IOM Covid removing restrictions

[Utah 01]

3 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

they were going to wait to see what happened elsewhere

Roxanne, it was there in front of you - that's the plan.  Yet another prime example of followship instead of leadership from our Parish council.

[John Wright]

1 hour ago, Banker said:

See Gatwick are launching testing if anyone traveling.

Gatwick to launch airport testing for passengers and staff

ReutersCopyright: Reuters

The travel industry has been particularly hard-hit by the coronavirus pandemic - with airport testing hailed by some as a solution to make air travel safer.

Well now London Gatwick Airport, south of the UK capital, says it will make Covid-19 screening available before departure and after arrival for passengers, staff and local residents.

It says results will be available the next day and that the scheme will satisfy any future changes to the UK's quarantine policy.

Currently, arrivals from many countries must quarantine for 14 days - but reports today say ministers are considering a so-called "test and release" policy allowing people to leave quarantine after a negative test result.

From 30 November, Gatwick passengers and staff will pay £60 for a test, with the general public charged £99.

It’s not a full solution. It may not be a solution at all if you’re departing via LGW. The airlines that serve destination countries with an undetectable test requirement aren’t allowed to board passengers without the certificate. If they did and the passenger arrives at destination with either a null or detectable test result the passenger gets a huge fine, is turned away and the airline has to pick up repatriation/isolation expenses and commercially high fines.

The usual requirement is an undetectable test sampled in the 72 hours before arrival. Results take at least 24 hours. So you’ve got to be tested at Gatwick 24 hours minimum before departure for it to be any good.

The certificate before departure is causing us timing difficulties if we proceed with Xmas travel plans. Even if there was private testing here it wouldn’t fit the time limits. Nowhere offers private testing over the weekend. So travel plans, booked a year ago, were depart IOM at 19.45 on a Sunday, stay in North West, Monday drive to Portsmouth, stay overnight, Check-In 07.00 on Tuesday with 09.00 departure. Arrive destination 14.30 Wednesday. Most testing centres offer 24/48 hour turnaround. There’s a place in Manchester offers same day testing and opens at 07.00. It’s £289 - each! All other results are too late for embarkation. I’m starting to lose the will to travel.

The LGW price is attractive. You don’t have to be travelling to book it. But it’s off route and I have to be in North West on the Monday for other things.

[Nom de plume]

21 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

I was somewhat perturbed when DA was asked yesterday if having the vaccine would affect travel and he said they were going to wait to see what happened elsewhere.  So even though they know the vaccine is coming, and they've got the fridges at the right temperature and everything they haven't actually thought about making a plan to deal with the implications after?

Correct.

Something along the lines of ...

When we've vaccinated all over 65's, those deemed vulnerable, NHS & care staff we will be in a position to allow unrestricted travel for the rest of the population.

Too simplistic, too hard?

They could have them all vax'd by the New Year if we are given the supply.

Those unwilling to be vax'd in the categories listed above would need to shield.

If something along those type of lines isn't put into place, people will be leaving permanently in their hundreds, perhaps thousands.

[quilp]

It's a dogs life...

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=59169&headline=Operation Furry Bridge&sectionIs=NEWS&searchyear=2020#readComments

 

[TheTeapot]

1 hour ago, Roxanne said:

I was somewhat perturbed when DA was asked yesterday if having the vaccine would affect travel and he said they were going to wait to see what happened elsewhere.  So even though they know the vaccine is coming, and they've got the fridges at the right temperature and everything they haven't actually thought about making a plan to deal with the implications after?

I think its fair to take that position (edit - at this time), there is too much uncertainty yet about the vaccines to be able to take a firm position. As far as I can tell no country anywhere has got a fixed plan around travel once vaccinations start.

It is pretty likely that some countries will probably want incoming travellers to have a vaccination, I'd expect somewhere like Australia to take that approach, but there isn't going to be any kind of international consensus - there hasn't been only any aspect of this pandemic.

I'd speculate that based on how our government has gone about things that they would probably like to have incoming travellers to prove they've been vaccinated, but thats a long way off, and would require legislation, and it makes sense to have a look at what other places are up to before making such moves.

