IOM Covid removing restrictions

[WTF]

49 minutes ago, wrighty said:

Examples?

England .

[Happier diner]

52 minutes ago, wrighty said:

Examples?

Jersey

[Max Power]

We are in good hands...

[Happier diner]

52 minutes ago, wrighty said:

Examples?

Are you agreeing that we would not have had PCR testing up and running by now without DrG?

Not much of a vote of confidence in your employer

I reiterate that I am sure DrGs contribution was massive. But there are no DrGs in every other country in the world.

[Petefella]

4 hours ago, Gladys said:

Aren't most Tweets attention seeking? 

She can Tweet as much as she likes, as far as I am concerned.  On matters relating to microbiology/genomics, I will bow to her superior knowledge and PhD.  On other matters, I may disagree with her opinion, and I don't need a PhD to do so. 

That’s very much what I said I agree with you. Her PHD is irrelevant when it comes to making statements about peoples behaviour on Facebook. But then a load of posters piled in to try to create a bun fight around a very clear statement. You can also use social media in an attention seeking way which I think has been done after surfing the initial and rightful public outrage about how she was treated by Quayle and Ashford (and probably the Chief Secretary). 

[Happier diner]

58 minutes ago, wrighty said:

Examples?

Oh and Guernsey. By 30th March they had a test facility up and running. 

[cissolt]

1 hour ago, Happier diner said:

You don't know any if that to be a fact. Of course it's history now, but all sorts of backwards places all over the world had PCR testing up within weeks. Do you really believe that IOM, even with its so called gov workers, would have taken months. What utter nonsense. 

Yes.  Perhaps you should listen to the public accounts committee sittings and draw your conclusion based on evidence rather than your biased view as a civil servant.

Machine was on order and wouldn't be available until the end of April.

https://gef.im/2021/04/02/dr-glover-the-nitty-gritty-of-testing/

Also if you listened to the PAC evidence, they spent weeks and weeks trying to get the 'codes' from the robot manufacturer, which didn't work.  They then copied Dr Glover's code from her repository and pretended to have written it. 

[P.K.]

Some people are motivated and can focus entirely on the requirement and then they make things happen and get things done.

In my experience these people are wasted in Public Service and they know it. So if that's where they find themselves then they leave.

I'm absolutely certain that the now infamous letter, if authentic, was generated by a "not invented here" coupled with a "we don't work that way" ego that was bruised by someone simply getting on with what needed doing irrespective of the niceties that some folks wrongly expected.

Well thank goodness for that I say.

I suspect Mr Ashfield was mindful not only of the fact that he needs to work with these people but also that these people are voters....

[Itsmeee]

1 hour ago, Roxanne said:

You’re wrong. 

I don’t know Rachel but I know women and men like her. In fact, part of my life now is supporting men and women who have experienced narcissistic abuse and I would say, what she is doing now is fairly typical of a victim who has been the subject of an excellent (got to give credit where credit is due) long-term smear campaign.

The bottom line is that she knew more than them. The them I’m talking about here are Quayle, Ashford and Henny. I think Quayle and Henny could have just about coped with that but Ashford, Professor of covid, genomics and probably every other medical condition could not. 

The bottom line (yes, another one) was that she showed him up and made him look foolish and to an individual like Ashford, that will never be tolerated and the person doing the showing up must pay. And she has - dearly.

I said I don’t know her but I once had the privilege of joining her on a zoom call and saw an incredible young woman who has the needs of the Island and it’s people at the very forefront of her thoughts. There was little ego there.

So why is she still shouting? Most of them do. The injury caused by ‘love bombing’ (we love you Rachel, we need you Rachel, you’re the best Rachel) followed by devaluation, followed by discard followed by smear campaign is acute.

If you’ve never experienced it you will never understand. It’s a pain like no other. 

In my work, I advise clients to rise above it. Take the moral high ground. Talk to no-one about it. I advise it but it rarely happens.

