IOM Covid removing restrictions

[John Wright]

3 minutes ago, trmpton said:

You think?

There are definitely active cases as there are in Guernsey.

Have you compared the number of “cases” in Liverpool now and in April against the number of people actually ill and in hospital.

hospital/cases for now and April, then get back to me

For what you say to be true, that there are community cases here, they wouldn’t all be asymptomatic. There’s no social distancing, no masks, everything is normal, it’d rip through the population much faster than Liverpool with a much higher R rate. There’d be more than one showing symptoms and being detected.

[trmpton]

So let’s Chuck some money at it and see.

Test a significant percentage of the population randomly and on the same day.

No positive tests?  Winner winner?

Posotove tests? Then depending on how many we can either conclude that’s it’s really not that big a deal anymore, or that we need to PANIC!

Guernsey had at least 7 positive cases wandering about unchecked.  Do we predict it’s spread like wildfire and they will be dead or suffering the consequences of long COVID by Christmas?

[wrighty]

3 minutes ago, trmpton said:

So let’s Chuck some money at it and see.

Test a significant percentage of the population randomly and on the same day.

No positive tests?  Winner winner?

Posotove tests? Then depending on how many we can either conclude that’s it’s really not that big a deal anymore, or that we need to PANIC!

Guernsey had at least 7 positive cases wandering about unchecked.  Do we predict it’s spread like wildfire and they will be dead or suffering the consequences of long COVID by Christmas?

In a way we are testing a percentage of the population randomly. Elective surgical patients all get swabbed as part of pre-op assessment. Zero positives. If as you suggest there’s a significant proportion likely to test positive we’d know. 

[trmpton]

7 minutes ago, wrighty said:

In a way we are testing a percentage of the population randomly. Elective surgical patients all get swabbed as part of pre-op assessment. Zero positives. If as you suggest there’s a significant proportion likely to test positive we’d know. 

Is that not what Guernsey thought until someone so confident they didn’t have it voluntarily went for a test so they could travel?

If that person hadn’t wanted to travel then they still wouldn’t know and half the island would have it if it’s as contagious as some make out.

The fact that they still don’t know where it came from as the index case hadn’t travelled, would suggest very strongly that’s it has been in their community for a while.

Edited October 26, 2020 by trmpton

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

Woosh, Gladys...

Not really, see the FB reference!

[Roger Mexico]

14 minutes ago, trmpton said:

Over 10% of the traced contacts to the  fort guernsey case (who didn’t know they had it) turned out to be positive.

So far none of them have symptoms 

But for that to translate into 10% of cases in the community, that would mean that the index case would have had to have been in contact with every one of Guernsey's 67,000 or so inhabitants.  You must put yourself about a fair bit.

(Also your 10% looks out - when they tested 107 contacts of the index case they only found one more - though of course it could be that they will pick up more with repeated testing).

[trmpton]

2 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

But for that to translate into 10% of cases in the community, that would mean that the index case would have had to have been in contact with every one of Guernsey's 67,000 or so inhabitants.  You must put yourself about a fair bit.

(Also your 10% looks out - when they tested 107 contacts of the index case they only found one more - though of course it could be that they will pick up more with repeated testing).

So the counter argument is that it doesn’t spread that easily, even with zero social distancing 

[John Wright]

11 minutes ago, wrighty said:

In a way we are testing a percentage of the population randomly. Elective surgical patients all get swabbed as part of pre-op assessment. Zero positives. If as you suggest there’s a significant proportion likely to test positive we’d know. 

What happened to the results of the 10,000 antibody tests that were performed in July & August?

[trmpton]

1 minute ago, John Wright said:

What happened to the results of the 10,000 antibody tests that were performed in July & August?

I have never seen anything since the “preliminary “

Maybe it didn’t match the fear raising.

https://covid19.gov.im/media/1314/preliminary-results-on-covid-19-antibody-testing-on-the-isle-of-man-july-2020.pdf

[John Wright]

45 minutes ago, trmpton said:

So these three “cases” are once again simply people who have been tested because one of them was contact traced from the UK having just returned.  I haven’t seen anything to suggest they had any clue they were ill.

