IOM Covid removing restrictions

[Banker]

6 minutes ago, John Wright said:

That’s not true. I’m vulnerable, and I’ve travelled extensively the last 8 weeks. I’ve had to take tests and I’ve experience of various regimes in various countries and crossing various borders.

Ive been careful and responsible. I’ve avoided hot spots.

We can’t stay as we are for ever. I’m trying to explore safe ways forward, to reduce time in isolation and keep risk at safe levels.

Its a balance between what’s politically and medically acceptable. Politically it’s the pitchfork brigade clamouring for total lock down. Something we have never had. Key workers have always been able to come and go. Then we had returnees, then compassionate, then residents able to leave and return.

None have resulted in any leak into the community.

Perhaps @wrightyand @rachomicscould comment on the suggestion of pre entry testing, admission only if negative, followed by 7 days strictly enforced isolation, then a second test and if negative then no further restriction.

Lots of countries are requiring testing within the 72 hours before arrival. As @rachomicssays it seems odd and can give a false sense of security absent further measures and follow up. Lots of countries are using 10, rather than 14 day quarantine.

Im trying to see if there’s a next step along the road to the new normal.

As you say lots of countries are requesting proof of negative tests prior to boarding transport to their countries and then further testing.

However your sensible suggestions will not go down well with the usual suspects who only want one option which is theirs!

as for idiots calling UK a leper colony they just haven’t got a clue about the real world and reading Facebook too much

[Gladys]

6 hours ago, P.K. said:

Everyone who wants the current controls on the border relaxed is prepared to put vulnerable people at risk.

Sure they will huff and puff about infection rates and so forth but as they can't guarantee that relaxing the borders will give the same level of protection it's a moot point...

Not true and the current system cannot guarantee the protection you think exists, vis the number incarcerated.

[Flyingfemme]

It will be interesting to see what happens to the CSP arena if the travel restrictions continue. Most countries have very old laws covering agreements/taxes etc, which often  rely on where an instrument is signed/executed. Doing things electronically will not supply the required outcome and other offshore locations are available.

[Gladys]

13 minutes ago, Flyingfemme said:

It will be interesting to see what happens to the CSP arena if the travel restrictions continue. Most countries have very old laws covering agreements/taxes etc, which often  rely on where an instrument is signed/executed. Doing things electronically will not supply the required outcome and other offshore locations are available.

TBH, agreements can still be signed here by the IOM directors, so not sure how vital that aspect is.  More important is the inability to have face to face meetings.

[Gladys]

31 minutes ago, WTF said:

we wouldn't want dead relatives to catch the virus would we.    i find it ironic that the UK police enforcing the rule of 6 turn up with mire than 6 of themselves,  they must be spreading the virus far more than joe public.

The dead relatives isn't the point, but the attitude of being able to get away with it even within the healthcare sector is.  As well as being out and about when they should be staying in the accommodation. 

[P.K.]

4 hours ago, John Wright said:

You either can’t read, comprehend, or lockdown in MTown has got to you. Pre test plus isolation and second test,  is what I said. Your para 1 still misses the point. The idea is to find safe ways of reducing quarantine.

Why Do you suppose it’d be TTI. It’d clearly be private. There’s huge private testing capacity. There’s many countries require pre entry PCR, Greece and Cyprus, to name two. And turn round is sub 12 hours. And results are Electronic.

My point about TTI was simply that it would HAVE to be private.

AND acceptable to IOMG.

But it would certainly replace the nonsense PR test on arrival a la CI's.

Self-isolation would be the same as now as would the test on day 7.

So the next question is would IOMG insist on the current lesser restrictions from day 8 to 14?

[P.K.]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

I haven't 'banged on' about the CIs and it isn't profits before people, it is peoples' livelihoods and general health I am concerned about.

But you are OK with your public sector pensions, so everyone else can just suck it up.  

I don't have one of those.

Try another route to try and diss me.

[P.K.]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

Not true and the current system cannot guarantee the protection you think exists, vis the number incarcerated.

V poor.

Relaxing the border controls means more folks coming in which inevitably means more virus coming in. Especially as winter rolls in.

Notice there now appears to be a shortage of flu jabs in the UK as well.

They just stumble from crisis to crisis....

[John Wright]

8 minutes ago, P.K. said:

V poor.

Relaxing the border controls means more folks coming in which inevitably means more virus coming in. Especially as winter rolls in.

Notice there now appears to be a shortage of flu jabs in the UK as well.

They just stumble from crisis to crisis....

No, it’s you that’s V poor, almost to the extent of your posts becoming trolling.

Yes, more people means more risk of virus coming in.  We are talking about assessing risk, to ensure we have protection, but without it being the blunt tool of 14 days quarantine.

