IOM Covid removing restrictions

[manxst]

Is there anywhere which defines exactly what a ‘key worker’ is? I’ve seen pictures of Manx footpaths closed off as ‘key workers’ have been imported to work on them. Surely this wouldn’t qualify? 

[tetchtyke]

42 minutes ago, manxst said:

Is there anywhere which defines exactly what a ‘key worker’ is? I’ve seen pictures of Manx footpaths closed off as ‘key workers’ have been imported to work on them. Surely this wouldn’t qualify? 

It's in the entry regulations. There are a number of categories, but the main ones are essential to healthcare, essential to national infrastructure, or essential to the island's economy. The appropriate government department make this decision (i.e. DHSC for health professionals, DfE for economic benefit apps, etc).

Edited November 5, 2020 by tetchtyke

[trmpton]

2 hours ago, tetchtyke said:

There is an exemption in the regs for people to come in if they are essential to the economy of the island. So key business people can come in if they need to.

I'm not sure what those demanding tests want to see happen with those tests. Testing on arrival is not accurate, and so it would be risky to exempt people from self-isolation solely on the basis of a negative test on arrival. I also think there's a real risk that testing on arrival would undermine quarantine by giving people a false sense of security. There's also the issue with testing capacity.

So if you're not going to do anything with the result, why bother with the test?

Testing on arrival is available and is used for some medical staff, but even then they have to self-isolate when not at work, and wear full medical PPE at work. I'm not sure businessmen are wanting to go to work in medical PPE, so...

Data

What possible downside is there to gaining an understanding that (for example)

1000 return.  0.3% test positive two days before departure. 0.7% on arrival. 1.2% at day 3. 0.7% on day 7. 0.1% on day 14 (totally made up figures) and that off those that tested positive 4% went on to develop symptoms.

Whats the harm.  14 day isolation is still imposed but you build a data set that allows you to properly formulate an evidence based strategy based on risk/reward in relation to borders, testing and quarantine.

Is there a single possible downside other than the cost of the tests (we have paid to ramp the capacity up anyway, and currently aren’t using it) and a very slightly uncomfortable test for people?  If there is I would be interested to hear it.

[pongo]

41 minutes ago, trmpton said:

you build a data set that allows you to properly formulate an evidence based strategy based on risk/reward in relation to borders, testing and quarantine

Data isn't information. You need to start by asking what problem it is you are trying to solve. And you would to somehow quantify the number of journeys required to begin to potentially be able to calculate meaningful results. I'm guessing that you would need several years' worth of data, minimum.

If people have to isolate anyhow then the data collection is potentially a pointless and costly exercise.

 

Edited November 5, 2020 by pongo

[paswt]

3 hours ago, manxst said:

Is there anywhere which defines exactly what a ‘key worker’ is? I’ve seen pictures of Manx footpaths closed off as ‘key workers’ have been imported to work on them. Surely this wouldn’t qualify? 

If , as someone claimed , key workers on the prom wear a mask and a different coloured hat then the chap with the Stop/ Go lollypop  on the prom this morning was one . 

Just saying

[jaymann]

4 minutes ago, paswt said:

If , as someone claimed , key workers on the prom wear a mask and a different coloured hat then the chap with the Stop/ Go lollypop  on the prom this morning was one . 

Just saying

I don't wish to keep chiming on about the 'key worker' exemption abuse. But the fact that a major bank and property developer were able to get an exemption granted to come and fit stickers in windows, sums up the entire failure of the whole thing to me.

[Filippo]

On 11/1/2020 at 5:35 AM, thesultanofsheight said:

That article and the US itself is interesting as they’re certainly a lot less bothered about it all than us. Probably because the healthcare system is private. I’m sure Candice Swanepoel can afford to have a ventilator on standby just in case and a private ambulance to get her there. No flattening the curve for the NHS needed in Florida and no mass clapping’s in the street demanded like it’s the bloody Blitz as they’re paying them top dollar to do the job they’re paid to do. And if you don’t have cover .. well you’re fucked. But that’s America. I wonder if at the end of this it will be determined that it would have been cheaper to just invest more into the NHS rather than shut the whole bloody country down and get the UK over 2 trillion pounds in debt just so the NHS can cope?

