Numbnuts Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 (edited) 6 minutes ago, The Old Git said: Of course not. She's a woman. Howard doesn't like women, especially intelligent ones with an opinion. He doesnt like women and know that for a fact. Re Rachel , because of pigheadedness and lack of backbone someone could die because of a failure to use all the tools available . Its bordering on criminal that she has been pushed aside regardless of whats gone on. We need every asset we have as clearly CS. and ministers involved have no idea tbh . Edited January 11, 2021 by Numbnuts 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 19 minutes ago, AcousticallyChallenged said: We're on the back foot with two real options. One politically speaking, isn't an option as it involves an outcast. So, we lockdown and hope it fizzles out like it did last time. I feel like this lockdown is a lot more relaxed compared to the start of the last one, lots more grannies out and about, more traffic on the roads, and everyone and their dog are advertising homemade brownies delivered to your door. People are still trying to live, heaven forbid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmanxpilot Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 Just now, Non-Believer said: It depends what your definition of "being apart from others" is. As has been outlined just previously on here, transmissibility may be increased in cold conditions. All those good people heaving and panting their way up a hill in the name of "health" and "rights" when they've been overtly told to stay at home is not, "posing no risk to the rest of us". If you need an uphill walk, open the windows and climb your house stairs vigourously a few times. It has the same effect. Two things form the 'being apart' definition. Time and distance. Keep at least 2m apart and don't stop to talk. Add to this the fact that most were wearing a face covering (either because of the mask advice or because it was offing freezing up there the other day) means that the risk of transmission was infinitesimal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said: That is an important confusion and one they clearly are failing to understand they are falling into. But the specific problem is that Ashford has been quoting the 7% since the start of November despite it being implausible to start with and debunked at the time. I wrote this then: I couldn't work out where the 7% that everyone keeps repeating comes from. Luckily the Manx Radio piece discloses the source - a PHE modelling paper from August. I think this is being misread as the 7% isn't based on any clinical evidence, but from modelling assumptions from which they calculate (I think) that 7% of people who were undetectable at the start of a 'medium haul' flight (by which they mean 7-9 hours) would test positive on arrival. It's not really relevant or based on reality. It also wasn't really the point of the paper which was to point out how much more efficient a double testing regime was than just testing on arrival. In practice a test on arrival will pick up a much higher percentage than 7%, but even 50% still means you are letting a lot of infected people in and need additional measures for the whole population - which still may not work as we see in Jersey at the moment. It's not just about him get a fact wrong - we all make mistakes - it's the repeating of it and the not even trying to understand the context. Together with the DHSC management they seem to have got into a ritual approach to the problem doing the same actions over and over again without understanding the underlying mechanisms. That interview was full of such confusions and nonsense - very little he said was right and when it was (such as Day 1 tests being nothing like good enough) it was usually for the wrong reasons. Thank you Roger, I feel somewhat vindicated as not being as thick as pig shit when it comes to sums! So not only is the basis of day 1 flawed, the study informing the health minister's approach is not directly relevant? Dr Ewart 'losing it' with Paul Moulton was a bit of a blow as she was 'the expert' that we could rely on to give us fact not a misinterpretation. The genome testing would seem to be key to getting control of it as it will allow accurate tracing and we all know what the next question should be! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmanxpilot Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 14 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said: I'm not even sure that the genomics that Liverpool were providing (and weren't we supposed to have them last Friday?) are the sort that helps with contact tracing and sorting cases into clusters. It sounded as if it was just about testing to see if the new (English) variant was responsible for these cases. If you have two cases of unknown source and the variant of the virus is different in each case, you know they've come from different sources. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 Just now, madmanxpilot said: Two things form the 'being apart' definition. Time and distance. Keep at least 2m apart and don't stop to talk. Add to this the fact that most were wearing a face covering (either because of the mask advice or because it was offing freezing up there the other day) means that the risk of transmission was infinitesimal. And were they all 2M apart? Didn't any of them bump into people they knew and stopped to exchange New Year niceties? And "Most" were wearing a face covering? It's riddled with holes that the virus can't wait to exploit. And it will or is doing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 25 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said: Being able to quickly analyse the genomic variant of the virus would be a godsend to contact tracing. Someone needs eat a bit of humble pie to cut through this puerile bullshit. What would be different if we knew. Why not just assume it is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmanxpilot Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 Just now, Happier diner said: What would be different if we knew. Why not just assume it is It's not the type of variant thats important in this context, but the fact that if people present with different variants there can be a benefit to helping trace the transmission line. I'm fairly certain it has been said that there are multiple variants of the virus circulating, and that the 'Kent' variant has only been singled out because it is significant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmanxpilot Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 Just now, madmanxpilot said: It's not the type of variant thats important in this context, but the fact that if people present with different variants there can be a benefit to helping trace the transmission line. I'm fairly certain it has been said that there are multiple variants of the virus circulating, and that the 'Kent' variant has only been singled out because it is significant. Like sheep with different coloured dyes on their backs - you can tell who they've been f**cked by.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 (edited) 12 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said: If you have two cases of unknown source and the variant of the virus is different in each case, you know they've come from different sources. But the trouble is that the converse doesn't apply - if they're from the same variant it doesn't mean they're from the same source. That's why you need to do the detailed sequencing (which is what Taxa Genomics specialises in). Then if the virus in a patient is similar or identical to another case you know they are linked and can look at how - discovering others who may be infected. Edited to add: @rachomics made a similar point on Twitter earlier today: The elephant in the room for on-Island COVID-19 genomics is that if a positive was sequenced in 24-36 hours we could be using it in real-time to cluster and link cases, independent of (but complementary to) contact tracing. It would help find the missing links. The reality is that the Isle of Man is one of the few places in the world right now where this approach could be used on the ground to aid a live COVID19 outbreak in real-time. It's not academic research, it's a tool we should be making use of. Actual world-leading stuff. Edited January 11, 2021 by Roger Mexico 1 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 Chris Thomas leading the questions again, might be useful to have some outside experts but would Howie listen to them? https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/wheres-the-covid-advisory-group-asks-thomas/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 2 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said: Like sheep with different coloured dyes on their backs - you can tell who they've been f**cked by.... I get that and yes understand. However would it be too long a process to get the results? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmanxpilot Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 1 minute ago, Roger Mexico said: But the trouble is that the converse doesn't apply - if they're from the same variant it doesn't mean they're from the same source. That's why you need to do the detailed sequencing (which is what Taxa Genomics specialises in). Then if the virus in a patient is similar or identical to another case you know they are linked and can look at how - discovering others who may be infected. Exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 4 minutes ago, madmanxpilot said: Like sheep with different coloured dyes on their backs - you can tell who they've been f**cked by.... That's an interesting analogy! Must remember that one in future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmanxpilot Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 Just now, Happier diner said: I get that and yes understand. However would it be too long a process to get the results? Fairly sure Taxonomics have a pretty quick turnaround. IIRC Dr Glover said she was carrying a kit around in her rucksack initially. I have this Ghostbusters image in my mind that I'm trying to get rid of.... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.