Spat between Chief Minister and Dr Glover

[747-400]

30 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

This may be correct when there comes a time when we are dealing with multiple variants. I agree with that. To date we haven't though and as such the response and actions to date (IMO) have been proportionate and appropriate.

I have only listened to Dr Ewart’s part on genomics testing and felt the quality of questioning was generally very poor. 

Dr Ewart clearly believes T&T is the best approach and puts up a good argument. I have heard her say before that she is in touch regularly with Chris Whitty and the devolved  administrations so clearly is up to date with developments.

She said that the mitigation strategy and open borders was causing her concern. What the PAC didn’t press on was when does the Island change track, if for example, the Indian variant becomes one of concern, and what does it do? And is it too late by then to avoid another lockdown.

 

[asitis]

1 minute ago, P.K. said:

You know, a bit like those puzzles kids like doing where they join up all the dots to draw a donkey...

Leave the CM out of this !

[P.K.]

10 minutes ago, asitis said:

Leave the CM out of this !

Well that's one.

[code99]

32 minutes ago, 747-400 said:

Dr Ewart clearly believes T&T is the best approach and puts up a good argument. I have heard her say before that she is in touch regularly with Chris Whitty and the devolved  administrations so clearly is up to date with developments.

If that is the case, then why was Tynwald on a completely different page? Tynwald clearly said that in their view genomic testing was 'vital' in the fight against Covid. Therefore, two different branches of the government had very different views on this issue. Question: was Tynwald wrong?

[code99]

1 hour ago, Happier diner said:

This may be correct when there comes a time when we are dealing with multiple variants. I agree with that. To date we haven't though and as such the response and actions to date (IMO) have been proportionate and appropriate.

Last year the IOMG said, prior to the third lockdown, that the first two lockdowns had cost the Treasury over £200m. If Dr Glover's methods had reduced the duration of these lockdowns by even one week, that would have saved taxpayers about £10m. Covid is not just an issue about health and personal freedoms, albeit these are the most important issues, it is also about the sustainability of government's finances.

[Gladys]

I thought it was interesting that HE said she had never, or hardly ever, spoken to RG.  Then went on to say that RG had failed to convince her of the benefit of her genomics approach.  Perhaps they should both go and have a coffee somewhere and have a discussion on the matter.  They may be able to see each others point of view on the science and a way forward on using RG in future, or agree it is not really of much use.

I also thought HE was a bit condescending to the PAC members when she asked them had they read various papers, almost like trying to establish their level of ignorance, rather than their level of understanding.

[Happier diner]

24 minutes ago, code99 said:

 If Dr Glover's methods had reduced the duration of these lockdowns by even one week, that would have saved taxpayers about £10m. Covid i

That's true, but there is absolutely no evidence to even suggest that it would have

 

25 minutes ago, code99 said:

. Covid is not just an issue about health and personal freedoms, albeit these are the most important issues, it is also about the sustainability of government's finances.

Agreed

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, code99 said:

If that is the case, then why was Tynwald on a completely different page? Tynwald clearly said that in their view genomic testing was 'vital' in the fight against Covid. Therefore, two different branches of the government had very different views on this issue. Question: was Tynwald wrong?

Yes. Tynwald was wrong. They know SFA about disease control.

[747-400]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

 

I also thought HE was a bit condescending to the PAC members when she asked them had they read various papers, almost like trying to establish their level of ignorance, rather than their level of understanding.

I did not think that. Quite the opposite in fact. She is clearly a very qualified and connected lady. And now that ”everyone” seems to be expert in genomic testing, I believe she was just defending her position and rationale.

[747-400]

2 hours ago, code99 said:

If that is the case, then why was Tynwald on a completely different page? Tynwald clearly said that in their view genomic testing was 'vital' in the fight against Covid. Therefore, two different branches of the government had very different views on this issue. Question: was Tynwald wrong?

Not for me to say. But I acknowledge and respect the position of Director of Public Health and the holder seems very experienced, well informed and connected with the English Public Health and devolved administrations. 

[AcousticallyChallenged]

5 hours ago, Happier diner said:

Have you any evidence what-so-ever to support this claim. They locked down straight away. They tracked and traced the infections and isolated. Once they had done that and they were happy that they had it contained they opened up. Like us they used the blunt instrument. Nowhere can I see where the genomic sequencing helped other than retrospectively, They were able to link them (which is fair enough) and help then confirm they were all from the same trail. They were. 

To me that makes the genomics a useful, but ultimately bit part player. Like us they rely significantly on track and trace.

Like I keep saying. The genomic sequencing is clearly of value and we should be able to get result more quickly. It may become a major player as we live with infections. I get that. But what I don't get is all the banging on on here that it would have been a game changer for us and some even deluded enough to think it would have prevented or shortened our lockdown. It wouldn't. (IMHO)

The fundamental point you miss, is that genomics validates your track and trace. Nobody does it perfectly, hence how we get community cases.

Though, what you learn at those stages, can influence your future track and trace decisions and policies.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/5/20-4579_article

To quote the abstract of this paper,

Quote

Real-time genomic sequencing has played a major role in tracking the global spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), contributing greatly to disease mitigation strategies. In August 2020, after having eliminated the virus, New Zealand experienced a second outbreak. During that outbreak, New Zealand used genomic sequencing in a primary role, leading to a second elimination of the virus.

 

[Happier diner]

11 minutes ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

The fundamental point you miss, is that genomics validates your track and trace. Nobody does it perfectly, hence how we get community cases.

Though, what you learn at those stages, can influence your future track and trace decisions and policies.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/5/20-4579_article

To quote the abstract of this paper,

 

I suppose it depends how you interpret "major role". Its a subjective view. Professional writers rarely use adjectives in reports. "played a role" would have sufficed, which is probably what it did. Like I say I don't challenge that.

Its those who thinks its the answer to everything/criticize everything government do mob that exasperate me.

[the stinking enigma]

I find it's the dhsc crew posting misinformation that exasperates me. Horses for courses i suppose

[Happier diner]

6 minutes ago, the stinking enigma said:

I find it's the dhsc crew posting misinformation that exasperates me. Horses for courses i suppose

Misinformation? Not sure what you mean. You mean errors or deliberately misleading?

[Andy Onchan]

14 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Misinformation? Not sure what you mean. You mean errors or deliberately misleading?