 

22 hours ago, trmpton said:

This might have been mentioned already and I missed it.

Chamber of Commerce pushing for border testing.

The vocal majority on FB who want everything locked down are clearly from two or three certain demographics.  None of which are likely to make them members of the CoC.

Those who are, and who understand the bigger picture, won’t want to be speaking out on a public platform like FB and opening themselves up to a load of abuse.

https://www.change.org/p/isle-of-man-government-introduce-covid-19-testing-at-iom-port-and-airport-to-allow-our-loved-ones-to-come-home/u/28002386?cs_tk=Avjw-h0o3v7nPDKMpV8AAXicyyvNyQEABF8BvHoTzQ_SSKJyfe1O-YoQBB4%3D&utm_campaign=da8af04ef9404c719747fab839c7b695&utm_content=initial_v0_4_0&utm_medium=email&utm_source=petition_update&utm_term=cs

 

 

On 11/1/2020 at 10:20 PM, Banker said:

And invent a letter to try & smear Rachel & the media at same time

 

On 11/2/2020 at 12:23 AM, TheTeapot said:

Well I don't know what to say about our testing here, or lack of it. I am obviously concerned with what's gone on recently, it's completely mental and will backfire. It's going to get back into the community, I'm amazed it hasn't already. I think that program made the point that if the first you know is when someone turns up ill at the hospital then you're already screwed. The vast majority of people travelling here must be taking their responsibilities very seriously.

Edit - I've said before getting rid of the 7 day test was a mistake. I now think following the massive increase in the UK that ALL travelers should be offered one, for free.

It was gavin newsome, gov of california who had to debase himself in such a way, its absurd. There have been others, its like paying tribute, kissing the ring. The federal government have on the one hand said its down to individual states, and on the other you've got to go through us. And Trump politicizes everything, red or blue states, you've got to like him for help. Germany is a federation of states too, the difference is huge.

It must be pretty tough being a scientific advisor to a government. You could tell weeks ago that Whitty wanted to scream at Boris when the tier system was introduced, he diplomatically said it probably wouldn't work. Imagine working for Trump. Dr Fauci in the US looks now like he's had enough, he's a bit shorter with his words, still trying not to be political but sending out serious warning signals. The other one, Dr Birx, who was involved has also given up working with the White House, she's apparently gone out to work directly with states. That Atlas guy running the show now is a dangerous lunatic.

 

On 11/2/2020 at 2:29 PM, Roger Mexico said:

The problem isn't so much that he stopped it without scientific advice, but that he started it that way.  But it did need to be stopped because of the rising level of infection in the North West.  You can be as careful as you can, but if the opportunities to become infected increase by ten or a hundred times, then so will the chances of it happening.  A hundred times not-very-much can be quite a lot.

The real problem here is the way that the Manx government makes decisions - lots and lots of meetings designed to make everyone feel important and spread any possible responsibility as thinly as possible.  Rather than come up with the correct decision based on evidence.  Of course half the time someone then makes an arbitrary or selfish decision and everyone else just covers up anyway.  But since the whole purpose of the process is to keep them employed, it hardly matters to them what the outcome is.

There's a case that could be made for adopting something like the 7 day strategy in July and then stopping it at the start of September when cases were clearly rising fast.  Starting in September and then being forced to stop it a month later was stupid.

 

On 11/3/2020 at 1:02 PM, thesultanofsheight said:

Agree it is very manageable (if anyone wanted to try) although it seems that even in student circles many are now planning to come home early as they’ve seen a lot of the Facebook posts from the baying mob and they don't want to leave it too late when numbers returning start picking up and get sent to some covid Alcatraz for Christmas when government is forced to put on a show for these morons like it did over the Comis. It’s so sad. These are Manx people who just want to spend time with their families.

 

On 11/3/2020 at 1:12 PM, Nom de plume said:

Yep, Manx kids (which is what they are) being outcasted by the baying mobs on social media.

What has this Island become, what has Howard Quayle created?

Division & derision. Shocking.

 

On 11/3/2020 at 1:34 PM, Lxxx said:

Absolutely. We need strong leadership now to make decisions that are for the good of the island and it's long term future, not just to appease the frothing mob who to be honest will be the least affected by any economic downturn.

