Euro 2020 tickets

[GordonS]

28 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

My original issue was with the phrase "middle of a pandemic", which June will patently not be, accompanied by a complete non-sequitur of a graph. Who would have guessed that a cumulative number would keep going up? None of the following has anything to do with the football really, but I feel like it needs saying.

We're in the middle of a pandemic now, and we can't have all that much confidence about what's coming next. The world has literally never been in this position before. We can make decent estimates but there's obviously a huge amount of uncertainty.

You've completely missed the point of the graph I posted. It's to show that Scotland has done much better than our neighbouring Euro 2020 hosts in suppressing the virus and the implicit criticism in the Times quote is badly misplaced. When all this is over the score that will best reflect how well a society has done in tackling the virus is how low was the proportion of its citizens infected. Scotland hasn't done as well as it could have but it's done better than many.

Quote

There's always going to be a case for doing this for another month, and another month and another month and so on. Plenty of people in a comfortable and well-off position would probably not be bothered with a lockdown until July, because they can still do their job, get paid, meet their family who live round the corner for a walk and so on. These people generally have this "haud our horses", softly, softly approach, because they are unable to see the damage that the restrictions are doing to thousands of others around the country.

Don't make this personal and don't project ulterior motives onto me. Every opinion I have on this is based on what's best for society. Assuming that people in favour of the lockdown don't have it as hard as those who don't is bullshit. I've got family and children too, my wife is out of work and can't find a job.

I could play the "hidden agenda" game back at you but it's not fair or accurate and it doesn't help.

Quote

Even the 15th March date will take us to 12 months of being unable to do most of the normal things that people want in life. Children a whole year old who haven't been able to meet grandparents, parents who have been completely shorn of a support network at the most difficult point in their lives. Businesses closed for an entire year, countless people out of work and uncertain what their future looks like. Every day that the lockdown is extended is a nightmare for these people.

It's not the lockdown that's the problem. It's the pandemic. The reason we can't see our elderly relatives is in case we kill them. If we didn't have a legal lockdown 70% of us wouldn't be visiting anyone anyway, and the other 30% would be causing hundreds of thousands of deaths in the UK.

If you think that's better then I just don't understand how.

Quote

The data so far suggests that the jag is far more successful than that at preventing serious cases of covid,

It's literally about 80%. The best study result has been Pfizer in Israel, where they got 85% effectiveness. Don't let wishful thinking shape your opinions.

As for your "preventing serious cases" caveat, yes, it does in that person. But they can't still spread it and cause serious cases in unvaccinated people. This is public health and we need to act at population level.

[craigkillie]

The original lockdown and the lockdown from January to now served those purposes, when we had an unvaccinated population packed with vulnerable people. The population level public health justification has been entirely valid over the last year - I'm not some sort of anti-lockdown maniac who doesn't think we should have had restrictions in place at all.

However, we are no longer in that place. The most vulnerable people amongst our population are now vaccinated, and the data literally from Scotland shows that even after one dose this massively reduces the risk of serious illness.  Furthermore, it does appear to be the case that the vaccines also reduce transmission, though we don't yet have detailed figures. Thus the chances of me killing my vaccinated elderly relatives (not that I actually mentioned elderly relatives in the previous post) by visiting them right now is incredibly slim, let alone in a month or more when I'm actually allowed to do it even under the restrictions you suggested were too lax.

So while those issues with isolation and the complete destruction of massive sectors of the economy were consequences of the disease last April and even in January, that would no longer be the case if we're still in lockdown in May. At that point, the restrictions would be the problem, not the disease itself. Keeping the restrctions for too long can be every bit as damaging at the population level as lifting them too quickly.

[No_Problemo]

1 hour ago, GordonS said:

We're in the middle of a pandemic now, and we can't have all that much confidence about what's coming next. The world has literally never been in this position before. We can make decent estimates but there's obviously a huge amount of uncertainty.

You've completely missed the point of the graph I posted. It's to show that Scotland has done much better than our neighbouring Euro 2020 hosts in suppressing the virus and the implicit criticism in the Times quote is badly misplaced. When all this is over the score that will best reflect how well a society has done in tackling the virus is how low was the proportion of its citizens infected. Scotland hasn't done as well as it could have but it's done better than many.

Don't make this personal and don't project ulterior motives onto me. Every opinion I have on this is based on what's best for society. Assuming that people in favour of the lockdown don't have it as hard as those who don't is bullshit. I've got family and children too, my wife is out of work and can't find a job.

I could play the "hidden agenda" game back at you but it's not fair or accurate and it doesn't help.

It's not the lockdown that's the problem. It's the pandemic. The reason we can't see our elderly relatives is in case we kill them. If we didn't have a legal lockdown 70% of us wouldn't be visiting anyone anyway, and the other 30% would be causing hundreds of thousands of deaths in the UK.