Edited November 20, 2020 by TheTeapot

[ellanvannin2010]

2 hours ago, Nom de plume said:

Correct.

Something along the lines of ...

When we've vaccinated all over 65's, those deemed vulnerable, NHS & care staff we will be in a position to allow unrestricted travel for the rest of the population.

Too simplistic, too hard?

They could have them all vax'd by the New Year if we are given the supply.

Those unwilling to be vax'd in the categories listed above would need to shield.

If something along those type of lines isn't put into place, people will be leaving permanently in their hundreds, perhaps thousands.

Will you and your buddy @Bankerbe taking the vaccine when offered or just expect others to have it?

I can see it being a requirement for entry into many countries for quite a few months/years rather like the current negative test regime.

[jaymann]

Just now, ellanvannin2010 said:

Will you and your buddy @Bankerbe taking the vaccine when offered or just expect others to have it?

I can see it being a requirement for entry into many countries for quite a few months/years rather like the current negative test regime.

I'm not sure it can be a requirement any time soon when what I heard today suggests we won't start vaccinating people here until at least May.

It is going to take a very long time to vaccinate the world.

[immortalpuppet]

There isn’t a need to vaccinate the world

[ellanvannin2010]

1 minute ago, jaymann said:

I'm not sure it can be a requirement any time soon when what I heard today suggests we won't start vaccinating people here until at least May.

It is going to take a very long time to vaccinate the world.

A sovereign country can decide its own entry requirements regardless of the rationale about supply. If you want to travel there then you either follow their entry requirements or do not go.

[Apple]

3 hours ago, BenFairfax said:

Comes under 'failure to advice', where have threshold as ever of 'standard expected of a competent medical professional'.

I understood it to mean a certain level of percentage of risk - say 0.5 % 0f occurrence. May have changed.

[Banker]

Another 2 cases, Facebook karens & some on here will be in meltdown 😂

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/two-new-covid-19-cases-bringing-total-active-to-11/?fbclid=IwAR3U0yf4k8o5AfEPHPGStxVfi0m9ER09iYGSXZFO4dQNXZ_zwwObm1-5hlQ

[jaymann]

9 minutes ago, ellanvannin2010 said:

A sovereign country can decide its own entry requirements regardless of the rationale about supply. If you want to travel there then you either follow their entry requirements or do not go.

Good job we are nothing more than a devolved council of the UK.

[ellanvannin2010]

Just now, jaymann said:

Good job we are nothing more than a devolved council of the UK.

I imagine the common travel area rules would apply in that area but it does not need governments to require it just the travel providers.

I am curious though if the most vociferous on here for more freedom to travel are prepared to have the jab or not.

[John Wright]

3 hours ago, BenFairfax said:

Comes under 'failure to advice', where have threshold as ever of 'standard expected of a competent medical professional'. In UK that would mean BMA/NICE or similar guidelines. Which reminds me BMA/NICE require PPE used in all clinic settings were social distancing cannot be maintained which as far as I know is not happening even for high-risk groups at Nobles.

 

Not sure it’s the responsibility of the surgeon or other clinician to advise about risk of transmission of Covid in hospital. The trust clearly has a duty to ensure cleanliness and infection control.

Nobles is in a very different situation to Liverpool Royal, Walton, Clatterbridge, Heart & Chest etc. If you’re told, in IOM that if you don’t travel off island that nobles can’t treat you/operate for your condition, and that death is more likely than not, but an air ambulance across will result in successful treatment at a 95% level, a risk of Covid at 10% and a risk of death from the comorbidities, if you catch Covid, of 10% then I’d go.

Proving negligence for exposure to Covid is going to be very difficult. There are to many variables, plane, taxi, airport, before you get to the hospital in Liverpool

[Cambon]

6 hours ago, Lxxx said:

We live on a relatively Covid-free island and even an uptick in cases is manageable, there's nothing wrong with this scene. Stop scaremongering.

This, and in your previous post you were telling me we should be making plans to ease border restrictions. Which side of the discussion do you sit? 

I want borders eased. However, as things continue to worsen everywhere else, I see no mileage in planning for anything but mass vaccination asap!