IOM Covid removing restrictions

[Lxxx]

23 hours ago, Gladys said:

So, in layman's terms, the socially responsible thing to do is have the vaccine?

That makes no sense when they haven't even established whether the vaccines prevent transmission. Their efficacy at the moment is based on reducing illness, some vaccine makers haven't even attempted to test for transmission yet. It has been a relatively short race to get a product to market thus far, to offer personal protection to the vulnerable.

They have no idea whether recipients who get the vaccine and subsequently develop no symptoms do in fact spread the virus asymptomatically. It will take a lot longer trials to establish over the medium to long term if this is the case. It could be but as much as you can speed up manufacturing and processing you cannot as yet speed up time, which is the crucial indicator. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-11-19/vaccines-from-pfizer-moderna-fight-covid-19-but-may-not-stop-spread

Edited November 29, 2020 by Lxxx

[Major Rushen]

15 hours ago, Banker said:

WTF have you actually read or listened, it’s about Manx people coming home to see families at Xmas, most countries in the world are allowing some relaxation at Xmas but not big Howie!

People coming to visit from or passing thru areas with high numbers of infection. It is very distressing but for those who are making the best of it here why should we have the risk of your family coming over.

[Lxxx]

1 minute ago, Major Rushen said:

People coming to visit from or passing thru areas with high numbers of infection. It is very distressing but for those who are making the best of it here why should we have the risk of your family coming over.

It is less of a risk than you currently have to contend with walking past people in the street whom you have no idea are classified as a key worker and thus are exempt from the kind of strict isolation regulations that a family member of someone else you don't know would have to go through to also walk past you in the street. 

It would be wise to run your arguments past a sensible person before posting, lest you make a fool of yourself on the internet.

[Gladys]

33 minutes ago, Lxxx said:

That makes no sense when they haven't even established whether the vaccines prevent transmission. Their efficacy at the moment is based on reducing illness, some vaccine makers haven't even attempted to test for transmission yet. It has been a relatively short race to get a product to market thus far, to offer personal protection to the vulnerable.

They have no idea whether recipients who get the vaccine and subsequently develop no symptoms do in fact spread the virus asymptomatically. It will take a lot longer trials to establish over the medium to long term if this is the case. It could be but as much as you can speed up manufacturing and processing you cannot as yet speed up time, which is the crucial indicator. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-11-19/vaccines-from-pfizer-moderna-fight-covid-19-but-may-not-stop-spread

I suppose the answer to that is that it may not prevent the spread but will prevent many from developing the worst symptoms so if everyone, or a large proportion, are vaccinated, what does the spread matter? 

[Happier diner]

11 minutes ago, Gladys said:

I suppose the answer to that is that it may not prevent the spread but will prevent many from developing the worst symptoms so if everyone, or a large proportion, are vaccinated, what does the spread matter? 

Yes. I'm with you. I am not a doctor but I am a s scientist. I would have thought that the virus would have to replicate itself in you in order for you to become seriously infectious. I'm not saying I know this for a fact but it would seem to be common sense. If the vaccine stops you becoming infected doesn't it stop it replicating in your body?

[Lxxx]

3 minutes ago, Gladys said:

I suppose the answer to that is that it may not prevent the spread but will prevent many from developing the worst symptoms so if everyone, or a large proportion, are vaccinated, what does the spread matter? 

Your whole argument was based though on stopping the spread being a socially responsible thing to do. However if stopping the spread cannot be guaranteed then what makes sense is for people in high risk categories and people who want the vaccine to take it and the people whose risk from Covid is lower than the risk of potential side effects, like small children whom the threat of Covid is negligible, to go about their business as normal. There's reduced risk to grandparents hugging said children in this situation as they are all vaccinated so we proceed as we do now with influenza and society opens up again. 

[piebaps]

49 minutes ago, Lxxx said:

It is less of a risk than you currently have to contend with walking past people in the street whom you have no idea are classified as a key worker and thus are exempt from the kind of strict isolation regulations that a family member of someone else you don't know would have to go through to also walk past you in the street. 

 

That's not correct. Key workers aren't exempt. They get a direction notice which tells them they can travel between place of work and accommodation only and they have to self isolate within their accommodation too.

There's an FOI on gov.im dated 13/11/20 with an example of the notice.

Edited November 29, 2020 by piebaps

[Lxxx]

3 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Yes. I'm with you. I am not a doctor but I am a s scientist. I would have thought that the virus would have to replicate itself in you in order for you to become seriously infectious. I'm not saying I know this for a fact but it would seem to be common sense. If the vaccine stops you becoming infected doesn't it stop it replicating in your body?

