IOM Covid removing restrictions

[Banker]

1 minute ago, Neil Down said:

Shush child, we’re your landlord

I’m probably yours , got a few loud mouths renting 

[Banker]

1 minute ago, TheTeapot said:

Well that seals it, I'll not be going away then.

Did see one woman pouring a mini bottle of wine into a plastic glass though 😀

[trmpton]

14 minutes ago, Barlow said:

Well keep in touch with them Get yourself a test of what it is like to live in UK just now.

If they could, there are many people would move here as soon as possible.

I was speaking to someone yesterday who has been trying for ages to move back here and even though they already have a house here it was a struggle. We were chatting in a  busy pub as it happens, they said the freedom of being able to move about, go shopping etc without worrying if you were doing the right thing is bliss.

I wish people would realise what freedoms we have here just now. Chrissake, just read the national papers watch some TV.

Or just go to your dreamsville UK.

The irony.

If people could move here easily snd then still go back to visit family then we wouldn’t be in this mess

[wrighty]

The debate in this thread is going nowhere.  It seems to be very polarised - "keep the borders closed, we're doing great" vs "keeping the borders shut is killing us, let's do a Jersey".  It's a bit more nuanced, as usual.

Jersey are definitely taking a risk with their day 1 test policy.  It's a fact that they'll miss as many positive cases as they find doing it that way.  That may well not be many - even in the worst places in the UK the infection rate is only 1 in 400.  Most of the UK is a lot less than that.  It may be a calculated risk - it seems that Jersey need tourists more than we do, so that's their choice.  Good luck to them.

Over here we're very lucky to have achieved local elimination of the virus.  I'm very confident that that's what we have - there have been no cases coming through the hospital, and everyone is getting tested.  If we had covid 'in the wild' here we'd have seen some by now.  And the food and drink festival was almost 2 weeks ago.  With 16000 there over two days, it was ripe for a 'super-spreader' event and we've still seen nothing.

Talking of that super-spreader phenomenon, it works both ways.  The problem with focusing on R is that it's trying to encompass a whole range of behaviour, living conditions, immunity and virus characteristics into a single number.  But it's not the case that each infected person spreads to 2.5 others (or whatever the initial estimates turn out to be).  There are super-spreaders - highly social people, who for some reason are good at spreading the virus to loads of others.  The converse of this is that these individuals are also likely to be super-catchers.  They're going to get it early on in the pandemic because they're out partying every night - they've probably all had it by now.  Poor loners sitting at home tapping away on their laptops with zero social life (like me tonight!) are less likely to catch covid, and less likely to pass it on if they do as they have no friends.  So it's likely that there'll be no more super-spreading. 

It's also the case that the initial local epidemics were the result of multiple seedings of infection.  I'm sure I've seen somewhere that there were 10000 distinct viral lineages that hit the UK almost simultaneously.  That's impossible to track and trace.  Over here, I'm hearing that the number is likely to be several dozen of separate infected people arriving here in late March.

We should therefore be able to cope with 1 or 2 per week (which you'd expect given UK prevalence and numbers likely to travel here) given that they're extremely unlikely to be super-spreaders.

I'd like to see an economic argument for opening up - I'm not convinced that it'll make much difference to our economy, as most of the problems are due to the situation in the UK rather than our border restrictions.  I don't think Brexit fears are at all relevant to be honest PK.  But the societal benefits are clear, and if we can do it with only a small increased risk then we should.

So here's what I'd do.  I'd open up - with restrictions.  Visitors can come over - freely - but need to register where they are going to be, not go to pubs or care homes, wear masks in shops and do their best to distance, until tested at day 7.  If negative - crack on, go to pubs etc, if positive and well then carry on with the precautions and trace their previous contacts.  Continue with active surveillance at the hospital, and regularly test care home staff while having strict precautions for visitors.

