BBC bias

[pandarilla]

All the BBC focus is on business shut downs and job losses in Scotland. Getting every pished up pub owner they can find to come on and spout ill informed pish. There's absolutely nothing about why these measures have been taken and the scientific advice behind it. Just anything that can stick it to naughty nic.

That's the story.

Swathes of businesses are being completely hung out to dry by a government who doesn't have the financial power to reimburse them.

Businesses and livelihoods gone, and thousands of jobs that rely on the industries affected.

As a teacher with a ft wage (and with my wife also working in a council nursery) I'm in an unbelievably fortunate position but i can only imagine how raging I'd be if i was a small business owner right now.

The average death rate in Scotland (or the UK, but once of the two) from covid is 85.

The pain is not being felt evenly across society and imo the Scottish government have gone too far without securing the financial support grin the uk.

[Baxter Parp]

5 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

The pain is not being felt evenly across society and imo the Scottish government have gone too far without securing the financial support grin the uk.

Yes, they should let people die until the UK government deigns to support Scotland.  Right on.

[pandarilla]

Yes, they should let people die until the UK government deigns to support Scotland.  Right on.

You're completely underplaying the impact that losing your job can have on a family.

The cure is going to have more severe consequences than the virus - which most people will recover from quickly.

They've lost control of the balance imo.

[Baxter Parp]

Just now, pandarilla said:

You're completely underplaying the impact that losing your job can have on a family.

Imagine if they lost their lives, imagine if Scotland was an independent country that could act like New Zealand. Imagine, Imagine, Imagine.

[pandarilla]

Imagine if they lost their lives, imagine if Scotland was an independent country that could act like New Zealand. Imagine, Imagine, Imagine.

I've supported independence since 2003. But we don't have independence. We are reliant on the uk government and their financial decisions.

These restrictions are shafting thousands of businesses and there's very little support to back them up. That's a reckless decision.

[Baxter Parp]

2 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

I've supported independence since 2003. But we don't have independence. We are reliant on the uk government and their financial decisions.

These restrictions are shafting thousands of businesses and there's very little support to back them up. That's a reckless decision.

Yes, they should do nothing instead.

[pandarilla]

Yes, they should do nothing instead.

You're absolutely tedious.

[Baxter Parp]

1 minute ago, pandarilla said:

16 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

Yes, they should do nothing instead.

You're absolutely tedious.

You're fantastic. Literally.

[BawWatchin]

1 hour ago, pandarilla said:

The pain is not being felt evenly across society and imo the Scottish government have gone too far without securing the financial support grin the uk.

The Scottish Government can't simply base life and death decisions around UK Government financial support or lack of. 

What's the alternative? To simply allow things to continue the way they're going and just say "ah well, Westminster cut the funding"? They would be morally bankrupt to do so.

[pandarilla]

The Scottish Government can't simply base life and death decisions around UK Government financial support or lack of. 
What's the alternative? To simply allow things to continue the way they're going and just say "ah well, Westminster cut the funding"? They would be morally bankrupt to do so.

The alternative is to buckle up the health service to the max, implement all the cleaning and distancing measures you can, and give people the chance to live their lives and keep their jobs.

These measures are not proven to be particularly successful. The evidence is very sketchy. But what is certain is that they will condemn thousands of people to financial uncertainty and instability.

[Baxter Parp]

9 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

The alternative is to buckle up the health service to the max, implement all the cleaning and distancing measures you can, and give people the chance to live their lives and keep their jobs.

Wow, meaningless nonsense based on unicorn economics. Which Spectator column did you get this pish from?

 

 

[BawWatchin]

1 hour ago, pandarilla said:

The alternative is to buckle up the health service to the max, implement all the cleaning and distancing measures you can, and give people the chance to live their lives and keep their jobs.

They already have. But just because the government demands that people follow these measures, doesn't mean that every individual is going to do so. It's easy to tell people what to do. But ensuring every single person does so is impossible.

1 hour ago, pandarilla said:

These measures are not proven to be particularly successful. The evidence is very sketchy. But what is certain is that they will condemn thousands of people to financial uncertainty and instability.