If you think that's better then I just don't understand how.

It's literally about 80%. The best study result has been Pfizer in Israel, where they got 85% effectiveness. Don't let wishful thinking shape your opinions.

As for your "preventing serious cases" caveat, yes, it does in that person. But they can't still spread it and cause serious cases in unvaccinated people. This is public health and we need to act at population level.

Those final two paragraphs are an utterly woeful take - not that the rest is much better. 

[The Moonster]

1 hour ago, GordonS said:

It's literally about 80%. The best study result has been Pfizer in Israel, where they got 85% effectiveness. Don't let wishful thinking shape your opinions.

As for your "preventing serious cases" caveat, yes, it does in that person. But they can't still spread it and cause serious cases in unvaccinated people. This is public health and we need to act at population level.

The flu vaccine averages at about 40% effectiveness each year. 80% and above is absolutely tremendous. That's not wishful thinking, it's facts. 

[Gordopolis]

Think it's worth a step back and remembering how much the pandemic has messed with people's lives and minds - it's almost impossible to have an objective unbiased take on it.

Also though, sweeping and baseless generalisations like "it's only well off people who want to be cautious for longer" just aren't helpful.

Got to remember that we're talking about a context not of wether we should be allowed to see elderly relatives by June, but of whether we should be putting potentially tens of thousands of fans together in a stadium (significantly less important, I'd say, and I'd suspect more risky too).

[Honest_Man#1]

5 hours ago, GordonS said:

We're in the middle of a pandemic now, and we can't have all that much confidence about what's coming next. The world has literally never been in this position before. We can make decent estimates but there's obviously a huge amount of uncertainty.

You've completely missed the point of the graph I posted. It's to show that Scotland has done much better than our neighbouring Euro 2020 hosts in suppressing the virus and the implicit criticism in the Times quote is badly misplaced. When all this is over the score that will best reflect how well a society has done in tackling the virus is how low was the proportion of its citizens infected. Scotland hasn't done as well as it could have but it's done better than many.

Don't make this personal and don't project ulterior motives onto me. Every opinion I have on this is based on what's best for society. Assuming that people in favour of the lockdown don't have it as hard as those who don't is bullshit. I've got family and children too, my wife is out of work and can't find a job.

I could play the "hidden agenda" game back at you but it's not fair or accurate and it doesn't help.

It's not the lockdown that's the problem. It's the pandemic. The reason we can't see our elderly relatives is in case we kill them. If we didn't have a legal lockdown 70% of us wouldn't be visiting anyone anyway, and the other 30% would be causing hundreds of thousands of deaths in the UK.

If you think that's better then I just don't understand how.

It's literally about 80%. The best study result has been Pfizer in Israel, where they got 85% effectiveness. Don't let wishful thinking shape your opinions.

As for your "preventing serious cases" caveat, yes, it does in that person. But they can't still spread it and cause serious cases in unvaccinated people. This is public health and we need to act at population level.

First bit is unbelievably simplistic, to the extent that it’s just purely incorrect. That is not how you judge who has been most successful throughout this, as a country could’ve welded people into their homes and shut every workplace for the entire year and had 0 cases, but the financial and social costs of doing so would be so monumental it would be worse than a country that allowed a million cases through lesser restrictions.

Second bit, this isn’t really accurate. Many studies now showing frankly ludicrously high percentage numbers for protection against transmission as well as serious illness and death. 

[GordonS]

7 hours ago, craigkillie said:

 

However, we are no longer in that place.

Yes we are. Central Scotland is still over 100 cases per 100k in the past week. Where I live is only a little better than the absolute peak.

We've only recently started vaccinating susceptible people under 65. To take one example, death rates among people with diabetes have been awful. Once they're all done then yes, we'll be in a better place. But deaths and long Covid among people with no previously diagnosed underlying conditions are still significant enough that I wouldn't be going near a pub, restaurant or cinema until I've been vaccinated and so have the vast majority of adults.

FWIW, a poll after the roadmap was announced showed 44% thought it was about right, 17% too early and 29% too late. If rates keep falling consistently then it will be fine, but they could very easily go back up. So it's haud horses for a few weeks yet.

Incidentally I'm not a pessimist - I really think there's a decent chance we can have a full Hampden in June - but that depends on what we do just now.

[GordonS]

6 hours ago, The Moonster said:

The flu vaccine averages at about 40% effectiveness each year. 80% and above is absolutely tremendous. That's not wishful thinking, it's facts. 

I'm not sure you followed the discussion - the wishful thinking I referred to was Craigkillie's claim that the effectiveness was much higher than 80%.