The vaccine doesn't stop you becoming infected, it only modifies the bodies response. Initial concerns are that a recipient would become similar to an asymptomatic carrier that we see today, of which we have data to suggest that they still spread the virus which is why we have our 14 day isolation periods. 

Pfizer are intending in the coming months to test recipients blood samples to check for viral particles that were not in the vaccine, to establish whether their product has an influence on re-infection rates in vaccinated individuals. As yet, no-one knows and it is too early to tell. 

 

[Lxxx]

3 minutes ago, piebaps said:

That's not correct. Key workers aren't exempt. They get a direction notice which tells them they can travel between place of work and accommodation only and they have to self isolate within their accommodation too.

There's an FOI on gov.im dated 13/11/20 with an example of the notice.

Apologies. Substitute street for corridor then.

[Gladys]

50 minutes ago, Lxxx said:

Your whole argument was based though on stopping the spread being a socially responsible thing to do. However if stopping the spread cannot be guaranteed then what makes sense is for people in high risk categories and people who want the vaccine to take it and the people whose risk from Covid is lower than the risk of potential side effects, like small children whom the threat of Covid is negligible, to go about their business as normal. There's reduced risk to grandparents hugging said children in this situation as they are all vaccinated so we proceed as we do now with influenza and society opens up again. 

No, my whole argument is stopping the virus severely affecting people and the consequent measures we currently have to stop the spread are severely damaging.  That is the only tool we have now with the resulting impact on wider health, mental wellbeing, economy and society and anything that reduces that impact but requires at least a 70% uptake has to be a matter of social responsibility.  

[Lxxx]

1 minute ago, Gladys said:

No, my whole argument is stopping the virus severely affecting people and the consequent measures we currently have to stop the spread are severely damaging.  That is the only tool we have now with the resulting impact on wider health, mental wellbeing, economy and society and anything that reduces that impact but requires at least a 70% uptake has to be a matter of social responsibility.  

Fair point. I am not against using all measures possible to get things moving again, we just have to be cognisant of the facts and there are a lot of assumptions being made on here.

I spent many of my younger years as a data analyst and I suppose my viewpoint stems from that background, which is that everything else apart from all known data is just noise and especially so when there are large sums of money involved. 

[Gladys]

1 minute ago, Lxxx said:

Fair point. I am not against using all measures possible to get things moving again, we just have to be cognisant of the facts and there are a lot of assumptions being made on here.

I spent many of my younger years as a data analyst and I suppose my viewpoint stems from that background, which is that everything else apart from all known data is just noise and especially so when there are large sums of money involved. 

Well, that is a fair point.  This whole pandemic has been underpinned by simplistic, uncontextualised data which acts as a trigger to the general population.  Vis, positive tests for cases, death from any cause within 28 days of a positive test.  I am not saying it isn't a prevalent and, in some cases, a devastating disease, but the headline stats without context have generated much fear and the introduction of measures that are arguably worse than the disease itself. 

So, we now have some (not 1 but 3, I think) vaccinations and I just cannot understand why so many are trying to find reasons not to have one of them. 

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, Lxxx said:

Apologies. Substitute street for corridor then.

No. That's not true. If a key worker cannot work in isolation they must self isolate for 14days. Only those that come and go can be exempted, but that exemption is conditional on them working in an isolated situation. I can assure you the procedure is rigorous. 

[Banker]

1 hour ago, piebaps said:

That's not correct. Key workers aren't exempt. They get a direction notice which tells them they can travel between place of work and accommodation only and they have to self isolate within their accommodation too.

There's an FOI on gov.im dated 13/11/20 with an example of the notice.

Key workers can now have test at 7 days and if negative go to shops and walk down streets etc so there is a difference, it’s only if you are a resident who pays taxes etc that you can’t have 7 days testing any longer 

[Happier diner]

2 hours ago, Lxxx said:

That makes no sense when they haven't even established whether the vaccines prevent transmission. Their efficacy at the moment is based on reducing illness, some vaccine makers haven't even attempted to test for transmission yet. It has been a relatively short race to get a product to market thus far, to offer personal protection to the vulnerable.

They have no idea whether recipients who get the vaccine and subsequently develop no symptoms do in fact spread the virus asymptomatically. It will take a lot longer trials to establish over the medium to long term if this is the case. It could be but as much as you can speed up manufacturing and processing you cannot as yet speed up time, which is the crucial indicator. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-11-19/vaccines-from-pfizer-moderna-fight-covid-19-but-may-not-stop-spread

This contradicts my A level biology. At the end of the day our antibodies attack the virus and kill it. The Pfizer vaccine stimulates the production of antibodies in a different way but the same biology applies. The virus does not continue to reproduce in a vaccinated person (if the antibody response has been triggered) so they would not be as contagious as someone who was ill and actively shedding viable virus.