How about giving these measures longer than 12 hours to prove their effectiveness? Putting the false economy ahead of survival. How very tory of you.

[Gordon EF]

9 hours ago, pandarilla said:

You're completely underplaying the impact that losing your job can have on a family.

The cure is going to have more severe consequences than the virus - which most people will recover from quickly.

They've lost control of the balance imo.

There are no non-harmful choices available though. The evidence suggests somewhere around 25-30% of exposure is happening in pubs, restaurants, cafes and that on our current trajectory, the number of infections would grow significantly over the next month.

It's a choice between two harmful options. I'd suggest closing pubs and restaurants for 2 weeks, during which furlough is still available, is the less harmful of the two.

The fact is that letting infections increase will probably result in another total lockdown or pretty near to one. That's going to have an utterly devastating effect and it's got to be avoided at all costs.

[pandarilla]

There are no non-harmful choices available though. The evidence suggests somewhere around 25-30% of exposure is happening in pubs, restaurants, cafes and that on our current trajectory, the number of infections would grow significantly over the next month.
It's a choice between two harmful options. I'd suggest closing pubs and restaurants for 2 weeks, during which furlough is still available, is the less harmful of the two.
The fact is that letting infections increase will probably result in another total lockdown or pretty near to one. That's going to have an utterly devastating effect and it's got to be avoided at all costs.

That evidence is very weak.

It suggested that 1 in 5 who got infected had visited a pub or restaurant. That's a massive difference.

How about giving these measures longer than 12 hours to prove their effectiveness? Putting the false economy ahead of survival. How very tory of you.

I know you come out with some pish on here at times but are you saying folk who run cafes or work in pubs are somehow part of a false economy?

Those folks jobs are being taken away, not by the virus, but by government action. Anyone who relies on entertainment, theatre, social clubs - anything at all. They won't be able to cope with these restrictions, and our govt can't protect those jobs.

If we were independent and the govt was putting in place a massive financial support package then I'd be much more supportive. But that's not the situation, and it's not even close.

My point about effectiveness was about the handling by the Scottish govt so far. Our rates have mirrored England, and yet we've been noticeably harsher. At the time i supported it to help us in the long run but it's proved not to be the case. I don't see how anyone can say we've handled this well.

I get that it's incredibly difficult and that there are no easy choices but we're taking a sledge - hammer to parts of the economy and it's not proved to have worked.

[Gordon EF]

2 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

If we were independent and the govt was putting in place a massive financial support package then I'd be much more supportive. But that's not the situation, and it's not even close.
 

It's not true to say our rates have mirrored England though. You can kind of subjectively say they're "almost the same" HB style but infection rates are lower in Scotland now and have been almost throughout the whole pandemic.

[pandarilla]

It's not true to say our rates have mirrored England though. You can kind of subjectively say they're "almost the same" HB style but infection rates are lower in Scotland now and have been almost throughout the whole pandemic.

In the North of England they never really got hold of the virus at all, but those seem to be a unique set of circumstances relating to large families and cultural issues.

Our recent rise has been very steep. Would you say that we've benefited from the 'hammering down' of the virus that meant we took longer to open up than England?

I don't even see the Scottish govt claiming that to be the case, and yet that question hadn't been fully answered by then.

[Gordon EF]

7 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

That evidence is very weak.

It suggested that 1 in 5 who got infected had visited a pub or restaurant. That's a massive difference. I know you come out with some pish on here at times but are you saying folk who run cafes or work in pubs are somehow part of a false economy?
 

I'm basing this off figures from Newsnight which probably only covered England so could well be wrong but I'd imagine you'd see a similar picture here.

The 'exposure' of people who tested positive was largest in visiting hospitality. So it's not a massive leap to say it may not be huge or responsible for the majority of infections but it's a reasonable bet it's the largest area of exposure outside of households. So if you're going to do one thing to try to limit infections for a short period, they're the obvious candidate.

[Gordon EF]

7 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

In the North of England they never really got hold of the virus at all, but those seem to be a unique set of circumstances relating to large families and cultural issues.

Our recent rise has been very steep. Would you say that we've benefited from the 'hammering down' of the virus that meant we took longer to open up than England?

