IOM Covid removing restrictions

[TheTeapot]

I'd rather you just went off at the deep end using emotive language aggressively calling everyone else loons and idiots while accusing them of being hysterical without seeing the irony if you don't mind.

[thesultanofsheight]

Just now, TheTeapot said:

I'd rather you just went off at the deep end using emotive language aggressively calling everyone else loons and idiots while accusing them of being hysterical without seeing the irony if you don't mind.

You really are hilarious. Is all good in the bat cave? Have you been out? Do you want me to drop some beans round? 

[wrighty]

2 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

You also need to realise that a lot of people have these 'comorbidities' as well - they don't mean that someone is at death's door.  It could be something that people can live happily for decades with such as diabetes or high blood pressure.  The ICNARC figures suggest that the number with 'very severe' comorbidities suffering from Covid in ICUs is actually quite small - and less than for those in ICUs with viral pneumonia say. 

Another confounding factor is that the oldest, frailest people with the most comorbidities don't get admitted to ITU.  At the height of the initial wave decisions had to be made such that if patients were thought unlikely to benefit from ITU they were given TLC instead.  When it first hit Northern Italy you were unlikely to get a look in on ITU if older than 65.

[P.K.]

1 hour ago, thesultanofsheight said:

Woo hoo! You must be so chuffed! 

It would appear common sense and common knowledge can be in short supply....

[Banker]

Good job the ambassador didn’t try & come here , he would have been arrested for not going straight to accommodation!!

https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2020/10/10/us-ambassador-pays-visit-to-develop-ties-with-the-island/

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, wrighty said:

Another confounding factor is that the oldest, frailest people with the most comorbidities don't get admitted to ITU.  At the height of the initial wave decisions had to be made such that if patients were thought unlikely to benefit from ITU they were given TLC instead.  When it first hit Northern Italy you were unlikely to get a look in on ITU if older than 65.

Oh quite and that's what I referred to in the follow up comment about [...] those who got to be in critical care are not necessarily a representative sample of all Covid patients or even of those who died.  About half of those in the ICNARC ICU admission figures are under 60 for example, which isn't true of all Covid deaths.  The weakest and most vulnerable haven't even been admitted to hospital, never mind getting an ICU bed.  But I was responding to @Lxxx's comment, since modified, but originally:

Quote

It’s my understanding that those that died after a Covid infection were already in a state of ill health and would in all probability have passed away of other means in the near future

And that simply isn't true.  Even many of the more vulnerable may have more years ahead of them and the 'pre-existing conditions' that many refer to are often the sort of things that many of us were already living with.

[Cambon]

19 hours ago, Banker said:

Read rachomics post about testing you twit!

I did. Two thIngs. She said asymptomatic and symptomatic people can have the same viral load, which is correct. However, asymptomatic people are more likely to spread it as they don't know they have it. Also, on the subject of seven day test, as the test was basically voluntary and therefore   does not relate to the number of arrivals, any data, as interesting as it may be, can only be used as a basis for speculation, which is not scientific. 

I do think more testing of arrivals should be done, but in a formal manner that can be used for scientific purposes.

[P.K.]

10 minutes ago, Cambon said:

I do think more testing of arrivals should be done, but in a formal manner that can be used for scientific purposes.

Surely that would need their permission?

Plus with Mr Quayle charging people who want to be economically active again £50 a pop for the privilege of contributing to his stipend there's a cost involved.

[Banker]

22 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Surely that would need their permission?

Plus with Mr Quayle charging people who want to be economically active again £50 a pop for the privilege of contributing to his stipend there's a cost involved.

Exactly! And Ashie saying we may test at 13 days, who in their right mind would do that? Risk getting 14 days more making 27 days to maybe get out 1 day early is crackers!!

As rachomics said we will now lose all data as to who has virus and no science behind decisions.

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

1 hour ago, Cambon said:

I did. Two thIngs. She said asymptomatic and symptomatic people can have the same viral load, which is correct. However, asymptomatic people are more likely to spread it as they don't know they have it. Also, on the subject of seven day test, as the test was basically voluntary and therefore   does not relate to the number of arrivals, any data, as interesting as it may be, can only be used as a basis for speculation, which is not scientific. 

I do think more testing of arrivals should be done, but in a formal manner that can be used for scientific purposes.

Plenty of decisions seem to involve non scientific data so what's the difference?

Getting rid of the 7 day test was only ever about public numbers of covid. Less tests less positives.   Wont stop covid. In fact it will probably help the potential to spread it.  But hey, who cares? Positive tests will be down.

[Cambon]

4 hours ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

Plenty of decisions seem to involve non scientific data so what's the difference?

Getting rid of the 7 day test was only ever about public numbers of covid. Less tests less positives.   Wont stop covid. In fact it will probably help the potential to spread it.  But hey, who cares? Positive tests will be down.

As I have said on here many times, a slow and controlled spread of Covid amongst Islanders whilst keeping it out of community spread is what is required. That is what has been happening for the last few months. Long may it continue. 

However, I expect it to get back into the community around Christmas. You know why. 

[Boo Gay'n]

3 minutes ago, Cambon said:

As I have said on here many times, a slow and controlled spread of Covid amongst Islanders whilst keeping it out of community spread is what is required. That is what has been happening for the last few months. Long may it continue. 

However, I expect it to get back into the community around Christmas. You know why. 

Explain the science of "a slow and controlled spread of Covid amongst Islanders whilst keeping it out of community spread".  That would be a mystery!

[John Wright]

17 minutes ago, Boo Gay'n said:

Explain the science of "a slow and controlled spread of Covid amongst Islanders whilst keeping it out of community spread".  That would be a mystery!

More like oxymoron

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

25 minutes ago, Cambon said:

As I have said on here many times, a slow and controlled spread of Covid amongst Islanders whilst keeping it out of community spread is what is required. That is what has been happening for the last few months. Long may it continue. 

However, I expect it to get back into the community around Christmas. You know why. 

That's simply bollocks really.

 

[P.K.]

4 hours ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

Plenty of decisions seem to involve non scientific data so what's the difference?

Getting rid of the 7 day test was only ever about public numbers of covid. Less tests less positives.   Wont stop covid. In fact it will probably help the potential to spread it.  But hey, who cares? Positive tests will be down.

What decisions involve non-scientific data?