The Facebook loony tunes unfortunately don't have the mental capacity to take in the bigger picture. However it appears our elected officials aren't much more advanced in their thinking either.

 

Candice Swanepoel does not need a ventilator or ambulance in standby because among the under 40s a Covid infection is less dangerous than a seasonal flu; a risk far too remote to worry about. Indeed, it is not a rational fear for most of us, if the concern has to be ramped up to the point of imposing drastic change to habits and lifestyle.

An authoritative study commissioned by the WHO and now peer-reviewed and accepted for publication has estimated COVID-19 infection fatality rate (IFR) across 51 locations, deriving a median rated of 0.27%; corrected as 0.23% according to their methodology. Here is the study:
              https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf
and below is a pic of the first page of that paper.

In my third posting to this thread dated 28 April I had estimated Covid IFR to be somewhere between 2 and 3 times the flu’s, i.e., between 0.2% and 0.3% (allow me to take credit for that early assessment). In reality, the IFR could still be lower. Studies so far have focused on what can be measured easily, i.e., the antibodies. But there are a number of different ways in which our immune system deals with pathogenic agents, and plenty of clues that this is the case with Covid. The IFR is possibly not much more than the common flu.

Scaremongering UK media often reports an IFR of 1%. One week ago Neil Ferguson was on the BBC talking of an IFR well above one per cent. His credentials are estimating 40 million deaths in the world this year, when we had 1.2 million so far. And violating lockdown rules by meeting his married lover (2nd pic shows Google’s result of “married lover”). Who is so stupid to listen to him when he preaches the morality of lockdown? Or anything else he says frankly. And would you trust Boris Johnson to stick to lockdown rules with your wife? Or acting on any other kind of genuine morality concern rather than crude political calculation?

I read a few bit and pieces of the thread on the spat between Chief Minister and Dr Glover. I am glad that the duo Quayle-Ashford is seen by most posters the way I see them. Halfwits woefully unable to deal with the crisis in a competent and honest manner. One poster caught my attention, Roger Mexico at pag. 20 of that thread:

This is about whose advice is taken and how policy is made and carried out. Dr Glover wasn't complaining that she hadn't been given an MBE or a pay rise, she was objecting to the fact that her advice and those of others hadn't even been asked for, never mind taken, in deciding what the testing regime should be.

Despite what Ashford (and a lot of people on here) seem to think, scientific advice can't just be one competing interest among many – not that they seem happy with even that.  Scientific advice has to be at the heart of the process because it's about what will work or not. It's not just about input, it's about assessing the various options to see what the consequences will be.

You can't produce policy based on what you would like, and then complain about it resulting in predictable outcomes that you don't like.  Though admittedly that's what a lot of governments and people are trying to do. But viruses will continue to do what they do, no matter how many [anonymous] e-mails you read out.

I think that the choices regarding Covid were always and inescapably political. But it is worth to ask how the kind of elected officials we would like to have would have dealt with the issue. They would have had the cognitive ability to figure out the viable options, and the honesty and communication skills to explain those to the public, so that policy aims and trade-offs were manifest. In case of the Isle of Man, I will describe in the following the three main alternatives.

The first option is what IOMG has done. Clear the virus from the island at huge cost; keep the border closed to prevent any resurgence of community spread; eradication, swift punishment of dissidents. Yes, I know the border is only closed up to a certain point. It is closed enough to prevent all routine back and forth travel. The winners are  those suffering from Covid phobia and the few parts of the hospitality industry (pubs and discos) that could have had some restrictions placed on them (minor restrictions in specific case of Jersey). The losers are all residents who needs to travel and, in various degrees, all businesses that are not entirely island-based.

The second option is what Jersey has done. Manage an open border through extensive testing and tracking. We know for sure, from the fact that Jersey has done it and we can observe the result, that the number of Covid fatalities adjusted for population size would have been the same. Winners and losers are swapped in respect to prior case.

