Bairnardo Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 It would cause a lower level of compliance across the country. 'If it's ok for *insert council name* that's 5 minutes away, it's good enough for me' I do think the islands are a different case though.I wonder how much evidence there is, anecdotal or otherwise, of the often predicted (including by me) arseholes choosing to follow Englands route because "Wee Nippy isny the boss ae me". Theres not that much between us and England currently except shops which obviously morons cant force, but in the first couple of weeks of difference. I suspect you are right what you are saying but it would be good to know how many times the Polis have came up against that attitude for a similar scenario. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Jean King Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 What authority is that mate? Do you know if that's the policy across the region or if individual schools have had more of a say? In South Ayrshire anyway each school is deciding based on their physical configuration. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshmallo Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 1 minute ago, pandarilla said: (shakes head) Why would you pick those two areas? It's absolutely conceivable that folk from Glasgow, Dundee, perth etc would travel to parts of the Highlands. I picked those two because it is an extreme example showing two completely different places which are currently subject to the same blanket restrictions. The fact you're shaking your head shows how daft it is that there is no flexibility to make minor changes in one of those places and not the other. I'm not advocating for Dundee and "parts of the Highlands" to have wildly different restrictions, so I didn't name check those areas. -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 I picked those two because it is an extreme example showing two completely different places which are currently subject to the same blanket restrictions. The fact you're shaking your head shows how daft it is that there is no flexibility to make minor changes in one of those places and not the other. I'm not advocating for Dundee and "parts of the Highlands" to have wildly different restrictions, so I didn't name check those areas.I'm not necessarily against the suggestion of different rules in different regions.But I'm pointing out the potential problem with it. Picking two extremes and suggesting that won't happen is disingenuous in the extreme. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
101 Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 2 hours ago, Bairnardo said: 2 hours ago, 101 said: I would agree with that, if young people could guarantee that they won't come into contact with anyone over 24 for any length of time and never in contact with anyone over 50. The chances of that happening are slim to nil. These folk just don't care, their actions are unlikely to do any harm but they could kill their parents, I don't see that as being a risk worth taking. What's the mortality, or hospitalization rate for a fit and well 50 year old? In NYC (the only source I could find breaking it down like that) had 2.5% of their hospitalisations from people with no known health conditions. 1 hour ago, Gordon EF said: Yep. And plenty of older folk are willing to see the economy trashed just as these young people are entering the jobs market to reduce their chances of catching it from 'extremely unlikely' to 'even more extremely unlikely' so it's swings and roundabouts. The economy will recover, hopefully what replaces the old one is far more diverse and it's easier to get the economy back on track than bring folk back to life, likewise with finding a job. 1 hour ago, bendan said: There's been very few deaths among under 40s. Even below 60 it's not at a level where we'd stop other activities that had similar risk. Recommending the elderly stay a safe distance from the young seems like a temporary necessity. I would agree - however no other virus has as many restrictions to stop it's spread. I genuinely wouldn't we worried if people broke lockdown to see pals who were struggling with their mental health or anxiety but this is just a load of folk getting pished with hundreds of others. 1 hour ago, Am Featha *****h Nan Clach said: Given that they'll never actually ease restrictions based on age, I'm happy enough with the pace restrictions are being eased. However, the fear factor has gone. For something tipped to overwhelm the NHS, most people have not had a friend or family member die from it. Your actions by gathering in in groups could kill your parents, but almost certainly won't. People just want what's best for them personally and I've no real issue that. Everyone is a bit selfish to some degree. Older and more at risk? Enjoying your furlough skive? - Don't move too fast, every life is precious! Younger and want a pint? Worried about your job? Can't be bothered dealing with your kids? -The economy! The econony! The fear factor for some has gone but the virus is still killing people everyday and as someone who couldn't go to a funeral, I wouldn't wish that on anyone. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 39 minutes ago, Wee Willie said: As over 62% in Scotland voted to bide in the EU I will go along with that. You don't see how your stance on these two points may be slightly contradictory? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshmallo Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 Just now, pandarilla said: I'm not necessarily against the suggestion of different rules in different regions. But I'm pointing out the potential problem with it. Picking two extremes and suggesting that won't happen is disingenuous in the extreme. Disingenuous is extrapolating what you thought my point was and trying to belittle it. -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 The islands as a whole should really have been allowed to set their own policies for weeks now. It didn’t even need to be something for the Scottish Government to worry about, ask the local councils what they want to happen and then announce it. Make it clear if there’s any new cases then you come back into line with the national picture. Some islands have never even had a case and as far as I’m aware, you still need to prove you live there or have an essential reason to travel in order to get on ferries or planes. If done a few weeks ago it’d even have been a nice GIRUY for the Scottish Government to the likes of Jackson Carlaw who just couldn’t believe we’d dare to differ from Westminster. Realistically on Mull for example, which has never had a case, it’s unsafe to sit in a beer garden or cafe on July 1st, but presumably will be perfectly safe to welcome tourists from the worst-hit country in Europe, with zero checks, no information on where they’re staying and no idea who they are on July 15th. Makes sense, right? 