Until we have such a system, I'd also stop locking up people for infringements of the rules, unless completely reckless.  So stopping off to buy cans in the spar shop, if wearing a mask and being careful - slap on the wrist, fine, send home.  Going on a major pub crawl, no effort at distancing, telling the police to F off when challenged about it - they can be put into isolation in Jurby.

 

[Barlow]

8 minutes ago, trmpton said:

The irony.

If people could move here easily snd then still go back to visit family then we wouldn’t be in this mess

It's a dichotomy. There are people who own houses here and can't get back without jumping through hoops. And of course people who are 'Manx' too. Once you start such as letting people in and out more towards a basis of willy-nilly, then the place becomes less desirable. But please see the point of view that life on the Isle of Man just now is much better than the somewhat hellish, curtain twitching UK.

 

[Neil Down]

3 minutes ago, wrighty said:

The debate in this thread is going nowhere.  It seems to be very polarised - "keep the borders closed, we're doing great" vs "keeping the borders shut is killing us, let's do a Jersey".  It's a bit more nuanced, as usual.

Jersey are definitely taking a risk with their day 1 test policy.  It's a fact that they'll miss as many positive cases as they find doing it that way.  That may well not be many - even in the worst places in the UK the infection rate is only 1 in 400.  Most of the UK is a lot less than that.  It may be a calculated risk - it seems that Jersey need tourists more than we do, so that's their choice.  Good luck to them.

Over here we're very lucky to have achieved local elimination of the virus.  I'm very confident that that's what we have - there have been no cases coming through the hospital, and everyone is getting tested.  If we had covid 'in the wild' here we'd have seen some by now.  And the food and drink festival was almost 2 weeks ago.  With 16000 there over two days, it was ripe for a 'super-spreader' event and we've still seen nothing.

Talking of that super-spreader phenomenon, it works both ways.  The problem with focusing on R is that it's trying to encompass a whole range of behaviour, living conditions, immunity and virus characteristics into a single number.  But it's not the case that each infected person spreads to 2.5 others (or whatever the initial estimates turn out to be).  There are super-spreaders - highly social people, who for some reason are good at spreading the virus to loads of others.  The converse of this is that these individuals are also likely to be super-catchers.  They're going to get it early on in the pandemic because they're out partying every night - they've probably all had it by now.  Poor loners sitting at home tapping away on their laptops with zero social life (like me tonight!) are less likely to catch covid, and less likely to pass it on if they do as they have no friends.  So it's likely that there'll be no more super-spreading. 

It's also the case that the initial local epidemics were the result of multiple seedings of infection.  I'm sure I've seen somewhere that there were 10000 distinct viral lineages that hit the UK almost simultaneously.  That's impossible to track and trace.  Over here, I'm hearing that the number is likely to be several dozen of separate infected people arriving here in late March.

We should therefore be able to cope with 1 or 2 per week (which you'd expect given UK prevalence and numbers likely to travel here) given that they're extremely unlikely to be super-spreaders.

I'd like to see an economic argument for opening up - I'm not convinced that it'll make much difference to our economy, as most of the problems are due to the situation in the UK rather than our border restrictions.  I don't think Brexit fears are at all relevant to be honest PK.  But the societal benefits are clear, and if we can do it with only a small increased risk then we should.

So here's what I'd do.  I'd open up - with restrictions.  Visitors can come over - freely - but need to register where they are going to be, not go to pubs or care homes, wear masks in shops and do their best to distance, until tested at day 7.  If negative - crack on, go to pubs etc, if positive and well then carry on with the precautions and trace their previous contacts.  Continue with active surveillance at the hospital, and regularly test care home staff while having strict precautions for visitors.

Until we have such a system, I'd also stop locking up people for infringements of the rules, unless completely reckless.  So stopping off to buy cans in the spar shop, if wearing a mask and being careful - slap on the wrist, fine, send home.  Going on a major pub crawl, no effort at distancing, telling the police to F off when challenged about it - they can be put into isolation in Jurby.