It is worth asking what would have happened if IOMG had done much less: some initial mitigation effort followed by a nearly full reopening; no border closure; little or no testing of border crossings; that is the third option I am considering. San Marino, a land-locked micro-state of central Italy is one such example. I should have thought it by myself; I have been there a couple of times and I am aware of their history and system of governance. It was brought to my attention by a Daily Telegraph article a few days ago: “Tiny San Marino irks Italy with relaxed restaurant lockdown rules”. The article continues by saying that San Marino has provoked the ire of Italy’s policymakers by allowing bars and restaurants to stay open until late; unlike those across the border in Italy, which have to close by 6 pm and suffer from plenty of other restrictions. With no border controls of any description, Italians just drive across the border to have an evening pint with mates. Cheers.

San Marino covers a land area of 24 sq miles, has population of 33,5K and, unlike the Isle of Man, has sovereignty. It is relatively prosperous but with a run-of-the-mill kind of economy, which is not propped up by an influx of wealth residents with far away investments and business interests (what happens when you orbit a country like the UK with 0% corporation tax and 0% CGT). There is some offshore banking industry; tourism and hospitality are their most important source of revenue. Facing the choice between widespread bankruptcy/penury and tolerating more Covid deaths, it chose the latter. Initially there was lockdown-lite more similar to the Swiss than to the Italian one; then a full reopening with no border controls and it hasn’t looked back since. And more people died indeed. It has had the second in the world per-capita number of Covid cases and 42 deaths.

Adjusting for population size, the IOM equivalent would be 108 deaths. However, IOM is in the middle of the Irish Sea. We don’t, and can’t possibly have 1/3 of our population crossing our border every day. Nor we live into the multi-generational households that are typical of Southern Europe. Nor, most of us, have so many daily interactions by virtue of working in hospitality. I think, as a fair guess, we would have had half of that number of Covid fatalities. Somewhere between 40-60; at the bottom of that range if effort was put into testing incoming travellers and tracing the social connections of the infected. The looser of this freedom-fighter kind of policy would have been those who have irrational fears about Covid and want the illusion of an entirely Covid-free world. The winners would have been practically everyone else.

IOMG went for option 1 because it had an easier political justification and it knows the island can possibly afford the cost. But that cost is truly very high and it will result in meager pensions, reduced general welfare and poorer quality health care for many years to come; and certainly many more premature deaths along the line than the liberal third option on the above. Has there been any effort to quantify that and communicate it to the public? If the public had been aware of the options there would have been less blinkered support for the first option. Much less.

The communication skills of Quayle and Ashford went into overdrive for the character assassination of Rachel Glover; with the pantomime show of the anonymous letter read by Ashford on Manx Radio and their pathetic emissary on Manx Forums denigrating Ms Glover, also anonymously. Most of the other times, those communications skills have been kept hidden from us.

Beyond the hit to government finances with the consequent long-term degradation of health care services and general welfare, a more corrosive environment is the hidden cost of these policy failures: it happens when those of a more rational predisposition loose confidence and respect of the system trying to control them.
 

 

[jaymann]

Also note this report which says how a 5 day testing regime can be up to 90% effective.

https://www.oxera.com/test-and-release-scheme

Also noteworthy - IOM follows PHE advice that single on-arrival test is 7% effective. Yet the evidence shows it is 54-76% effective.

 

[Nom de plume]

10 minutes ago, Filippo said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Candice Swanepoel does not need a ventilator or ambulance in standby because among the under 40s a Covid infection is less dangerous than a seasonal flu; a risk far too remote to worry about. Indeed, it is not a rational fear for most of us, if the concern has to be ramped up to the point of imposing drastic change to habits and lifestyle.

An authoritative study commissioned by the WHO and now peer-reviewed and accepted for publication has estimated COVID-19 infection fatality rate (IFR) across 51 locations, deriving a median rated of 0.27%; corrected as 0.23% according to their methodology. Here is the study:
              https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf
and below is a pic of the first page of that paper.

In my third posting to this thread dated 28 April I had estimated Covid IFR to be somewhere between 2 and 3 times the flu’s, i.e., between 0.2% and 0.3% (allow me to take credit for that early assessment). In reality, the IFR could still be lower. Studies so far have focused on what can be measured easily, i.e., the antibodies. But there are a number of different ways in which our immune system deals with pathogenic agents, and plenty of clues that this is the case with Covid. The IFR is possibly not much more than the common flu.