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshmallo Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 1 minute ago, Paco said: The islands as a whole should really have been allowed to set their own policies for weeks now. It didn’t even need to be something for the Scottish Government to worry about, ask the local councils what they want to happen and then announce it. Make it clear if there’s any new cases then you come back into line with the national picture. Some islands have never even had a case and as far as I’m aware, you still need to prove you live there or have an essential reason to travel in order to get on ferries or planes. If done a few weeks ago it’d even have been a nice GIRUY for the Scottish Government to the likes of Jackson Carlaw who just couldn’t believe we’d dare to differ from Westminster. Realistically on Mull for example, which has never had a case, it’s unsafe to sit in a beer garden or cafe on July 1st, but presumably will be perfectly safe to welcome tourists from the worst-hit country in Europe, with zero checks, no information on where they’re staying and no idea who they are on July 15th. Makes sense, right? Yeah but what if someone from Perth wants to drive to Dundee!!! -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Jean King Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 Ah, yes. Thousands of people only congregated in Kelvingrove as they feared repercussion of going by the 5 mile from home part of the lockdown. Troon and Prestwick were similar yesterday, mobbed but without the "takeaway pint" option as consumption of alcohol in public spaces has been banned by the draconian SAC for years and the police have always taken great delight in enforcing that particular bye law. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hauzen Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 13 hours ago, Mr. Alli said: KelvinGrove, an hour ago. Some size of nipples on that girl in the pink jacket. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 10 minutes ago, 101 said: The economy will recover, hopefully what replaces the old one is far more diverse and it's easier to get the economy back on track than bring folk back to life, likewise with finding a job. Yes, but permanent damage will be done to many individuals's finances and livelihoods. Which will have a knock-on effect on health outcomes. My point is, lots of different people are looking out for what they perceive as what's in their interests and aren't as bothered about how it effects others. This isn't something unique to the young so let's not pretend otherwise. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Jean King Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 Why does one region of Scotland need to have the same restrictions as another region of Scotland if the conditions could be wildly different?Probably because if people see area X being able to do something they can't in area Y, those people will simply travel to area X to be able to do that and no amount of 5 mile advisory messaging will stop people as we have seen this week. Areas with low or no infections may well be mostly that way because of measures but I can't see the citizens of those areas being happy about people travelling from more infected areas to take advantage of their more relaxed lifestyle thus bringing the associated risks with them. I have said on here a number of times we need scientific evidence as to why the infections are reducing. Is it down to the measures or is the virus becoming less virulent. Surely this is the key question. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael W Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 7 minutes ago, Gordon EF said: Yes, but permanent damage will be done to many individuals's finances and livelihoods. Which will have a knock-on effect on health outcomes. My point is, lots of different people are looking out for what they perceive as what's in their interests and aren't as bothered about how it effects others. This isn't something unique to the young so let's not pretend otherwise. Exactly. Pensioners, for example, receive their money every month without question. The economy being wrecked means pretty much nothing to them - they will be fine in that regard. It's those in work (whatever the stages of their career) that will suffer from this, in some cases with horrendous pressures on their finances, potentially as you say causing permanent ruin. Pensioners meanwhile might (and only might) lose the pensions triple lock for a year or two. Hardly going to wreck their lives. They are at greater danger in terms of their health, right enough, bit it's also much easier to keep them indoors than it is the young and working population. By this stage you can also argue that everyone knows the risks and should take precautions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 3 hours ago, MixuFruit said: That you wanting folk to get in their cars and muck up everyone's nice clean air again? You're blowing hot and cold on this issue. Well no, because this isn't a glorified third world country like the US and so we have excellent public transport links to just about everywhere. Which the government so far been massively subsidising to run on a reduced service with no greater capacity. The correct solution at this stage is now to have them run at full frequency with compulsory mask use and prebooking seats where necessary to regulate that space. People should have the ability to travel with confidence rather than being told to just stay in their five mile box or otherwise the poor nurses get it. That is no longer a sustainable message to give to the population in the middle of June. 2 hours ago, Caledonian1 said: That would be completely unmanageable and lead to chaos. "busy public places" - how would you define where these are in advance of someone filling up their tank and driving 200 miles.....what if it became busy just before you arrived? Would you havea system where the police turned cars back? Nah, that would be far from "logical" As much as I don't advocate car use, the principal advantage of it is that if your planned destination is busy then you can, err, go somewhere else nearby that isn't. You aren't actually obliged to just turn round and go straight back home, so that's a ridiculous straw man argument in place of exercising some basic common sense. Scotland