These individuals take all that is good about you and turn it to shit. For their victims, the longing to put the record straight, the longing for ‘revenge’, is strong and almost impossible to ignore. I don’t approve of her response and have told her so. I do think she has made a very bad situation worse by her chosen response but I do understand why she’s doing it.

When you laugh at her, when you mock her, judge and deride her, you are doing it to every person who has been subjected to emotional abuse. 

Her response, of course, is just exactly the response that they hoped for. Look at the mad woman. Look at her on Twitter. I’m not surprised the government let her go, look, she’s an egotistical maniac.

It’s happening all over the world right now to thousands and millions of people and it’s also happening to Rachel.

Just something to think about - from the eyes of someone who knows. 

And @rachomics, please don’t tar all of us with the same brush. You’d be surprised if you knew how many people can see exactly what has happened. 

Excellent post @Roxanne. Thank you 

[Happier diner]

14 minutes ago, cissolt said:

Yes.  Perhaps you should listen to the public accounts committee sittings and draw your conclusion based on evidence rather than your biased view as a civil servant.

Machine was on order and wouldn't be available until the end of April.

https://gef.im/2021/04/02/dr-glover-the-nitty-gritty-of-testing/

Also if you listened to the PAC evidence, they spent weeks and weeks trying to get the 'codes' from the robot manufacturer, which didn't work.  They then copied Dr Glover's code from her repository and pretended to have written it. 

How do you explain how Guernsey managed so well? Do they have a clone? No, they got support from the UK government (by request). How can you think that someone is indispensable. 

NO ONE IS INDISPENSABLE

[Happier diner]

20 minutes ago, cissolt said:

Yes.  Perhaps you should listen to the public accounts committee sittings and draw your conclusion based on evidence rather than your biased view as a civil servant.

 

BTW. I am not, and never have been a civil servant.

[P.K.]

2 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

How do you explain how Guernsey managed so well? Do they have a clone? No, they got support from the UK government (by request). How can you think that someone is indispensable. 

NO ONE IS INDISPENSABLE

But if their skills, knowledge and behaviors are crucial to your workplace sure you can get rid of them but your bottom line may suffer as a result.

So it's not about if they are indispensable or not. It's actually all about is something worth doing?

[Happier diner]

3 minutes ago, P.K. said:

But if their skills, knowledge and behaviors are crucial to your workplace sure you can get rid of them but your bottom line may suffer as a result.

So it's not about if they are indispensable or not. It's actually all about is something worth doing?

I don't dispute that. I agree. Did you read what I actually posted?

[P.K.]

4 hours ago, thommo2010 said:

 

Hard to believe folks pay actual money for that load of old nonsense. Scary too. 

Reality:

Omicron still threat to NHS despite ‘good news’, says health service chief

Two studies show people may be at less risk from latest Covid variant but ‘we don’t have conclusive data’

The first UK data of its kind found that the Omicron variant of coronavirus does indeed appear to be milder, with a 20%-25% reduced chance of a hospital visit and at least a 40% lower risk of being admitted overnight.

In what was described by scientists as a “qualified good news story”, two studies on Wednesday pointed to a lower risk of hospitalisation with Omicron.

An Imperial College outbreak modelling team led by Prof Neil Ferguson analysed hospitalisations and vaccine records among all PCR-confirmed Covid cases in England between 1 and 14 December. The dataset included 56,000 cases of Omicron and 269,000 cases of Delta.

Sajid Javid also said he welcomed studies which have suggested the Omicron variant may cause less severe illness than earlier strains but warned it could still lead to “significant” hospital admissions.

“That is, of course, good, encouraging news. They are not very clear yet though by how much that risk is reduced,” he said, adding:

We do know with Omicron that it does spread a lot more quickly, it is a lot more infectious than Delta, so any advantage gained from reduced risk of hospitalisation needs to be set against that.

If a much smaller percentage of people are at risk of hospitalisation, if that is a smaller percentage of a much larger number, there could still be significant hospitalisation.

[P.K.]

13 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

I don't dispute that. I agree. Did you read what I actually posted?

Yes.