Scaremongering UK media often reports an IFR of 1%. One week ago Neil Ferguson was on the BBC talking of an IFR well above one per cent. His credentials are estimating 40 million deaths in the world this year, when we had 1.2 million so far. And violating lockdown rules by meeting his married lover (2nd pic shows Google’s result of “married lover”). Who is so stupid to listen to him when he preaches the morality of lockdown? Or anything else he says frankly. And would you trust Boris Johnson to stick to lockdown rules with your wife? Or acting on any other kind of genuine morality concern rather than crude political calculation?

I read a few bit and pieces of the thread on the spat between Chief Minister and Dr Glover. I am glad that the duo Quayle-Ashford is seen by most posters the way I see them. Halfwits woefully unable to deal with the crisis in a competent and honest manner. One poster caught my attention, Roger Mexico at pag. 20 of that thread:

This is about whose advice is taken and how policy is made and carried out. Dr Glover wasn't complaining that she hadn't been given an MBE or a pay rise, she was objecting to the fact that her advice and those of others hadn't even been asked for, never mind taken, in deciding what the testing regime should be.

Despite what Ashford (and a lot of people on here) seem to think, scientific advice can't just be one competing interest among many – not that they seem happy with even that.  Scientific advice has to be at the heart of the process because it's about what will work or not. It's not just about input, it's about assessing the various options to see what the consequences will be.

You can't produce policy based on what you would like, and then complain about it resulting in predictable outcomes that you don't like.  Though admittedly that's what a lot of governments and people are trying to do. But viruses will continue to do what they do, no matter how many [anonymous] e-mails you read out.

I think that the choices regarding Covid were always and inescapably political. But it is worth to ask how the kind of elected officials we would like to have would have dealt with the issue. They would have had the cognitive ability to figure out the viable options, and the honesty and communication skills to explain those to the public, so that policy aims and trade-offs were manifest. In case of the Isle of Man, I will describe in the following the three main alternatives.

The first option is what IOMG has done. Clear the virus from the island at huge cost; keep the border closed to prevent any resurgence of community spread; eradication, swift punishment of dissidents. Yes, I know the border is only closed up to a certain point. It is closed enough to prevent all routine back and forth travel. The winners are  those suffering from Covid phobia and the few parts of the hospitality industry (pubs and discos) that could have had some restrictions placed on them (minor restrictions in specific case of Jersey). The losers are all residents who needs to travel and, in various degrees, all businesses that are not entirely island-based.

The second option is what Jersey has done. Manage an open border through extensive testing and tracking. We know for sure, from the fact that Jersey has done it and we can observe the result, that the number of Covid fatalities adjusted for population size would have been the same. Winners and losers are swapped in respect to prior case.

It is worth asking what would have happened if IOMG had done much less: some initial mitigation effort followed by a nearly full reopening; no border closure; little or no testing of border crossings; that is the third option I am considering. San Marino, a land-locked micro-state of central Italy is one such example. I should have thought it by myself; I have been there a couple of times and I am aware of their history and system of governance. It was brought to my attention by a Daily Telegraph article a few days ago: “Tiny San Marino irks Italy with relaxed restaurant lockdown rules”. The article continues by saying that San Marino has provoked the ire of Italy’s policymakers by allowing bars and restaurants to stay open until late; unlike those across the border in Italy, which have to close by 6 pm and suffer from plenty of other restrictions. With no border controls of any description, Italians just drive across the border to have an evening pint with mates. Cheers.

San Marino covers a land area of 24 sq miles, has population of 33,5K and, unlike the Isle of Man, has sovereignty. It is relatively prosperous but with a run-of-the-mill kind of economy, which is not propped up by an influx of wealth residents with far away investments and business interests (what happens when you orbit a country like the UK with 0% corporation tax and 0% CGT). There is some offshore banking industry; tourism and hospitality are their most important source of revenue. Facing the choice between widespread bankruptcy/penury and tolerating more Covid deaths, it chose the latter. Initially there was lockdown-lite more similar to the Swiss than to the Italian one; then a full reopening with no border controls and it hasn’t looked back since. And more people died indeed. It has had the second in the world per-capita number of Covid cases and 42 deaths.

