IOM Covid removing restrictions

[Anyone]

12 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said:

If I want 'catch it'...I'll read some of the guff you post

I meant the bus. Can’t you read. 

[BenFairfax]

2 hours ago, Albert Tatlock said:

Very informative.

Dr Glover spelt out one clear take away for me which was: given the incubation period of this disease and whole households isolating for 14 days (2 weeks) with returning residents/students...that if more comprehensive testing is not carried out in the second isolation week for these households then there is a much higher risk of the disease spreading.

i.e. An asymptomatic carrier could infect the household anywhere between 3 and 7 days later and then that household could be highly infectious to others on the day of their release from isolation AND several days after.

Given the numbers returning, and without more whole-household testing in week 2, this highlights the very high probability that we  WILL see a number of clusters appearing here in the two weeks before Christmas and probably a far larger number of clusters over the holiday.

Packed shops, pubs and venues in the holiday build up will be rife for spreading this virus...and then as generations meet over the holiday week - things could get really serious here again.

Given the large numbers returning, AND given they have the testing capability, Government need to introduce a negative test on day 14 as a prerequisite for release from isolation. Otherwise Probability 101 suggests we will be in big trouble here by January.

We seem to be sleep-walking into an avoidable situation currently -particularly as the testing capability is simply not being used. This is solely down to politicians.

We got two clear calibration data points from @rachomics on false negatives, namely quoting her:

• 7 days (a PCR test) detects positive 94% of time
• 14 days (a PCR test) detects positive 99% of time

So testing person who returned on day 14, we would identify 99 out of 100 cases of importation of virus, if that person positive test other household members. This reduces chance an outbreak such as occurred this week from being undetected by factor of 100.

[Anyone]

Too technical

[Scotty]

2 hours ago, Anyone said:

I meant the bus. Can’t you read. 

Albert is the Daddy round here. Don’t be dissing him.

[Anyone]

Ooh , I’m sooo scared. Sure he can fight his own battles. You ?  Well you can fuck off Dilli.

[John Wright]

25 minutes ago, BenFairfax said:

We got two clear calibration data points from @rachomics on false negatives, namely quoting her:

• 7 days (a PCR test) detects positive 94% of time
• 14 days (a PCR test) detects positive 99% of time

So testing person who returned on day 14, we would identify 99 out of 100 cases of importation of virus, if that person positive test other household members. This reduces chance an outbreak such as occurred this week from being undetected by factor of 100.

Not sure you can be as dogmatic as that. Having detectable Covid by PCR doesn’t mean you’re infectious. Bits of it hang around, inactive, not infectious, but detectable. Having an undetectable Covid test doesn’t mean you haven’t got it, it doesn’t even mean you aren’t infectious. The science seems to say infectious ness is at highest just before detectability.

What we can be certain of is that we are working with risk. We have to agree what risk is low enough to be acceptable, especially with other tools, like efficient track & trace, keeping people who are detectable out in the first place ( especially now it’s explained that the 7% is a false and very low underestimation.)

[John Wright]

8 minutes ago, Anyone said:

Ooh , I’m sooo scared. Sure he can fight his own battles. You ?  Well you can fuck off Dilli.

Some idiots are on furlough as they’re starting playing the sock puppet game.

[BenFairfax]

5 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Having detectable Covid by PCR doesn’t mean you’re infectious.

That what be other calibration data points, if got data/reference please send, other than Dr Google I have no real idea.

6 minutes ago, John Wright said:

What we can be certain of is that we are working with risk.

Yes, also have risk to society, which have set policies, then each individuals can lay their own choices over that, such as choice to travel off island. The 7% rate was from airline study, which assumed all people who had detectable infection were not all owed the board a flight (and various other assumption). This assumption not really case here, since no test before boarding flights/boat. 

[Scotty]

1 hour ago, BenFairfax said:

That what be other calibration data points, if got data/reference please send, other than Dr Google I have no real idea.

Yes, also have risk to society, which have set policies, then each individuals can lay their own choices over that, such as choice to travel off island. The 7% rate was from airline study, which assumed all people who had detectable infection were not all owed the board a flight (and various other assumption). This assumption not really case here, since no test before boarding flights/boat. 

In no way am I making light of your posts, but in a serious debate, the only posts I take seriously are the ones from posters using their real names like  Ian Whight, John Wright and about two others. The rest is fair game for challenge.

[Gladys]

43 minutes ago, Scotty said:

In no way am I making light of your posts, but in a serious debate, the only posts I take seriously are the ones from posters using their real names like  Ian Whight, John Wright and about two others. The rest is fair game for challenge.

Ironic, or what?

[Scotty]

11 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Ironic, or what?

Don’t think so. Nobody gives a flying one what I say, with good reason. Why should we take notice of what is posted by anonymous posters. ?

 

Edited November 15, 2020 by Scotty

[Cambon]

10 hours ago, Lxxx said:

For a lot of people the island was a relatively accessible base in which to conduct the rest of your life, business interests etc... Many will be re-evaluating that in 2021.

Sorry, but I think you are wrong. In fact, I think the opposite. I think  the isolation and safety will attract people, especially the independently wealthy. 

 

[GreyWolf]

Having Just watched the Moulton interview with Dr Glover she came across as calm and very intelligent someone we need in this crisis to be on the team to help guide us through.

[Cambon]

9 hours ago, Lxxx said:

Let's be better than behaving like other jurisdictions who seem to have lost all semblance of sanity and humanity during this period. 

Ireland has been worse than the uk. Imagine, the pubs have been closed since March! IN IRELAND! FECK!!!! 

[quilp]

14 minutes ago, Scotty said:

... Nobody gives a flying one what I say, with good reason.

This made me laugh, I hope you meant it to be funny. You're a treasured member of this online community in my book.

14 minutes ago, Scotty said:

Why should we take notice of what is posted by anonymous posters?

Because that's the name of the game here, isn't it? Anonymity provides licence to speak more honestly, perhaps?