 

This thread has been going nowhere for the last 400 pages...

[Banker]

4 minutes ago, wrighty said:

The debate in this thread is going nowhere.  It seems to be very polarised - "keep the borders closed, we're doing great" vs "keeping the borders shut is killing us, let's do a Jersey".  It's a bit more nuanced, as usual.

Jersey are definitely taking a risk with their day 1 test policy.  It's a fact that they'll miss as many positive cases as they find doing it that way.  That may well not be many - even in the worst places in the UK the infection rate is only 1 in 400.  Most of the UK is a lot less than that.  It may be a calculated risk - it seems that Jersey need tourists more than we do, so that's their choice.  Good luck to them.

Over here we're very lucky to have achieved local elimination of the virus.  I'm very confident that that's what we have - there have been no cases coming through the hospital, and everyone is getting tested.  If we had covid 'in the wild' here we'd have seen some by now.  And the food and drink festival was almost 2 weeks ago.  With 16000 there over two days, it was ripe for a 'super-spreader' event and we've still seen nothing.

Talking of that super-spreader phenomenon, it works both ways.  The problem with focusing on R is that it's trying to encompass a whole range of behaviour, living conditions, immunity and virus characteristics into a single number.  But it's not the case that each infected person spreads to 2.5 others (or whatever the initial estimates turn out to be).  There are super-spreaders - highly social people, who for some reason are good at spreading the virus to loads of others.  The converse of this is that these individuals are also likely to be super-catchers.  They're going to get it early on in the pandemic because they're out partying every night - they've probably all had it by now.  Poor loners sitting at home tapping away on their laptops with zero social life (like me tonight!) are less likely to catch covid, and less likely to pass it on if they do as they have no friends.  So it's likely that there'll be no more super-spreading. 

It's also the case that the initial local epidemics were the result of multiple seedings of infection.  I'm sure I've seen somewhere that there were 10000 distinct viral lineages that hit the UK almost simultaneously.  That's impossible to track and trace.  Over here, I'm hearing that the number is likely to be several dozen of separate infected people arriving here in late March.

We should therefore be able to cope with 1 or 2 per week (which you'd expect given UK prevalence and numbers likely to travel here) given that they're extremely unlikely to be super-spreaders.

I'd like to see an economic argument for opening up - I'm not convinced that it'll make much difference to our economy, as most of the problems are due to the situation in the UK rather than our border restrictions.  I don't think Brexit fears are at all relevant to be honest PK.  But the societal benefits are clear, and if we can do it with only a small increased risk then we should.

So here's what I'd do.  I'd open up - with restrictions.  Visitors can come over - freely - but need to register where they are going to be, not go to pubs or care homes, wear masks in shops and do their best to distance, until tested at day 7.  If negative - crack on, go to pubs etc, if positive and well then carry on with the precautions and trace their previous contacts.  Continue with active surveillance at the hospital, and regularly test care home staff while having strict precautions for visitors.

Until we have such a system, I'd also stop locking up people for infringements of the rules, unless completely reckless.  So stopping off to buy cans in the spar shop, if wearing a mask and being careful - slap on the wrist, fine, send home.  Going on a major pub crawl, no effort at distancing, telling the police to F off when challenged about it - they can be put into isolation in Jurby.

 

Thanks for posting a reasoned response, perhaps you could pass this advice to Howie & Ashie ?

[wrighty]

Just now, Banker said:

Thanks for posting a reasoned response, perhaps you could pass this advice to Howie & Ashie ?

I'm sure I just did.

[Barlow]

5 minutes ago, wrighty said:

.....

So here's what I'd do.  I'd open up - with restrictions.  Visitors can come over - freely - but need to register where they are going to be, not go to pubs or care homes, wear masks in shops and do their best to distance, until tested at day 7.  If negative - crack on, go to pubs etc, if positive and well then carry on with the precautions and trace their previous contacts.  Continue with active surveillance at the hospital, and regularly test care home staff while having strict precautions for visitors.

