IOM Covid removing restrictions

[NoTailT]

3 minutes ago, Nom de plume said:

Unless it's advance preparation of eased border restrictions to permit family Christmas visitations?

I'm second guessing btw. 

Are you feeling okay?

[Nom de plume]

Just now, NoTailT said:

Are you feeling okay?

Call it blind optimism!

[Cambon]

1 hour ago, Declan said:

1. Exactly. That's why those that can be vaccinated should be. It's harder for the virus to spread if there are 800 unvaccinated people than if there 80,000.

2. But he's still in the group of people you would leave unvaccinated.

3. That's all right then - let some people suffer it.

1. Ashy said on the radio this morning that Iom will get around 100,000 doses. Enough to vaccinate around 50,000 people, by around next summer/ autumn. I'll let you do the maths.

2. He was high risk. He would have been vaccinated. However, having already recovered from the virus, he does not require a vaccination. 

3. There will always be casualties. 

[AcousticallyChallenged]

There's no way in hell they'd be bringing in a lockdown now, there's simply no good reason to, unless they're about to reveal a big community spread.

Though, given the New Rules On Isolation, and the fact that families are far more likely to mingle with the isolators and contract it, there could be a bit of a different approach being brought in. The new rules mean that quite easily, person A could come home asymptomatic, pass the virus to person B, who doesn't develop symptoms until they've been quite merrily enjoying their freedom after 14 days.

Possibly a recommendation of face coverings and 1m+ social distancing, not as there's any immediate risk but to get people ready for the influx of people over Christmas, and the greater risk that could pose.

[immortalpuppet]

General update, doesn’t usually cause people to flap.

[Declan]

16 minutes ago, Cambon said:

1. Ashy said on the radio this morning that Iom will get around 100,000 doses. Enough to vaccinate around 50,000 people, by around next summer/ autumn. I'll let you do the maths.

2. He was high risk. He would have been vaccinated. However, having already recovered from the virus, he does not require a vaccination. 

3. There will always be casualties. 

I really don't know what point you are trying to make now.

[Lxxx]

13 minutes ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

There's no way in hell they'd be bringing in a lockdown now, there's simply no good reason to, unless they're about to reveal a big community spread.

Though, given the New Rules On Isolation, and the fact that families are far more likely to mingle with the isolators and contract it, there could be a bit of a different approach being brought in. The new rules mean that quite easily, person A could come home asymptomatic, pass the virus to person B, who doesn't develop symptoms until they've been quite merrily enjoying their freedom after 14 days.

Possibly a recommendation of face coverings and 1m+ social distancing, not as there's any immediate risk but to get people ready for the influx of people over Christmas, and the greater risk that could pose.

Which again, is nonsense. We're not shipping a load of people in from the third world. Take sensible precautions and carry on. 

[AcousticallyChallenged]

3 minutes ago, Lxxx said:

Which again, is nonsense. We're not shipping a load of people in from the third world. Take sensible precautions and carry on. 

Lots of 3rd world countries doing better than England are, plus, have you ever been to Morecambe? Bits of that feel rougher than a lot of places.

Though, given that the risk is increasing, albeit to a still very low level, I'd rather be asked to wear a mask and keep everywhere open and operating as normal, than to have to go back to where we were at first lockdown.

[Lxxx]

2 minutes ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

Lots of 3rd world countries doing better than England are, plus, have you ever been to Morecambe? Bits of that feel rougher than a lot of places.

Though, given that the risk is increasing, albeit to a still very low level, I'd rather be asked to wear a mask and keep everywhere open and operating as normal, than to have to go back to where we were at first lockdown.

Fair point about the third world.

The risk is still the same as it was last month and with the new quarantine restrictions it will still be the same next month too. Any decision to mandate mask wearing will be a political one to fall in line with across and the majority of the wider world, not based on an increase (projected or otherwise) after any risk assessment here. 

[NoTailT]

Henrietta is in the house. Shit going down.

[Banker]

All isolating can now do 1 hour exercise with face masks on which is a positive change 😀

as usual Howie is giving a full news update on vaccines which he probably got off sky news!!

[NoTailT]

No lockdown. Whispers come to nothing, shock.

[Cambon]

8 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

No lockdown. Whispers come to nothing, shock.

First whispers I heard were about three weeks ago, from someone who works at the hospital. He said the hospital were ramping up beds ready for a probable lock down before Christmas. 

You will also notice signs back up in Shoprite, etc. saying they will limit numbers of item sales. 

[NoTailT]

Ashford has his grimace on. He's backed in to a corner and full of shit.

[Barlow]

Fair play to Paul Moulton.