IOM Covid removing restrictions

[TheTeapot]

8 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

But surely if you believe in the wisdom of the Jersey approach you should be isolating for another 7 days?  Because Liverpool is currently has Red Status on their lists, which means that 14 days isolation is mandatory:

Ahahahaha brilliant Roger.

[Banker]

10 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

But surely if you believe in the wisdom of the Jersey approach you should be isolating for another 7 days?  Because Liverpool is currently has Red Status on their lists, which means that 14 days isolation is mandatory:

But as you and others point out Jerseys system is rubbish so are you now advocating it?

[P.K.]

2 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Just reminding you that you thought off island was easily manageable, but it has been pointed out to you that for many in employment it is nigh-on impossible. 

But the example you quoted was in the "easily manageable" category! 

[P.K.]

10 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Personally, I have no interest in going off island either, although I am toying with the idea of going to see my brother who can't travel due to his health, subject to any measures to protect him.  But, there again I am not a relative newcomer here with a young family who misses their family in the UK and are finding the isolation from them difficult. 

What has that got to do with you visiting your brother?

[Gladys]

10 minutes ago, P.K. said:

What has that got to do with you visiting your brother?

Nothing.

[Roger Mexico]

9 hours ago, Cambon said:

How about reducing the 14 days isolation to 10 days? In the uk, if you test positive, you have to isolate for 10 days. Isolating for 10 days means there is well over 90% chance you cannot pass it on. If we did 10 days, you could go away, arrive home on a Friday, spend the weekend, following week and weekend at home isolating, then return to work. 

Because of the very thing you mention - it's not 100%.  This means that the chance of an infected person getting through is very dependant on the level of infection of the place they are coming from.

Suppose you have 4000 people arriving per week (Jersey had around 6500 per week over the last three months).  Suppose the infection rate is 20 in 100,000 - the nominally low rate.  That means in ten weeks 8 infected people would arrive and if the test(s) picked up 95% in those ten weeks there would only be a 40% chance of an infected person getting into the community.

But suppose the infection rate is 1000 per 100,000 (ie 1 in 100) 40 people per week will be arriving and at 95% efficiency, 2 of them will be undetected.  While not every infected person will put the virus into the community, the odds of it happening over several weeks will be high.  This is why Jersey and Guernsey insist on automatic 14 days isolation for people from high-risk areas (whatever their test says) and more stringent regulation on those from medium-risk ones.  And why the Isle of Man is foolish not to (no doubt it's too complicated for the poor dears).

[Nom de plume]

15 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Because of the very thing you mention - it's not 100%.  This means that the chance of an infected person getting through is very dependant on the level of infection of the place they are coming from.

Suppose you have 4000 people arriving per week (Jersey had around 6500 per week over the last three months).  Suppose the infection rate is 20 in 100,000 - the nominally low rate.  That means in ten weeks 8 infected people would arrive and if the test(s) picked up 95% in those ten weeks there would only be a 40% chance of an infected person getting into the community.

But suppose the infection rate is 1000 per 100,000 (ie 1 in 100) 40 people per week will be arriving and at 95% efficiency, 2 of them will be undetected.  While not every infected person will put the virus into the community, the odds of it happening over several weeks will be high.  This is why Jersey and Guernsey insist on automatic 14 days isolation for people from high-risk areas (whatever their test says) and more stringent regulation on those from medium-risk ones.  And why the Isle of Man is foolish not to (no doubt it's too complicated for the poor dears).

Roger.

Are you now championing the idea of a Jersey model?

If so, praise the Lord.

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

18 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Because of the very thing you mention - it's not 100%.  This means that the chance of an infected person getting through is very dependant on the level of infection of the place they are coming from.

Suppose you have 4000 people arriving per week (Jersey had around 6500 per week over the last three months).  Suppose the infection rate is 20 in 100,000 - the nominally low rate.  That means in ten weeks 8 infected people would arrive and if the test(s) picked up 95% in those ten weeks there would only be a 40% chance of an infected person getting into the community.

But suppose the infection rate is 1000 per 100,000 (ie 1 in 100) 40 people per week will be arriving and at 95% efficiency, 2 of them will be undetected.  While not every infected person will put the virus into the community, the odds of it happening over several weeks will be high.  This is why Jersey and Guernsey insist on automatic 14 days isolation for people from high-risk areas (whatever their test says) and more stringent regulation on those from medium-risk ones.  And why the Isle of Man is foolish not to (no doubt it's too complicated for the poor dears).