Adjusting for population size, the IOM equivalent would be 108 deaths. However, IOM is in the middle of the Irish Sea. We don’t, and can’t possibly have 1/3 of our population crossing our border every day. Nor we live into the multi-generational households that are typical of Southern Europe. Nor, most of us, have so many daily interactions by virtue of working in hospitality. I think, as a fair guess, we would have had half of that number of Covid fatalities. Somewhere between 40-60; at the bottom of that range if effort was put into testing incoming travellers and tracing the social connections of the infected. The looser of this freedom-fighter kind of policy would have been those who have irrational fears about Covid and want the illusion of an entirely Covid-free world. The winners would have been practically everyone else.

IOMG went for option 1 because it had an easier political justification and it knows the island can possibly afford the cost. But that cost is truly very high and it will result in meager pensions, reduced general welfare and poorer quality health care for many years to come; and certainly many more premature deaths along the line than the liberal third option on the above. Has there been any effort to quantify that and communicate it to the public? If the public had been aware of the options there would have been less blinkered support for the first option. Much less.

The communication skills of Quayle and Ashford went into overdrive for the character assassination of Rachel Glover; with the pantomime show of the anonymous letter read by Ashford on Manx Radio and their pathetic emissary on Manx Forums denigrating Ms Glover, also anonymously. Most of the other times, those communications skills have been kept hidden from us.

Beyond the hit to government finances with the consequent long-term degradation of health care services and general welfare, a more corrosive environment is the hidden cost of these policy failures: it happens when those of a more rational predisposition loose confidence and respect of the system trying to control them.
 

 

I love reading your posts. The opinions and observations often resonate with me.

I do wish we had people in the Keys who could be so honest and transparent.

[piebaps]

5 hours ago, Nom de plume said:

We are hanging out for two things to solve this mess:

1) A vaccine

2) An election 

There is nothing outside of this Blue Sky thinking.

PS - if we are to get to Level 2, the UK needs to bring its new infection rate below 30 in 100,000 & even then as the Guernsey air bridge debacle proved, HQ will move the goal posts to protect nirvana status.

I don't think an election would help you Ndp. It may not be what you border-openers want to hear but the overwhelming majority are quite happy with the current position, especially when the rest of the British Isles is in lockdown. An election would reinforce that - only IMHO of course.

[trmpton]

Brilliant post by Filippo.

Would love to see some of the fearmongers on FB try and come with a valid a reasoned non ranty response to that and argue why the borders should continue to remain closed.

[Roger Mexico]

4 hours ago, trmpton said:

Agree completely with Jason.  In fact he might have been reading my posts on here for the last couple of months.

That is exactly what’s needed as as much as lots on here keep denying it it’s the view of a lot of intelligent and experienced business figures.

I would imagine he has been reading your posts, given he's been posting on here for a few months and specifically on this thread.  But it doesn't necessarily mean that he and the Chamber of Commerce members are correct.  In fact CoCs are almost always wrong about everything, because they are really always about the short-term interests of their members and asking for more money for themselves.  Which is what lobby groups do, so it's their job,  but it does mean their advice isn't always the best for the country as a whole.

Actually both sides in this argument seem to getting quite a lot wrong.  Both with regard to testing and to the economic consequences.

[thesultanofsheight]

15 minutes ago, trmpton said:

Brilliant post by Filippo.

Would love to see some of the fearmongers on FB try and come with a valid a reasoned non ranty response to that and argue why the borders should continue to remain closed.

The images of the married lover search at the bottom though are quite perplexing! 

[Debbie]

1 hour ago, Filippo said:

Beyond the hit to government finances with the consequent long-term degradation of health care services and general welfare, a more corrosive environment is the hidden cost of these policy failures: it happens when those of a more rational predisposition loose confidence and respect of the system trying to control them.

 

1 hour ago, Nom de plume said:

I love reading your posts. The opinions and observations often resonate with me.

I do wish we had people in the Keys who could be so honest and transparent.

 

36 minutes ago, trmpton said:

Brilliant post by Filippo. Would love to see some of the fearmongers on FB try and come with a valid a reasoned non ranty response to that and argue why the borders should continue to remain closed.

 

19 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

The images of the married lover search at the bottom though are quite perplexing!

 

Another paper recently published on The Lancet comes down with the conclusion that tough mandatory restrictions have done little to control the spread of COVID. The same or better result could have been obtained through voluntary compliance.

