numbnuts]

33 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

Denmark has decided that owing to high vaccination rates the pandemic no longer classes as a societal risk. 

Any chance people here can come to the same conclusion please?

Was in a local resturant tonight and occupants of  two adjacent tables were discussing Covid most of the night and who had and hadn't the vaccine / tests etc the full nine yards . I mean why just why !! Mind blowing and were paying upwards of £60 a head for the privilege. 

[Roger Mexico]

3 minutes ago, Numbnuts said:

Was in a local resturant tonight and occupants of  two adjacent tables were discussing Covid most of the night and who had and hadn't the vaccine / tests etc the full nine yards . I mean why just why !! Mind blowing and were paying upwards of £60 a head for the privilege. 

Well pre-Covid the same people might have been discussing their operations.  So this may be an improvement.

[Gladys]

3 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

My basic point was that they have taken so long to produce something that could be done so easily, it can't really be naivety.  Especially when there was a clear and much discussed parallel data series in the UK.  So there must have been a decision, probably political, not to publish.

In addition one of the things I'm suspicious about is your last point.  They're claiming that there have been ten additional unreported Covid deaths since the start of 2020.  But no less than six of these effectively occurred in the last month[1].  You'd expect this sort of mistake to happen mainly in the chaos of the initial outbreak, not when all the systems should be all sorted out, 18 months later.

 

[1]  One was on 1 September and one may have happened just before the start of the month - it's difficult to match up the death certificate dates with the dates of reporting on the dashboard and via the rather formulaic and unfeeling way government social media mentioned them. 

No, I agree with you, it should be a relatively easy and quick exercise. I just wonder at the motivation.  

My comments are, of course, with due respect for the family and friends.  We shouldn't forget that behind the statistics there is loss.  

That makes it somewhat more hard to fathom. 

[TheTeapot]

9 minutes ago, Gladys said:

No, I agree with you, it should be a relatively easy and quick exercise. I just wonder at the motivation.  

My comments are, of course, with due respect for the family and friends.  We shouldn't forget that behind the statistics there is loss.  

That makes it somewhat more hard to fathom. 

That's the thing, of course there is a loss, people die, but apparently if you think the time has come to let all restrictions go you are heartless.

 

[TheTeapot]

Here I am being heartless again. Had your two jabs? Sort your head out.

[The Old Git]

6 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:[1]  One was on 1 September and one may have happened just before the start of the month - it's difficult to match up the death certificate dates with the dates of reporting on the dashboard and via the rather formulaic and unfeeling way government social media mentioned them. 

Didn’t Manx Radio gives the deaths as

“Deaths on 22 and 24 August, as well as 1 September, have been included since last week’s report.”

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/govt-figures-show-three-further-covid-deaths/