IOM Covid removing restrictions

[forestboy]

They don’t like expert evidence or assistance. 

[pongo]

4 hours ago, rachomics said:

Just wait until those day 13 positives start coming in (if anyone is prepared to risk it). Surveillance testing at day 13 is one thing but punishing a positive with another 14 days is a little too much in my opinion. If they're positive at day 13 post-exposure they're very unlikely to be infectious beyond 21 days.

I know that you know much much more about this than I do. But would the argument not be that with this strain there is potentially greater risk of extended infectivity (ie beyond the normal period).  Even from slight residual viral shedding.

Edited December 22, 2020 by pongo

[wrighty]

10 minutes ago, pongo said:

I know that you know much much more about this than I do. But would the argument not be that with this strain there is potentially greater risk of extended infectivity (ie beyond the normal period).  Even from slight residual viral shedding.

I’ve not seen anything to suggest it’s infectious for longer.  Viral culture studies seem to be positive for 10 days post infection. Don’t understand the rationale for a now 21 day routine isolation, or a 13/27 day isolation based on a test. 

[BenFairfax]

1 hour ago, Lxxx said:

They've not really thought this through have they?

If only they had some expert advice on island to bounce ideas off.  

 

52 minutes ago, pongo said:

I know that you know much much more about this than I do. But would the argument not be that with this strain there is potentially greater risk of extended infectivity (ie beyond the normal period).  Even from slight residual viral shedding.

 

39 minutes ago, wrighty said:

I’ve not seen anything to suggest it’s infectious for longer.  Viral culture studies seem to be positive for 10 days post infection. Don’t understand the rationale for a now 21 day routine isolation, or a 13/27 day isolation based on a test. 

The policy as detailed here requires entire household to isolate, and risk here as has been case previously is that someone returning infects another household member on say day 10... If person returning refuses a test then at least other family member is let out 11 days after infection (not 4). I would argue 21 days for people who refuse test is not really long enough. Please note the people traveling are wishing to benefit themselves while socializing the risks to rest of society. 

The policy move announced today is proactive, balanced and robust. Only thing I would tweak is to charge 250 GBP for exemption certificate and refund 200 GBP when had test 13 days after return. All bit academic now since UK be in lockdown in 2 weeks, but border policy got there in the end. 

Edited December 22, 2020 by BenFairfax
typo

[Banker]

32 minutes ago, wrighty said:

I’ve not seen anything to suggest it’s infectious for longer.  Viral culture studies seem to be positive for 10 days post infection. Don’t understand the rationale for a now 21 day routine isolation, or a 13/27 day isolation based on a test. 

They’ve obviously been speaking to their mates in Guernsey who announced exactly the same policy at 1pm although they have been doing day 1 & 13 testing for some time but not compulsory 

[AcousticallyChallenged]

I think the making people pay for a test or making them isolate for another week isn't entirely fair. I think, like many other countries do, the testing should be mandatory and managed by government. Surely they could have someone swabbing at the sea terminal and airport, for the limited passengers we are getting at the moment.

Most people won't be traveling unless they really have to, and penalizing the less well-off who might be going away for compassionate circumstances, and already stretching themselves to do so just compounds the issue. It's not like people are traveling for pleasure at the moment.

[wrighty]

37 minutes ago, BenFairfax said:

 

 

The policy as detailed here requires entire household to isolate, and risk here as has been case previously is that someone returning infects another household member on say day 10... If person returning refuses a test then at least other family member is let out 11 days after infection (not 4). I would argue 21 days for people who refuse test is not really long enough. Please note the people traveling are wishing to benefit themselves while socializing the risks to rest of society. 

The policy move announced today is proactive, balanced and robust. Only thing I would tweak is to charge 250 GBP for exemption certificate and refund 200 GBP when had test 13 days after return. All bit academic now since UK be in lockdown in 2 weeks, but border policy got there in the end. 

The same logic dictates that isolation time should depend on the number in the household, let’s say for 13n+1 days for the entire house. Just in case A infects B who infects C etc. 

Seems a bit much to me. 

[TheTeapot]

13 minutes ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

 the testing should be mandatory

What happens when someone says no?

[Banker]

14 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

What happens when someone says no?

You have to isolate for 21 days but if you pay £50 For testing then test positive at day 13 you get another 14 days making 27!! Surely they should just test again say in 2:3 days 

[TheTeapot]

I meant about mandatory testing,

[Barlow]

2 hours ago, asitis said:

Did he explain the delay in starting vaccination ?

There was lots and lots of words about other stuff but nothing said. Perhaps the question was asked at the end?? (actually it wasn't)

[BenFairfax]

42 minutes ago, wrighty said:

The same logic dictates that isolation time should depend on the number in the household, let’s say for 13n+1 days for the entire house. Just in case A infects B who infects C etc. 

Seems a bit much to me. 

It is a balance, but why I thought 21 days is bit short, but risk is very real CDC stated it expects 50% of a household to become infected if one member is. Remember, we are talking about people who refuse social responsible measure of being tested. With this group, and making very reasonable assumption that they are anti social, a genuine possibility is someone develops symptoms before day 13 and refuses a test to avoid further 14 days isolation.   

42 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

What happens when someone says no?

Why I thought should be financial penalty. Jersey now has 0, 5, 10 day test and in Jersey press said not let out unless tested. Not sure what this means and cannot stuffed to check. Jersey has 933 per 100K active cases (i.e. known positive tests in past 14 days). From memory highest I recall in UK was Oldham at 720 per 100K once. It should be rest world trying to protect themselves from Jersey not the other way around.

Edited December 22, 2020 by BenFairfax
Jersey, Oldham data per 100K to scale for population.

[Barlow]

Jeersey? But..but...but weren't there's lots of people saying we should do what Jersey was doing. Open up borders and all that.

[Happier diner]

19 minutes ago, Barlow said:

Jeersey? But..but...but weren't there's lots of people saying we should do what Jersey was doing. Open up borders and all that.

Come on Barlow. We have celebrated this one enough now. Time to let the "let's be like Jersey brigade off the hook"......or maybe not!

[AcousticallyChallenged]

1 hour ago, TheTeapot said:

What happens when someone says no?

What happens now when someone is told by 111 they need a test and don't get tested?