Until we have such a system, I'd also stop locking up people for infringements of the rules, unless completely reckless.  So stopping off to buy cans in the spar shop, if wearing a mask and being careful - slap on the wrist, fine, send home.  Going on a major pub crawl, no effort at distancing, telling the police to F off when challenged about it - they can be put into isolation in Jurby.

 

An excellent post wrighty. Then you blew it in the final two paragraphs.

As far as Covid-19 is concerned, generally people are dickheads. The UK is full of them. Your rules are nice and theoretical but would never work, could never work. People are dickheads.
And forget the hospital bed spaces, it's the prison spaces we're gonna be short of.

[thesultanofsheight]

11 minutes ago, wrighty said:

The debate in this thread is going nowhere.  It seems to be very polarised - "keep the borders closed, we're doing great" vs "keeping the borders shut is killing us, let's do a Jersey".  It's a bit more nuanced, as usual.

Jersey are definitely taking a risk with their day 1 test policy.  It's a fact that they'll miss as many positive cases as they find doing it that way.  That may well not be many - even in the worst places in the UK the infection rate is only 1 in 400.  Most of the UK is a lot less than that.  It may be a calculated risk - it seems that Jersey need tourists more than we do, so that's their choice.  Good luck to them.

So what miracle do you think exists as to why it’s not arrived here then as the actual checking of people observing the rules is arbitrary to say the least? 

Edited October 1, 2020 by thesultanofsheight

[P.K.]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

To be frank, PK, you have done nothing but snipe, harange and hector throughout this debate. People have tried to explain their position,  but your response are always dismissive (see your last comment above) and demanding, yes, DEMANDING, a reply to some impossible question or 'facts'.   Yet you don't reply to questions.

You have to understand that people have real concerns about how this is going to pan out, you have your concerns, but allow others to voice theirs without putting them through some kind of interrogatory pummelling. 

In reply to the thrust of your reply above, the best legislation is the one that meets most people's legitimate objectives and is one that most people will say 'that's fair enough overall, not exactly what I want, but I can live with it'.

To be frank you seem to have a short term memory problem:

 

6 hours ago, P.K. said:

So your particular issue seems to be that your preference is for family to visit you because of your personal circumstances to wit self-employed?

Well I can certainly sympathise with that and I do.

But there's a pandemic on which changes everything. Unfortunately....

 

3 hours ago, P.K. said:

I can well sympathise with those caught between a rock and a hard place but sometimes we make decisions that due to circumstances beyond our control turn out to be not so clever.

Which is no-one's fault really...

 

3 hours ago, P.K. said:

Redundancies etc are absolutely awful having been there myself but again is it down to the borders or just the general malaise of covid and brexit?

At least I'm honest....

[trmpton]

22 minutes ago, Barlow said:

It's a dichotomy. There are people who own houses here and can't get back without jumping through hoops. And of course people who are 'Manx' too. Once you start such as letting people in and out more towards a basis of willy-nilly, then the place becomes less desirable. But please see the point of view that life on the Isle of Man just now is much better than the somewhat hellish, curtain twitching UK.

 

I get that.

How is life on Jersey?

They have common sense and the best of both worlds.  I would move there tomorrow if I could and if I didn’t have kids here.

I also think we have much more “curtain twitching”

Reporting people who are wearing  masks in a shop, who don’t have Covid, who were due to go home today, who we now have to all pay to keep at Jurby for two weeks, plus the police and court costs!

Thats embarrassing 

Edited October 1, 2020 by trmpton

[wrighty]

1 minute ago, thesultanofsheight said:

So what miracle do you think exists as to why it’s not arrived here then as the actual checking of people observing the rules is arbitrary to day the least? 

Because the vast majority of people who arrive here won't have coronavirus (perhaps 1 in 1000 does?), the majority of those that do will behave themselves, and the majority of those that don't won't pass it on (much) in any case.  It's not a miracle. 

