John Wright Posted October 4, 2020 Share Posted October 4, 2020 3 minutes ago, P.K. said: Rachomics has already explained to you personally why testing on entry merely gives a false sense of security and comes with some risks. This is your very lame reply: So do you understand it or not...? But testing in the 72 hours before arrival followed by quarantine and retesting on day 7 with negative results meaning total freedom, may have a place. And it may have stopped two of the welders from actually arriving at all. Its working out the risks and benefits. Fully accept that a pre arrival test isn’t worth the paper it isn’t written on. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 4, 2020 Share Posted October 4, 2020 Just now, John Wright said: But testing in the 72 hours before arrival followed by quarantine and retesting on day 7 with negative results meaning total freedom, may have a place. And it may have stopped two of the welders from actually arriving at all. Its working out the risks and benefits. Fully accept that a pre arrival test isn’t worth the paper it isn’t written on. Various options may have a place but the constant banging on and on about the "forward thinking / planning CI's" and their PR tests on arrival are tiresome nonsense. It's all just to try and discredit the IOMG approach that doesn't happen to suit the personal circs of some of the folks on here. I feel sorry for them but the regs are there for a reason. The reason being the virus has certain inescapable characteristics and the bottom line is the IOMG approach deals with the timeline of the virus infecting someone with the lowest possible risk to the general populace that they can manage. The "test on entry" simply does not do this and therefore comes with risks. I think for some folks to get this simple fact you will have to write it on a piece of wood and then hit them over the head with it multiple times until they DO get it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trmpton Posted October 4, 2020 Share Posted October 4, 2020 2 minutes ago, P.K. said: Various options may have a place but the constant banging on and on about the "forward thinking / planning CI's" and their PR tests on arrival are tiresome nonsense. It's all just to try and discredit the IOMG approach that doesn't happen to suit the personal circs of some of the folks on here. I feel sorry for them but the regs are there for a reason. The reason being the virus has certain inescapable characteristics and the bottom line is the IOMG approach deals with the timeline of the virus infecting someone with the lowest possible risk to the general populace that they can manage. The "test on entry" simply does not do this and therefore comes with risks. I think for some folks to get this simple fact you will have to write it on a piece of wood and then hit them over the head with it multiple times until they DO get it. Well. If as seems to be suggested this guy turns out to have tested positive after mingling in society it’s hardly proven to be a good system has it. He should have been tested before being allowed on the boat. Not fool proof but better risk than we have now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Down Posted October 4, 2020 Share Posted October 4, 2020 34 minutes ago, Banker said: Are you on drugs, because you’re coming out with some shite 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted October 4, 2020 Share Posted October 4, 2020 7 minutes ago, P.K. said: Various options may have a place but the constant banging on and on about the "forward thinking / planning CI's" and their PR tests on arrival are tiresome nonsense. It's all just to try and discredit the IOMG approach that doesn't happen to suit the personal circs of some of the folks on here. I feel sorry for them but the regs are there for a reason. The reason being the virus has certain inescapable characteristics and the bottom line is the IOMG approach deals with the timeline of the virus infecting someone with the lowest possible risk to the general populace that they can manage. The "test on entry" simply does not do this and therefore comes with risks. I think for some folks to get this simple fact you will have to write it on a piece of wood and then hit them over the head with it multiple times until they DO get it. I think many have already hit you on the head as you will not listen to any other opinions but your own & Howies, do you kiss his photo each night Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 4, 2020 Share Posted October 4, 2020 2 minutes ago, Banker said: I think many have already hit you on the head as you will not listen to any other opinions but your own & Howies, do you kiss his photo each night The characteristics of the virus, no matter how much you obviously wish they were, are not an "opinion" in any way, shape or form. Now where's that piece of four by two and a felt tip... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted October 4, 2020 Share Posted October 4, 2020 31 minutes ago, John Wright said: But testing in the 72 hours before arrival followed by quarantine and retesting on day 7 with negative results meaning total freedom, may have a place. And it may have stopped two of the welders from actually arriving at all. Its working out the risks and benefits. Fully accept that a pre arrival test isn’t worth the paper it isn’t written on. Can't we just go back to keeping arrivals in an hotel for two weeks? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hissingsid Posted October 4, 2020 Share Posted October 4, 2020 The story in the rags concerned was full of inaccuracies first they got the length of sentence wrong and then said they had gone to Tescos for lunch when they had gone to buy alcohol as stated in the court report. Again I would not worry about bad publicity as more than half the idiots that were commenting did not know where the Isle of Man was and that we are self governed. The ignorance that it threw up was more concerning than the opinions. The SNP and Boris’s father got mixed up with their thoughts also the fact that we only recently stopped hanging and birching people it was obvious that these people had never visited the Island and thank god had no such intentions of doing do. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted October 4, 2020 Share Posted October 4, 2020 32 minutes ago, P.K. said: Various options may have a place but the constant banging on and on about the "forward thinking / planning CI's" and their PR tests on arrival are tiresome nonsense. It's all just to try and discredit the IOMG approach that doesn't happen to suit the personal circs of some of the folks on here. I feel sorry for them but the regs are there for a reason. The reason being the virus has certain inescapable characteristics and the bottom line is the IOMG approach deals with the timeline of the virus infecting someone with the lowest possible risk to the general populace that they can manage. The "test on entry" simply does not do this and therefore comes with risks. I think for some folks to get this simple fact you will have to write it on a piece of wood and then hit them over the head with it multiple times until they DO get it. You’re completely missing the point. Testing on entry or in a short period beforehand is risky and can lull into false sense security. But combined with testing after 7 days and if both negative quarantine ending is a risk averse compromise. Test on arrival, or in 72 hours before arrival, would keep out some asymptomatic affected travellers. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted October 4, 2020 Share Posted October 4, 2020 18 minutes ago, pongo said: Can't we just go back to keeping arrivals in an hotel for two weeks? No, because it was overkill. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trmpton Posted October 4, 2020 Share Posted October 4, 2020 5 minutes ago, John Wright said: You’re completely missing the point. Testing on entry or in a short period beforehand is risky and can lull into false sense security. But combined with testing after 7 days and if both negative quarantine ending is a risk averse compromise. Test on arrival, or in 72 hours before arrival, would keep out some asymptomatic affected travellers. This. It’s a win win management of risk and makes travel more viable for more people. Implement that and let us sponsor friends and family to come and follow the same procedure an I believe it would keep most happy. Surprised there had been nothing to quell the rumours suggesting a positive case has been wandering around Tesco. They haven’t even updated the figures today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted October 4, 2020 Share Posted October 4, 2020 17 minutes ago, John Wright said: No, because it was overkill. But it seems as if some cannot be trusted to self-isolate. And, let's be honest - apart from those needing medical treatment, nobody needs to go anywhere for a bit. Working on the electic railway certainly isn't 'essential'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trmpton Posted October 4, 2020 Share Posted October 4, 2020 I think that while we can’t bring family here, or go and see them with sensible testing and and the ability to get back to work after a week, people are going to be seriously annoyed that people came over to fix the toy trains. People typically don’t have an issue with rules if they can been seen to be logical and consistent. Saying family can’t even come here if they quarantine for 14 days, but fives blokes from Doncaster can come over, stay in a hotel and travel to and from their work makes no sense whatsoever. These are the sort of illogical inconsistencies that are winding people up. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted October 4, 2020 Share Posted October 4, 2020 4 minutes ago, trmpton said: I think that while we can’t bring family here, or go and see them with sensible testing and and the ability to get back to work after a week The main thing I get from the people who oppose the current regulations is that it's all about what they want. No concern for whether or not they might risk infecting other people. So basically selfish. There is nothing to stop you visiting your family. Why wouldn't you isolate for 14 days at least on your return? I agree that there is an issue with these non-essential essential-workers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted October 4, 2020 Share Posted October 4, 2020 (edited) 3 minutes ago, pongo said: The main thing I get from the people who oppose the current regulations is that it's all about what they want. No concern for whether or not they might risk infecting other people. So basically selfish. That’s not what I’ve seen expressed here at all in relation to discussions around freer borders. Edited October 4, 2020 by thesultanofsheight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.