I think we really need to rethink what a case is.  Someone who is sick is a case.  Someone who had to be tested to find out they had something is a carrier or infected.

if we tested the whole IOM population tomorrow, how many do people think would be “cases”?  I guess between 10-15%.
 

What about if you tested the whole UK?

Who is going to have a reality check and allow us to stop worrying  about something we have very little control over first?  Sure as hell

wont be HQ as he is obsessed with being COVID free.

Open the borders and bit more and test test test.  It’s disgusting that by New Year we will be 9 months where travel has been so restricted.  At the time I got it, we didn’t know better.

Now treatment is better, testing is better, and anecdotal evidence would be that people aren’t getting as ill as they were.

The response is no longer reasoned or proportional 

10%-15% is between 8,000 and 12,000 people. That’s 10,000 to 15,000 per 100,000. The highest rates in UK are between 400 to 1000 per 100,000. 400 seems to equate to tier 3 lock down. So your postulating a rate 25 times higher than tier 3 in England?

[Gladys]

1 minute ago, trmpton said:

I have never seen anything since the “preliminary “

Maybe it didn’t match the fear raising.

https://covid19.gov.im/media/1314/preliminary-results-on-covid-19-antibody-testing-on-the-isle-of-man-july-2020.pdf

Wasn't the estimate at that time that there had been around 1500 infected?  Strange it hasn't been finalised. 

[trmpton]

12 minutes ago, John Wright said:

10%-15% is between 8,000 and 12,000 people. That’s 10,000 to 15,000 per 100,000. The highest rates in UK are between 400 to 1000 per 100,000. 400 seems to equate to tier 3 lock down. So your postulating a rate 25 times higher than tier 3 in England?

They don’t know the rate in England.  They haven’t tested everyone.

 

10 - 15 might be over the top.  Point is there will be enough that if the Facebook nutters knew they would want everything shut immediately.

 

[Roger Mexico]

4 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Wasn't the estimate at that time that there had been around 1500 infected?  Strange it hasn't been finalised. 

Yes, it may be a victim of the 'let's not talk about testing' mindset of some at the DHSC.  The two biggest samples they used in the test were from 2171 health care workers and 965 people who attended GP surgeries.  They gave antibody positive figures of 2.6% and 2.1%.  Both might be a little high to represent the whole population (HCW would be more likely to come in contact and attending a GP means you weren't well) but 2% would translate into about 1700.  Only about 75% of those who we know tested PCR-positive had antibodies[1] so it would be more likely around 2200.

 

[1]  Quayle was bragging about how he had antibodies last Thursday, but what he probably meant was that he had them in June/July.  They could be gone now.

[trmpton]

3 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Yes, it may be a victim of the 'let's not talk about testing' mindset of some at the DHSC.  The two biggest samples they used in the test were from 2171 health care workers and 965 people who attended GP surgeries.  They gave antibody positive figures of 2.6% and 2.1%.  Both might be a little high to represent the whole population (HCW would be more likely to come in contact and attending a GP means you weren't well) but 2% would translate into about 1700.  Only about 75% of those who we know tested PCR-positive had antibodies[1] so it would be more likely around 2200.

 

[1]  Quayle was bragging about how he had antibodies last Thursday, but what he probably meant was that he had them in June/July.  They could be gone now.

Counter argument “attending a GP means you weren’t well”

So in theory more likely to suffer, yet those are all people who hadn’t known they had had it.

[Gladys]

11 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

 

 

[1]  Quayle was bragging about how he had antibodies last Thursday, but what he probably meant was that he had them in June/July.  They could be gone now.

Yes, I wondered if he is regularly tested for antibodies, given his position,  or if he was referring to an earlier test.  If the latter, that does not demonstrate an understanding of current medical advice that antibodies are short-lived.