IOM Covid removing restrictions

[NoTail]

2 hours ago, Gladys said:

Are you in the UK?

No

[John Wright]

9 hours ago, pongo said:

I haven't seen that reported anywhere. All of the reporting so far says English Universities from the end of term.

The proposal is to stop students at English universities going home to their homes in the UK.

Theres nothing proposed to stop them getting on a boat or plane and leaving the country.

[Gladys]

6 hours ago, NoTail said:

No

So, how do you know there is a distinct air of panic?  Or  is this something that has been presented in the media?  Panic about what? The virus or further lockdowns adding to more economic pressure.

From what I have seen of the UK, I agree that it is very much better here, but not directly because of the virus.

[thesultanofsheight]

7 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

The fact that the UK did so incompetently that it was slightly worse doesn't prove the Swedish policy was a good one, just that the UK was incompetent.

Sad that even you have caught the Covid hysteria bug too Roger. I agree with Wrighty’s post’s above as just about the only pieces of balance in this whole thread. 

[The Old Git]

8 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

But if you're so keen on Scandinavia perhaps we should look at the other countries there (who did various degrees of lockdown) and their death rates per million population:

Norway 51

Finland 63

Denmark  116

Sweden 584

One of these things is not like the others. 

The fact that the UK did so incompetently that it was slightly worse doesn't prove the Swedish policy was a good one, just that the UK was incompetent.

Esther Rantzen was making the same point in The Times

 

 

[snowman]

It's coming 

[TheTeapot]

There are loads of differences between Sweden and the UK and making comparisons needs to take all of them into account, making it difficult. What is clear though, is that Sweden tried the 'protect the vulnerable while allowing people to get on with things' approach which many people favour. As they themselves admit, they failed in the protection bit early on in the pandemic. It may well be that that was because in the early days we didn't know enough and it was simply too hard. Wrighty is probably correct above, and now much more is known it should be possible to do it. Unfortunately for the UK their levels of virus in the community are simply too high again, and to adopt this approach now would fail. 

[Gladys]

7 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

There are loads of differences between Sweden and the UK and making comparisons needs to take all of them into account, making it difficult. What is clear though, is that Sweden tried the 'protect the vulnerable while allowing people to get on with things' approach which many people favour. As they themselves admit, they failed in the protection bit early on in the pandemic. It may well be that that was because in the early days we didn't know enough and it was simply too hard. Wrighty is probably correct above, and now much more is known it should be possible to do it. Unfortunately for the UK their levels of virus in the community are simply too high again, and to adopt this approach now would fail. 

Agreed with all you said except your last sentence which is contradictory.   If you protect the vulnerable and allow everyone else to 'get on with it', it is to be expected that community levels will increase.  So why would the current level make this now fail? 

Edited October 15, 2020 by Gladys

[TheTeapot]

Because the levels you are starting at are already too high, and it is inevitable that some staff or whoever will take the virus into care homes or wherever. I appreciate the UK is doing a lot of testing but it still doesn't know enough. You'd have to have the community levels already low to change approach. This is probably why it initially went wrong in Sweden, the virus was much more prevalent than they realised.

[Neil Down]

11 hours ago, thesultanofsheight said:

I used the confused emoji again. Please don't have a total meltdown. But honestly you appear to be talking total rubbish. What was the purpose of that post? It actually makes no sense at all. 

Are you actually one of those spambots programmed to rinse and repeat?

[pongo]

45 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

I'm quite reeling from the thought of living somewhere where the people trust their government.

Sweden has a very different culture from the UK. Very much more civic.

And at many levels, including around health, actual policy is often decided and implemented by experts rather than politicians. 

Edited October 15, 2020 by pongo

[Declan]

19 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

The Swedish health minister on radio four Sunday afternoon said that it will be impossible to truly evaluate their experiment for at least two years. 

That's a good point, one to keep in mind when we clap for Howie.

[Ham_N_Eggs]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

Agreed with all you said except your last sentence which is contradictory.   If you protect the vulnerable and allow everyone else to 'get on with it', it is to be expected that community levels will increase.  So why would the current level make this now fail? 

20% of the Island's population is above the age of 60. Letting it rip over here is just not a very good idea.

[thesultanofsheight]

32 minutes ago, Neil Down said:

Are you actually one of those spambots programmed to rinse and repeat?

Oh the irony proclaimed by the same rinse and repeat troll who had used the same failed “technique” for years to haunt these boards in comedy style. 

Edited October 15, 2020 by thesultanofsheight

[TheTeapot]

There's a lot of rumours floating around today. Press conference later, hope there's no going to be an overreaction. The removal of the 7 day test option was already a backward step, lets not have another.