Key point though is that the fatality rate from Covid is vastly higher than from the flu, easily 10 times, and it's far, far more transmissable. Even among those who are hospitalised Covid is 3-5 times more deadly than flu. So 20% of what Covid would cause without social distancing and hygiene measures is unacceptably high.

[Donathan]

9 minutes ago, GordonS said:

I'm not sure you followed the discussion - the wishful thinking I referred to was Craigkillie's claim that the effectiveness was much higher than 80%.

Key point though is that the fatality rate from Covid is vastly higher than from the flu, easily 10 times, and it's far, far more transmissable. Even among those who are hospitalised Covid is 3-5 times more deadly than flu. So 20% of what Covid would cause without social distancing and hygiene measures is unacceptably high.

That 80% is the effectiveness against getting covid at all. They're nearly 100% effective against hospitalisation and death.

[Bing.McCrosby]

Maybe take this over to the covid thread in general nonsense with this guys 

[Honest_Man#1]

10 hours ago, GordonS said:

I'm not sure you followed the discussion - the wishful thinking I referred to was Craigkillie's claim that the effectiveness was much higher than 80%.

Key point though is that the fatality rate from Covid is vastly higher than from the flu, easily 10 times, and it's far, far more transmissable. Even among those who are hospitalised Covid is 3-5 times more deadly than flu. So 20% of what Covid would cause without social distancing and hygiene measures is unacceptably high.

I don’t think you’ve understood what you’ve seen/read on Covid vaccines. As above, it’s nearly 100% effective against serious illness and death, so causing 20% of people to get a mild illness not requiring hospital treatment is not “unacceptably high”, it’s in fact completely acceptable and in the medical miracle range considering where we started.

[G51]

 

There is no reason the Scottish Government couldn't offer assurances over at least the partial return of some fans by June.

[starryfish]

2 hours ago, G51 said:

 

There is no reason the Scottish Government couldn't offer assurances over at least the partial return of some fans by June.

Apart from the fact that the pandemic is still ongoing, people are still contracting the virus and sadly many are still dying.

Jeane Freeman said yesterday she hopes that  all adults in Scotland will have had a first vaccine by the end of May so fingers crossed that happens.

[G51]

4 minutes ago, starryfish said:

Apart from the fact that the pandemic is still ongoing, people are still contracting the virus and sadly many are still dying.

Jeane Freeman said yesterday she hopes that  all adults in Scotland will have had a first vaccine by the end of May so fingers crossed that happens.

The Euros are in June. So if everyone is on schedule to have had a first dose by the end of May, what are we waiting for?

[starryfish]

47 minutes ago, G51 said:

The Euros are in June. So if everyone is on schedule to have had a first dose by the end of May, what are we waiting for?

Probably concerns about possible mutations of the virus evading the current vaccines.

[craigkillie]

Just now, starryfish said:

Probably concerns about possible mutations of the virus evading the current vaccines.

If this extremely unlikely event happens then they would have plenty of justification for a last-minute U-turn for public health reasons. You'd be as well saying that it's not safe to host any sporting event ever again just in case a new pandemic comes along.

It will be unforgivable if the Scottish government let this opportunity pass when deep down they know fine well that by June we'll most likely be in a situation where it is very safe to go ahead with at least a limited crowd.

[Frank Grimes]

As much as the ScotGov need to stop being so fucking cautious when it comes to June this is shitebag behaviour from UEFA

[craigkillie]

28 minutes ago, Frank Grimes said:

As much as the ScotGov need to stop being so fucking cautious when it comes to June this is shitebag behaviour from UEFA

What is it that you'd like them to do? They're hosting an event and want to be able to plan for it properly, and that requires assurances from the hosts that they are taking active steps to get supporters in. If a host doesn't offer those then they'll go to the several other hosts who are happy to.

[Frank Grimes]

17 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

What is it that you'd like them to do? They're hosting an event and want to be able to plan for it properly, and that requires assurances from the hosts that they are taking active steps to get supporters in. If a host doesn't offer those then they'll go to the several other hosts who are happy to.

I think UEFA need to accept individual Government decisions and uphold the commitment they’ve made to the selected host cities regardless whether these stadiums can have fans in 

I think there should be scope for 10,000 fans in June and hope the ScotGov are doing all they can to offer these assurances but it shouldn’t be UEFA’s job to apply this kind of pressure

It’s not going to be a money spinner for them either way, cancelling a host city at this late stage would be shitebag behaviour, especially considering it’s outwith the Scottish FA’s hands 

I’d be gutted and annoyed at the ScotGov if they let this slip through their hands but I’d also be really fucked off with UEFA

[craigkillie]

If the choice is behind closed doors in Glasgow or in front of fans in Manchester, Marseille or Malmo, then surely it's in absolutely everyone's interests to go for the latter. UEFA make more money, it's better for TV viewers, it's better for the players and it's better for the fans who get to attend.