is a country of vast empty space and highly condensed urban populations. You really can't complain then when the limited public space of Glasgow and Edinburgh get swamped with people on a nice day while you're also demanding at the exact same time that literally none of them travel further afield. If people were able to more freely travel in a regulated environment then the demand to use any single public space would be reduced, this is very straightforward stuff tbh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnardo Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 As much as I don't advocate car use, the principal advantage of it is that if your planned destination is busy then you can, err, go somewhere else nearby that isn't. You aren't actually obliged to just turn round and go straight back home, so that's a ridiculous straw man argument in place of exercising some basic common sense. Scotland is a country of vast empty space and highly condensed urban populations. You really can't complain then when the limited public space of Glasgow and Edinburgh get swamped with people on a nice day while you're also demanding at the exact same time that literally none of them travel further afield. If people were able to more freely travel in a regulated environment then the demand to use any single public space would be reduced, this is very straightforward stuff tbh.But despite all the vast open space, wouldnt you agree that people are likely to concentrate in just a few spaces where facilities exist. The fife coast has loads of quiet beach for example, but people still pile into the likes of Silver Sands because it has parking, toilets, ice creams and bouncy castles. Whilst some of those may not be open, it's still the bit folk know. It's not realistic to expect folk to go and drag their crabbit awkward kids somewhere closely thats going to be quiet precisely because it lacks the facilities they need/want. I think you have to acknowledge the need for convenience and also the general lack of knowledge about where you could go should your chosen destination be busy. A much more likely scenario is that folk wait it out till that one parking space they need comes up, and crack on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 24 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said: 3 hours ago, Mr. Alli said: Ah, yes. Thousands of people only congregated in Kelvingrove as they feared repercussion of going by the 5 mile from home part of the lockdown. Troon and Prestwick were similar yesterday, mobbed but without the "takeaway pint" option as consumption of alcohol in public spaces has been banned by the draconian SAC for years and the police have always taken great delight in enforcing that particular bye law. The same bylaws are in place in Glasgow which makes me wonder why takeaway pints to the park is suddenly a thing. We should be binning that law but between this mere nod and wink arrangement and failing to reopen amenities like public toilets at the same time, outdoor space has become a free for all mess. Until there is a joined up strategy at government level then you're going to see crowding and unhygienic behaviour. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 3 minutes ago, Bairnardo said: But despite all the vast open space, wouldnt you agree that people are likely to concentrate in just a few spaces where facilities exist. The fife coast has loads of quiet beach for example, but people still pile into the likes of Silver Sands because it has parking, toilets, ice creams and bouncy castles. Whilst some of those may not be open, it's still the bit folk know. It's not realistic to expect folk to go and drag their crabbit awkward kids somewhere closely thats going to be quiet precisely because it lacks the facilities they need/want. I think you have to acknowledge the need for convenience and also the general pack of knowledge about where you could go should your chosen destination be busy. A much more likely scenario is that folk wait it out till that one parking space they need comes up, and crack on. I disagree about that right now because the government has been beating people over the head with its social distancing message for fully three months. With the exception of a small minority who want to get a rave going again, I believe that most people aren't actively seeking out a crowded space right now. But when you tell them that they can only meet their close family and friends outdoors and that they shouldn't travel more than five miles distance generally then a lot more people will converge to the same areas than they would with greater freedom of movement. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnardo Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 I disagree about that right now because the government has been beating people over the head with its social distancing message for fully three months. With the exception of a small minority who want to get a rave going again, I believe that most people aren't actively seeking out a crowded space right now. But when you tell them that they can only meet their close family and friends outdoors and that they shouldn't travel more than five miles distance generally then a lot more people will converge to the same areas than they would with greater freedom of movement.Maybe. In periods of shit weather its pretty irrelevant anyway, but in periods of hot weather it's always going to be a shit load of people and a few select spots that get it regardless of how far you allow folk to travel. All suitable outdoor spaces are going to be busier than they maybe should be in the context of 2 metre distancing with or without a 5 mile radius. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Bairnardo said: Maybe. In periods of shit weather its pretty irrelevant anyway, but in periods of hot weather it's always going to be a shit load of people and a few select spots that get it regardless of how far you allow folk to travel. All suitable outdoor spaces are going to be busier than they maybe should be in the context of 2 metre distancing with or without a 5 mile radius. But they will be less busy when the same number of people are dispersed across a greater number of spaces and over a larger radius though. The wider that allowable travel radius, the more dispersed that they can be. The onus is on the government to have a joined-up set of policies that both gives people scope to both enjoy their free time for the first time in fucking months as well as the ability to exercise some common sense into the bargain. Edited June 21, 2020 by vikingTON 0 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.