The test before arrival would weed out some asymptomatic persons with Covid from even travelling and arriving, so that’s good? Yes?

The current 7 day test option isn’t really much good as whilst you can go out for walks and limited shopping, freedom is otherwise curtailed.

The literature seems to indicate that maximum infectivity is when the virus has incubated and becomes detectable. So test before arrival, followed by strict self quarantine and test on day 7 and if negative ( that’s two negatives 10 days apart ) full freedom.

Whats your objection?

You raise a question about the standard and acceptability of the testing facilities. That’s nonsense. The labs are registered and certified to government standards. There’s a list available for cross checking. Don’t confuse testing centres, where swabs are taken, with testing laboratories, where analysis takes place.

[thesultanofsheight]

1 minute ago, John Wright said:

No, it’s you that’s V poor, almost to the extent of your posts becoming trolling.

Yes, more people means more risk of virus coming in.  We are talking about assessing risk, to ensure we have protection, but without it being the blunt tool of 14 days quarantine.

The test before arrival would weed out some asymptomatic persons with Covid from even travelling and arriving, so that’s good? Yes?

Is he even in the IOM to be so concerned? It’s amazing so many people object so vehemently to discussions around bringing in a proper risk based approach rather than just shutting the place down and chucking people in prison. No wonder we had the birch for so long. The only deterrents we ever seem to come up with seem to be more focussed on delivering maximum cruelty and oppression than actually addressing and fixing the problem at hand.  

[Banker]

30 minutes ago, P.K. said:

V poor.

Relaxing the border controls means more folks coming in which inevitably means more virus coming in. Especially as winter rolls in.

Notice there now appears to be a shortage of flu jabs in the UK as well.

They just stumble from crisis to crisis....

There’s also a shortage of flu jabs here as the GP said ring in a few weeks to my mum.

[Banker]

8 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

Is he even in the IOM to be so concerned? It’s amazing so many people object so vehemently to discussions around bringing in a proper risk based approach rather than just shutting the place down and chucking people in prison. No wonder we had the birch for so long. The only deterrents we ever seem to come up with seem to be more focussed on delivering maximum cruelty and oppression than actually addressing and fixing the problem at hand.  

I’m beginning to doubt here’s in IOM as well as he seems to troll everyone who suggests anything other than his narrow views.wondering if he has a few alter egos on here as well.

[P.K.]

5 minutes ago, John Wright said:

No, it’s you that’s V poor, almost to the extent of your posts becoming trolling.

Yes, more people means more risk of virus coming in.  We are talking about assessing risk, to ensure we have protection, but without it being the blunt tool of 14 days quarantine.

The test before arrival would weed out some asymptomatic persons with Covid from even travelling and arriving, so that’s good? Yes?

The current 7 day test option isn’t really much good as whilst you can go out for walks and limited shopping, freedom is otherwise curtailed.

The literature seems to indicate that maximum infectivity is when the virus has incubated and becomes detectable. So test before arrival, followed by strict self quarantine and test on day 7 and if negative ( that’s two negatives 10 days apart ) full freedom.

Whats your objection?

You raise a question about the standard and acceptability of the testing facilities. That’s nonsense. The labs are registered and certified to government standards. There’s a list available for cross checking. Don’t confuse testing centres, where swabs are taken, with testing laboratories, where analysis takes place.

Yes I get all that John.

I also fully understand about the infection -> contagious -> showing symptoms timings hence how tests on entry can miss positive cases which without a period of self-isolation means unnecessary risk.

The only bit I don't really get is the relaxed restrictions from a negative test from day 8 to 14?

Because I can see the same thing happening on a negative test on, say, Day -2, and a negative test on Day 7.

[Apple]

Some of the arguments here make some sense as long as we are prepared to pay the price.

The next developments will require solutions that will include:-

technology based - between countries of travel, providing and then sharing test results in different locations with. who? say airport and shipping lines?

beurauacratc - with more admin staff and time to deliver the technology, both UK, IOM and everywhere else we travel to,

more documentation - no more will passports be sufficient but also health reports and probably more,

...and that is just for starters in my view. 

 

Freedom to travel just got a little different, not just because of Brexit

[John Wright]

10 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Yes I get all that John.

I also fully understand about the infection -> contagious -> showing symptoms timings hence how tests on entry can miss positive cases which without a period of self-isolation means unnecessary risk.

The only bit I don't really get is the relaxed restrictions from a negative test from day 8 to 14?

Because I can see the same thing happening on a negative test on, say, Day -2, and a negative test on Day 7.

There will have been two negatives 9 or 10 days apart. What is the risk of someone having contracted and not showing by second test? Is it a justifiable risk when assessed because it’s so low. Is it worth it to allow people back to work a week earlier?