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

23 minutes ago, wrighty said:

The debate in this thread is going nowhere.  It seems to be very polarised - "keep the borders closed, we're doing great" vs "keeping the borders shut is killing us, let's do a Jersey".  It's a bit more nuanced, as usual.

Jersey are definitely taking a risk with their day 1 test policy.  It's a fact that they'll miss as many positive cases as they find doing it that way.  That may well not be many - even in the worst places in the UK the infection rate is only 1 in 400.  Most of the UK is a lot less than that.  It may be a calculated risk - it seems that Jersey need tourists more than we do, so that's their choice.  Good luck to them.

Over here we're very lucky to have achieved local elimination of the virus.  I'm very confident that that's what we have - there have been no cases coming through the hospital, and everyone is getting tested.  If we had covid 'in the wild' here we'd have seen some by now.  And the food and drink festival was almost 2 weeks ago.  With 16000 there over two days, it was ripe for a 'super-spreader' event and we've still seen nothing.

Talking of that super-spreader phenomenon, it works both ways.  The problem with focusing on R is that it's trying to encompass a whole range of behaviour, living conditions, immunity and virus characteristics into a single number.  But it's not the case that each infected person spreads to 2.5 others (or whatever the initial estimates turn out to be).  There are super-spreaders - highly social people, who for some reason are good at spreading the virus to loads of others.  The converse of this is that these individuals are also likely to be super-catchers.  They're going to get it early on in the pandemic because they're out partying every night - they've probably all had it by now.  Poor loners sitting at home tapping away on their laptops with zero social life (like me tonight!) are less likely to catch covid, and less likely to pass it on if they do as they have no friends.  So it's likely that there'll be no more super-spreading. 

It's also the case that the initial local epidemics were the result of multiple seedings of infection.  I'm sure I've seen somewhere that there were 10000 distinct viral lineages that hit the UK almost simultaneously.  That's impossible to track and trace.  Over here, I'm hearing that the number is likely to be several dozen of separate infected people arriving here in late March.

We should therefore be able to cope with 1 or 2 per week (which you'd expect given UK prevalence and numbers likely to travel here) given that they're extremely unlikely to be super-spreaders.

I'd like to see an economic argument for opening up - I'm not convinced that it'll make much difference to our economy, as most of the problems are due to the situation in the UK rather than our border restrictions.  I don't think Brexit fears are at all relevant to be honest PK.  But the societal benefits are clear, and if we can do it with only a small increased risk then we should.

So here's what I'd do.  I'd open up - with restrictions.  Visitors can come over - freely - but need to register where they are going to be, not go to pubs or care homes, wear masks in shops and do their best to distance, until tested at day 7.  If negative - crack on, go to pubs etc, if positive and well then carry on with the precautions and trace their previous contacts.  Continue with active surveillance at the hospital, and regularly test care home staff while having strict precautions for visitors.

Until we have such a system, I'd also stop locking up people for infringements of the rules, unless completely reckless.  So stopping off to buy cans in the spar shop, if wearing a mask and being careful - slap on the wrist, fine, send home.  Going on a major pub crawl, no effort at distancing, telling the police to F off when challenged about it - they can be put into isolation in Jurby.

 

Good post.

I agree with your thoughts on the rules on people arriving.

It's utterly ludicrous at the moment that actual family can't visit the Isle of Man.

Our testing should be 7 days. All clear, then NO restrictions.

In the wider picture Wrighty - do you think more harm is now being caused than is justified to save a few people from Covid?

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

4 minutes ago, trmpton said:

I get that.

How is life on Jersey?

They have common sense and the best of both worlds.  I would move there tomorrow if I could and if I didn’t have kids here

well they've able to have a direct flight holiday to Madeira.

Perhaps something worth looking at from here.  Direct Holidays to certain places.