It will take time for this perspective to sink into public consciousness; but it will eventually. The general public may lack the analytical capabilities to quantify through models etc; but people will understand that they have been treated like cogs in a machine by their governments for no good reason and with dreadful consequences.

I just googled “married lover” and I get even more of of Ferguson and his communist adulterer girlfriend (it seems that tech censorship of Covid dissenters has missed something here). It is not the relationship with someone who is married the main issue here; the issue is that Ferguson has been the most prominent moralising supporter of those lockdown rules, which is unable to comply with in his personal life. High octane hypocrisy; but it is all good for the BBC, which keeps interviewing him and broadcasting his scaremongering.

Here is the paper on The Lancet:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30244-3/fulltext

The authors identified a negative association between the number of days to any lockdown and the total reported cases per million, where a longer time prior to implementation of any lockdown was associated with a lower number of detected cases per million. Countries with a higher median population age, prevalence of obesity, and a longer number of days to any border closure had significantly higher caseloads with the total number of reported cases per million (i.e. full or partial lockdown). Strikingly socioeconomic factors like unemployment rate and per capita GDP were associated with increased number of critical cases per million. By contrast, lower income dispersion scores were associated with a reduction in the number of critical cases. Increased death rate per million population was identified for the prevalence of obesity and per capita GDP. Variables that were negatively associated with increased COVID-19 mortality were reduced income dispersion within the nation, smoking prevalence, and the number of nurses per million population. Full lockdowns, border closures, and high rate of COVID-19 testing were not associated with reduced number of critical cases or overall mortality.

 

[jaymann]

44 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

I would imagine he has been reading your posts, given he's been posting on here for a few months and specifically on this thread.  But it doesn't necessarily mean that he and the Chamber of Commerce members are correct.  In fact CoCs are almost always wrong about everything, because they are really always about the short-term interests of their members and asking for more money for themselves.  Which is what lobby groups do, so it's their job,  but it does mean their advice isn't always the best for the country as a whole.

Actually both sides in this argument seem to getting quite a lot wrong.  Both with regard to testing and to the economic consequences.

We need a balance.

Personally I find our CoC to be ill-effective, self-important and a waste of money. But that's by the by... I was asked to comment off the back of that survey and here we are.

I appreciate we may have something 'special'. But having travelled at the end of Sept and seen first hand, Zurich no different to here really, yes people have masks on public transport and in busier spaces. But they accept and get on with life, it was as near to normal as possible. Denmark? A thorough inward and outward testing regime that produces results in <4hrs of testing. All done to facilitate movement and allow business to keep moving.

When I tell people overseas what we have here, they initially think it's amazing. Then I tell them about who we've sent to prison and why, then they think we've lost the plot.

Back to balance: I appreciate we have an aged population who are very nervous. This is why we need a regime that facilitates a 'best possible outcome'.

Our problem as an Island is that we are acting like nothing more than a devolved local council of England. We need a new border framework that does not align to the UK. Our view on 'on arrival testing' is derived from PHE, which studies from Jersey, Iceland and other places show that on-arrival testing is actually picking up of 76% of cases instead of 7% as PHE says.

We need to invest in testing and an affective track & trace system to allow people to start moving. A point I made clear in my interview is that as it stands, we have a border framework that relies on UK national average, or establishing reciprocal bubbles like with Guernsey. That isn't good enough. A ranking sytem would set clear paths that people can identify how close they may to being able to visit a country, say Ireland for example.

I have probably far too much to say on the matter but it's not exactly a selfish view. I needed to travel for business and to see unwell family in UK and I did, then completed my self-isolation. But three key issues;

1) We will supposedly hit Level 2 (I think) of our Border Framework when the UK reaches infection rate 20/100K of population. Yet when Guernsey had a small controlled outbreak reflecting 5/100K of population, the bridge was instantly shut down, rightly or wrongly.

2) Many smaller businesses with directors and staff on the Isle of Man use our great quality of life as a 'base' and typically rely on freedom to move around to conduct business.

3) Our financial services sector is leaking considerable amounts of business to Jersey, considerable amounts.

The economic ripples are coming, they will hit many sectors, impacting many jobs in the future. We should be preparing now and our borders form a key part of that.

Edited November 5, 2020 by jaymann