IOM Covid removing restrictions

[Cambon]

1 hour ago, ellanvannin2010 said:

But it would only be required if you wanted to travel to that particular country, absolutely nothing for instance to stop the USA making it a requirement before a Visa or ESTA is issued.

If you choose not to take the vaccine  when and if it is available then of course that is your right but you may find that your freedom to travel the world will be more restricted.

I seriously doubt it. Firstly, if you have had the virus, you don't need the vaccine. Secondly, if you are under 60, it is not that bad and is unlikely to cause long term problems.

So, vaccinate the over 60s (or over 50s if you want to be safer) and let the virus loose. 

[wrighty]

Just now, Cambon said:

I seriously doubt it. Firstly, if you have had the virus, you don't need the vaccine. Secondly, if you are under 60, it is not that bad and is unlikely to cause long term problems.

So, vaccinate the over 60s (or over 50s if you want to be safer) and let the virus loose. 

It’s likely any vaccine will work better on the younger age groups. Therefore, concentrate efforts on 18-65 age group and go for herd protection rather than trying to directly protect the vulnerable. 

[Anyone]

Which won’t happen. I fully expect to be last being in that funny 60 to 65 bracket. 

[Banker]

13 minutes ago, wrighty said:

It’s likely any vaccine will work better on the younger age groups. Therefore, concentrate efforts on 18-65 age group and go for herd protection rather than trying to directly protect the vulnerable. 

Probably right but as announced today in PMs conference the over 85s will get it first ! Followed by care home residents plus front line health care workers.

Doubtful younger ones will ever get it unless they have underlying health conditions 

[Anyone]

So the wrong way round to get things moving. Predictable I suppose. Just eat buckets of KFC and gallons of coke , get fat and diabetic get the vaccine. Simple.

[TheTeapot]

This interim ranking of priorities is a combination of clinical risk stratification and an age-based approach, which should optimise both targeting and deliverability. A provisional ranking of prioritisation for persons at-risk is set out below:

1. older adults’ resident in a care home and care home workers¹
2. all those 80 years of age and over and health and social care workers¹
3. all those 75 years of age and over
4. all those 70 years of age and over
5. all those 65 years of age and over
6. high-risk adults under 65 years of age
7. moderate-risk adults under 65 years of age
8. all those 60 years of age and over
9. all those 55 years of age and over
10. all those 50 years of age and over
11. rest of the population (priority to be determined)²

 

^{https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/priority-groups-for-coronavirus-covid-19-vaccination-advice-from-the-jcvi-25-september-2020/jcvi-updated-interim-advice-on-priority-groups-for-covid-19-vaccination?s=09}

[The Voice of Reason]

1 hour ago, thesultanofsheight said:

But then again this is an island that puts you in prison for buying a sandwich. 

No it doesn’t. Buying a sandwich is not illegal here. Contravening regulations relating to COVID 19, designed to hep keep the population safe, however is.

[thesultanofsheight]

2 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

No it doesn’t. Buying a sandwich is not illegal here. Contravening regulations relating to COVID 19, designed to hep keep the population safe, however is.

Blah, blah, blah .. 

[Anyone]

1 minute ago, TheTeapot said:

This interim ranking of priorities is a combination of clinical risk stratification and an age-based approach, which should optimise both targeting and deliverability. A provisional ranking of prioritisation for persons at-risk is set out below:

1. older adults’ resident in a care home and care home workers¹
2. all those 80 years of age and over and health and social care workers¹
3. all those 75 years of age and over
4. all those 70 years of age and over
5. all those 65 years of age and over
6. high-risk adults under 65 years of age
7. moderate-risk adults under 65 years of age
8. all those 60 years of age and over
9. all those 55 years of age and over
10. all those 50 years of age and over
11. rest of the population (priority to be determined)²

 

^{https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/priority-groups-for-coronavirus-covid-19-vaccination-advice-from-the-jcvi-25-september-2020/jcvi-updated-interim-advice-on-priority-groups-for-covid-19-vaccination?s=09}

I’d go 11 first to 1 on that. Seriously , let’s get those economically active going first. Much of the rest are already hiding under the stairs anyway.

[The Voice of Reason]

2 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

 

[the stinking enigma]

Goldgrube

[Banker]

Wasn’t ashie saying the other week the IOM is limited to 18 rapid COVID tests per week and they are impossible to get anywhere? How come UK are rolling out 500,000 in Liverpool with no issues?

[Anyone]

32 minutes ago, the stinking enigma said:

Goldgrube

I agree.

[Apple]

35 minutes ago, the stinking enigma said:

Goldgrube

Had to look it up. I agree. 

[rachomics]

9 minutes ago, Banker said:

Wasn’t ashie saying the other week the IOM is limited to 18 rapid COVID tests per week and they are impossible to get anywhere? How come UK are rolling out 500,000 in Liverpool with no issues?

It's 16 a day and they are rationed to each hospital by the UK government after each country was given it's ration from the manufacturer (we fall under UK as a crown dependency). These rapid tests are very different (and far more accurate) than the ones being used in Liverpool.