IOM Covid removing restrictions

[Cambon]

25 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

The point clearly is that there are literally hundreds on the front line.  Probably thousands actually.   From hospitals, to Police.  To food stores where staff are passing by hundreds of people a day.

We need to deal in facts rather than paranoia and perfect world solutions.   

Totally agree. So here are the facts. 37 active cases, 21 in hospital, 1 at Abbotswood, 12 at Newlands plus 3 in the community. 2 awaiting testing. 

So basically, all but three known cases are contained at the hospital. Why those other three are not isolated there Christ knows. 

[Boo Gay'n]

6 minutes ago, Cambon said:

Why those other three are not isolated there Christ knows. 

Because they aren't very poorly?

[wrighty]

3 hours ago, Andy Onchan said:

But that's the same for other medical tests isn't it, diabetes, cholesterol etc? Any record of health/fitness is only as good as your last test but it's still done regularly for those who might be at risk. So until antibody tests and vaccines are available what other method is there to monitor and, more pertinently, control the virus? 

Tests are done for many reasons - acute diagnosis, screening, monitoring being 3 examples.  The two you refer to are for monitoring of chronic conditions, so they can be done monthly, yearly, whatever.  For an acute condition such as covid, and particularly with relation to staff, you want to know "has this staff member got covid right now and should they therefore be at home rather than at work".  If you had a suitable test, such that it could be done on the way in to work with a result in seconds, that had high sensitivity (and specificity - you don't want false positives being sent home for no reason), then we could use it.  In covid we don't.  So we're reliant on symptoms, and scrupulous infection control measures to prevent transmission in both directions.

[Max Power]

5 minutes ago, Uhtred said:

If, as was claimed, there's a positive case in respect of a Noble's worker, even though they and colleagues may have been in full PPE, I can't see why those who work closely with the infected person wouldn't be tested...symptoms or not. Given that the testing is on-Island and it was stated that 200 per day could be addressed, what's the problem in testing co-workers as a precautionary measure?

Exactly, the hospital is THE front line.

3 minutes ago, Cambon said:

Totally agree. So here are the facts. 37 active cases, 21 in hospital, 1 at Abbotswood, 12 at Newlands plus 3 in the community. 2 awaiting testing. 

So basically, all but three known cases are contained at the hospital. Why those other three are not isolated there Christ knows. 

I know someone at the hospital who was sent to self isolate and get tested as someone in their department was positive. I can't understand why this 'whistleblower' wasn't sent for testing? Maybe they were not in the affected department, but as with many things in my experience with the hospital, you get a different response depending on who you talk to! 

[the stinking enigma]

Since testing capacity was increased to 200 how many tests have we done per day on average?

[Andy Onchan]

2 minutes ago, wrighty said:

Tests are done for many reasons - acute diagnosis, screening, monitoring being 3 examples.  The two you refer to are for monitoring of chronic conditions, so they can be done monthly, yearly, whatever.  For an acute condition such as covid, and particularly with relation to staff, you want to know "has this staff member got covid right now and should they therefore be at home rather than at work".  If you had a suitable test, such that it could be done on the way in to work with a result in seconds, that had high sensitivity (and specificity - you don't want false positives being sent home for no reason), then we could use it.  In covid we don't.  So we're reliant on symptoms, and scrupulous infection control measures to prevent transmission in both directions.

I'm absolutely with you on the staff testing issue but the point I was alluding to was tests are not a waste of time if they are done regularly, say weekly for hospital & care home staff (as well as patients, which is already being done) and monthly for those in high contact areas such as shops etc. If I'm not mistaken there's still a lot that's unknown about this virus, for example what proportion of the population might be asymptomatic and how long for? Surely that and other data would be useful in determining how things should move forward in terms of the relaxation of the lockdown, especially where close contact is concerned, bars, nightclubs etc. South Korea being an example right now.        

[WTF]

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, the stinking enigma said:

Since testing capacity was increased to 200 how many tests have we done per day on average?

If you look at the seven-day rolling average for the number of tests since testing became fully localised on 20 April, then it remained in the low 60s, as it had been before that.  It went up a bit to around 70 last week with around 200 reported between  Tuesday and Wednesday.  I suspect this may have been caused by testing care home residents (as was mentioned on Monday) but has dropped since.  There were only 15 tests reported yesterday and 21 today.  So they've only ever been testing at a third of capacity.

What does strike me as odd is the big drop in those who are down as requesting a test, but who haven't yet been swabbed.  It's been ten or under for the last week.  You'd expect this to be fairly constant, but it was much higher in the past and dropped quite quickly.  Some of this must be down to those requesting getting  tested faster recently but (if you assume that temporary increase a week ago was a one-off) it suggests either less people are requesting or more are being triaged out.  Being fewer people actually with COVID-19 shouldn't make much difference, paradoxically, because the majority of those tested have always been negative.

[PaulJ]

[WTF]

miss Peel 2020 ?

[wrighty]

59 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

If you look at the seven-day rolling average for the number of tests since testing became fully localised on 20 April, then it remained in the low 60s, as it had been before that.  It went up a bit to around 70 last week with around 200 reported between  Tuesday and Wednesday.  I suspect this may have been caused by testing care home residents (as was mentioned on Monday) but has dropped since.  There were only 15 tests reported yesterday and 21 today.  So they've only ever been testing at a third of capacity.

What does strike me as odd is the big drop in those who are down as requesting a test, but who haven't yet been swabbed.  It's been ten or under for the last week.  You'd expect this to be fairly constant, but it was much higher in the past and dropped quite quickly.  Some of this must be down to those requesting getting  tested faster recently but (if you assume that temporary increase a week ago was a one-off) it suggests either less people are requesting or more are being triaged out.  Being fewer people actually with COVID-19 shouldn't make much difference, paradoxically, because the majority of those tested have always been negative.

We’re moving out of cold and flu season. It’s only natural fewer people are needing tests. And, perhaps covid-19 is seasonal too, who knows? Perhaps why Aus, NZ and SA have done so well, so far. 

[Manximus Aururaneus]

Interesting to see that Oxford University are saying that UK Covid might not actually classify as an epidemic.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/11/coronavirus-no-longer-epidemic-uk-oxford-study-finds-cases-falling/

[John Wright]

3 hours ago, the stinking enigma said:

Since testing capacity was increased to 200 how many tests have we done per day on average?

We’ve done 1298 in 21 days since capacity increased to 200

[w_n_f]

4 minutes ago, John Wright said:

We’ve done 1298 in 21 days since capacity increased to 200

An average of about 62 per day or 31% of testing capacity. We could be testing 3 times more people with current capacity. 

[P.K.]

4 minutes ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

Interesting to see that Oxford University are saying that UK Covid might not actually classify as an epidemic.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/11/coronavirus-no-longer-epidemic-uk-oxford-study-finds-cases-falling/

What difference does playing semantics make to the highest number of fatalities in Europe?