I don't even see the Scottish govt claiming that to be the case, and yet that question hadn't been fully answered by then.

I've always been sceptical of the elimination strategy. I made posts on here right at the beginning saying unless you're going to eradicate it, I didn't see a point in long lockdowns trying to suppress it because it'll just be waiting to spread like wildfire when we open back up and, unfortunately, I think I've been proven correct

I'm not an SNP cheerleader about this. And as an independence supporter, of course I see the benefit of the Scottish govt having the full range of financial powers to complement whatever strategy they take. There's always an element of fighting with one hand tied behind your back about this with devolution.

The loosened restrictions and "circuit breaker" for areas that see sharp increases was always my preferred model and I'd 100% support financial support for businesses that are being legally forced to shut down.

Edited October 10, 2020 by Gordon EF

[BawWatchin]

18 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

That evidence is very weak.

Repeating the same thing over and over again only makes it true in your own mind.

18 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

Those folks jobs are being taken away, not by the virus, but by government action. Anyone who relies on entertainment, theatre, social clubs - anything at all. They won't be able to cope with these restrictions, and our govt can't protect those jobs.

They may well lose their jobs. But guess what? There will be a demand for the services they provide when things get closer to normal again. So they'll soon find themselves back in work. You need to stop looking at job losses as if it's some permanent thing that people will never recover from.

18 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

If we were independent and the govt was putting in place a massive financial support package then I'd be much more supportive. But that's not the situation, and it's not even close.

Just because the UK Government is doing the wrong thing, shouldn't prevent us from doing the right thing.

19 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

My point about effectiveness was about the handling by the Scottish govt so far. Our rates have mirrored England, and yet we've been noticeably harsher. At the time i supported it to help us in the long run but it's proved not to be the case. I don't see how anyone can say we've handled this well.

Where is the evidence that our rates have "mirrored England" or that we've been "noticeably harsher"? 

19 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

I get that it's incredibly difficult and that there are no easy choices but we're taking a sledge - hammer to parts of the economy and it's not proved to have worked.

The "sledge hammer" approach WAS working. Rates started rising AFTER we eased the restrictions. The statistics fully back this up. So i'm not sure where the basis for your claim comes from.

[pandarilla]

I'm basing this off figures from Newsnight which probably only covered England so could well be wrong but I'd imagine you'd see a similar picture here.

The 'exposure' of people who tested positive was largest in visiting hospitality. So it's not a massive leap to say it may not be huge or responsible for the majority of infections but it's a reasonable bet it's the largest area of exposure outside of households. So if you're going to do one thing to try to limit infections for a short period, they're the obvious candidate.

The English figures were that between 3 and 6% of positive cases caught it in the hospitality sector (although I've no idea how they estimate that).

 

The 25% figure sounds like the 20% one sturgeon mentioned. But that just means people who tested positive had visited a pub or cafe - and that's why i think the evidence is weak.

 

At best it's questionable.

The "sledge hammer" approach WAS working. Rates started rising AFTER we eased the restrictions. The statistics fully back this up. So i'm not sure where the basis for your claim comes from.

There's a lot of stuff in here that's misrepresenting my views, and intentionally argumentative. I've supported the Scottish govt until recently - but for me they've now gone too far.

 

Are you denying that we had a harsher lockdown than England? Seriously? We took much longer to ease things. I'm not going to chase up evidence for shit like this.

 

There are loads of different ways to compare the rises in Scotland and England. But I've not seen any evidence to suggest that our current rise is less steep than that in England. I've not heard anyone saying this - but again, I'm not going chasing evidence for a pointless internet discussion. So again, do you think we're doing better than England on this battle right now?

 

And i wonder if sturgeon will use the 'ach you'll find another job soon enough' line the next time she's questioned on it. Losing your job can be absolutely devastating, in so many different ways.

 

Folk have bills to pay, and in many cases they'll have poured their life savings and years of effort into small businesses that will now be destroyed.

 

And i would add that the sledgehammer approach which you seem to be favouring was doing a lot of damage to our society. It always had to be a short term measure.