Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Filippo

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, Banker said:

Rachel Glover just been on BBC northwest and basically saying lockdown would have been avoided if testing had been carried out.

critical of decision to stop 7 days testing as we were seeing positive cases from this testing and should have carried on for monitoring at least.

Howie & Ashie won’t be happy!!

She doesn't really say very much in this short report. It's certainly nothing worth sensationalising as you're doing there. Maybe there will be more on the later program. It's a few minutes in.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000r870/north-west-today-lunchtime-news-12012021

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Annoymouse said:

How early did they actually know? I think it was 1886 that said they were contacted by contact tracing at 4pm but were told no action was required?

So far no cases seem to have come from Boxing Day/1886 which I find absolutely astonishing given the number of people that were present.

Are they doing follow-up testing on any of these people? They didn't seem to be very bothered about testing many of them in the first place. I can't help but wonder if there's a few of them about who are asymptomatic and unawares, due to a lack of testing.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

She doesn't really say very much in this short report. It's certainly nothing worth sensationalising as you're doing there. Maybe there will be more on the later program. It's a few minutes in.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000r870/north-west-today-lunchtime-news-12012021

Reported the facts of the interview, if you think that’s sensationalist then you must work for Howie!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lxxx said:

The IOM will probably have to use labs accredited by PHE. Does Rachel's lab fulfil this criteria?

PHE doesn't accredit anyone. The genomics for COG-UK are being carried out at academic labs, which don't tend to be accredited for anything and tend to have students doing the work.

1 hour ago, Annoymouse said:

It’s a shame Dr Glover’s resources aren’t being utilised, I’m surprised she hasn’t been approached to do samples for UK or Ireland given the turnaround time she’s quoted, that would also be the ultimate fuck you.

After I resigned from the DHSC I was approached by Amazon to set up a high-throughput COVID19 PCR lab in Manchester to test their UK employees. Didn't particularly want to get stuck in the UK or end up trying to travel back and forth (and then isolate) so I politely turned them down.

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

Her company seems pretty busy with their usual animal genetics.  And any stuff from across will have to be couriered or posted which will add to turnaround times.  But the journey from Nobles to Onchan is rather less time-consuming.

We're slammed and now I've had to send everyone to work from home. Our sales quadrupled last year and we're still looking at a few new things (watch this space).

Edited by rachomics
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Banker said:

Reported the facts of the interview, if you think that’s sensationalist then you must work for Howie!

It was you doing the sensationalising in your rather eager post. She didn't "basically" say it would've stopped the lockdown at all... 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Lxxx said:

As I outlined in a later post, I am just wondering if there could be a reason other than sheer stupidity and arrogance to dispense with qualified and available resource on island in favour of a whole number of potentially negative variables using a lengthier and more convoluted process we now have in place.

Or maybe I am under-estimating our uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. 

You should never underestimate the role of petty spitefulness in Manx politics.  If there had been any external pressure involved, you can be fairly sure that at the very least heavy hints would be involved and probably lots of shrugging shoulders and "What can we do?".  They sometimes try this when there isn't any pressure, so if there had been some, I'm sure we would have known.

The UK's response has been a disaster from the start and got worse, but our mistakes are different ones and have different causes.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

I genuinely don't know what to make of your comment, because you don't seem to have read anything I have written but have decided to have a go at me anyway.  Statisticians can indeed make use of imperfect datasets with all sorts of clever techniques (though great care is needed because of hidden assumptions). 

But that's not what is being proposed with mass testing - it's the opposite, a 100% sample.  For the effort involved you don't get much more information and it's not much use - maybe even counterproductive - for the purpose of disease control.

 

This thread grows too fast to read every post! But your post that I responded to suggested that mass testing was pointless and only had value for show boating governments. 

Fair enough...I can now re-read your post as "100% mass testing is pointless/impossible, targeted testing is good, little testing is bad" Yes?

Personally (and I'm in a very different field) I would have ongoing randomised compulsory sampling of the populace. In addition to testing for those with symptoms or specific reasons.

Only testing those with symptoms and/or returnees is reactive. "Mass" randomised testing is proactive/predictive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr Shoe said:

This thread grows too fast to read every post! But your post that I responded to suggested that mass testing was pointless and only had value for show boating governments. 

Fair enough...I can now re-read your post as "100% mass testing is pointless/impossible, targeted testing is good, little testing is bad" Yes?

Personally (and I'm in a very different field) I would have ongoing randomised compulsory sampling of the populace. In addition to testing for those with symptoms or specific reasons.

Only testing those with symptoms and/or returnees is reactive. "Mass" randomised testing is proactive/predictive.

I don't think you'd get anywhere with compulsory testing. The ONS do their surveillance by paying people to regularly have tests over a period of time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, rachomics said:

After I resigned from the DHSC I was approached by Amazon to set up a high-throughput COVID19 PCR lab in Manchester to test their UK employees. Didn't particularly want to get stuck in the UK or end up trying to travel back and forth (and then isolate) so I politely turned them down.

Shows how much goes on behind the scenes, it wasn’t my intention to pry into your business dealings*, I just wish our government could open their eyes and see what an opportunity they’ve wasted.

* P.S any jobs going for the unqualified/great unwashed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Banker said:

Conversation

 
 
 
SE4MhJcg_x96.jpg
 
If we keep testing contacts at days 0-7 post-exposure and then proclaim how fantastic it is that all contacts have "tested negative" we're just asking for a bloody nasty outbreak in 2-3 weeks' time. Test all contacts AGAIN at 10-14 days post-exposure.
 
 

 

A lady who clearly knows her onions.

But Henrietta, Howard, Ashy & co. know better.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zarley said:

Are they doing follow-up testing on any of these people? They didn't seem to be very bothered about testing many of them in the first place. I can't help but wonder if there's a few of them about who are asymptomatic and unawares, due to a lack of testing.  

I don’t think anyone has asked the question in a press release to date. I did learn yesterday that they will be retesting high risk close contacts groups from Truth wine bar and at St Mary’s school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Annoymouse said:

Shows how much goes on behind the scenes, it wasn’t my intention to pry into your business dealings*, I just wish our government could open their eyes and see what an opportunity they’ve wasted.

* P.S any jobs going for the unqualified/great unwashed?

As I pointed out much further up the thread. Having Taxa Genomics on board would have been a major scoop for DfE... they could have dined out on this for years to come with bucket loads of 'free' advertising.

Success breeds success and I'm sure other biomed entrepreneurs and even some established firms would have given very serious thought to setting up here.

But then IOMG always has this knack of shooting itself in the foot. Pillocks. 

Edited by Andy Onchan
  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...