It isnt too complicated at all.

It's just a disproportionate response to the REAL risk.  If you have the mentality where one case it too many then clearly talking about the proper understanding of risk is pointless.

 

[TheTeapot]

I wonder sometimes about education. Specifically, I wonder about how people can go through life with such dreadful comprehension skills.

[trmpton]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

But surely if you believe in the wisdom of the Jersey approach you should be isolating for another 7 days?  Because Liverpool is currently has Red Status on their lists, which means that 14 days isolation is mandatory:

I would have no issue with that.  Liverpool has gone read because it’s passed a specific documented threshold and is being regularly reviewed so people know what needs to happen for it to go back.

Some other parts of the UK (I think London but haven’t checked for a few days) are still green.

No issue at all with a well thought out and published policy that is constantly reviewed and changes that are made due to what is happening elsewhere.

What have we got? A document from months ago when the UK were pretty much only testing people who were in hospital that states a case rate that is blatantly not going to happen for many months if they keep testing everyone with a sniffle and people who don’t even have symptoms but who have been in the same room as someone else who has no symptoms but was made to have a test.  When our document was written these cases were just passing everyone by.

[Roger Mexico]

52 minutes ago, Banker said:

But as you and others point out Jerseys system is rubbish so are you now advocating it?

I'm trying to look at systems based on how well they work or not and which bits of the systems are effective and which aren't.  It's not like supporting a football team - you're allowed to pick and choose. You don'y have to declare everything either 'brilliant' or 'rubbish'.

I think Jersey's testing on arrival strategy is risky and I'm surprised they've got away without any substantial community outbreaks so far.  I suspect they've done well so far because of a responsible population, clear messaging and much stronger restrictions restrictions on those who have been in high risk areas.  Even that has problems (the classification is ridiculously over-elaborate)  but it's better than doing nothing.

[Banker]

Well Jersey have carried out 104,000 tests since opening borders and have had 110 positive cases so a little 0.1% positive and no hospitalization.

They have a traffic lights system and now quarantine for 14 days those from red zones. We have no updated system , we let those from red zone who test negative on day 7 out to go shopping and our tracking system relies on an anonymous snitches line.

 

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

9 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

I'm trying to look at systems based on how well they work or not and which bits of the systems are effective and which aren't.  It's not like supporting a football team - you're allowed to pick and choose. You don'y have to declare everything either 'brilliant' or 'rubbish'.

I think Jersey's testing on arrival strategy is risky and I'm surprised they've got away without any substantial community outbreaks so far.  I suspect they've done well so far because of a responsible population, clear messaging and much stronger restrictions restrictions on those who have been in high risk areas.  Even that has problems (the classification is ridiculously over-elaborate)  but it's better than doing nothing.

Perhaps they haven't "got away" with anything though?

Is it not just the case that (a) not many people actually have Covid (b) most that do will be picked up at testing and (c) that actually the vast majority of people that get covid (either knowingly or not) simply don't spread it?

It would seem that the spreading of covid is via a very limited number of people.  Rather than this automated view that if I have covid and come into contact with someone they will get it.

[P.K.]

8 minutes ago, Banker said:

We have no updated system , we let those from red zone who test negative on day 7 out to go shopping and our tracking system relies on an anonymous snitches line.

If it ain't broke....

[Roger Mexico]

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

Perhaps they haven't "got away" with anything though?

Is it not just the case that (a) not many people actually have Covid (b) most that do will be picked up at testing and (c) that actually the vast majority of people that get covid (either knowingly or not) simply don't spread it?

It would seem that the spreading of covid is via a very limited number of people.  Rather than this automated view that if I have covid and come into contact with someone they will get it.

Both these things are mostly wrong.  While most people indeed don't pass on the virus to anyone else (a point I've made on here in the past) it's not the vast majority more like 60-70% and 20-30% do give it to someone else.  This is actually true of a lot of diseases - I think some people forget that R(0) is an average and not a very meaningful one.

And people are getting confused about 'super-spreaders'.  This doesn't relate to individuals but to events or situations.  If a lot of people are packed close together indoor and engaging in behaviour that spreads the virus rapidly such as singing, shouting etc (such as a crowded pub, choir practice or signing hymns) or just over a prolonged period (such as on a ship) then a very high percentage of them will get infected.  There's nothing special about the individual that starts the infection, they're just in the wrong place with the wrong virus.