Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[super_carson]

1 minute ago, Honest_Man#1 said:

This has been one of the most frustrating things about the pandemic for me. Groups of people so entrenched in their position that any criticism of their side, regardless of merit, is met with condescending comments or downright anger. As someone who pre-pandemic was a big Sturgeon and SNP fan, I still overall am a supporter of the SNP and will vote for them and think Sturgeon is the best we have got, but posters like Granny Danger and Wee Willie snidely refuting any criticism must push people away.

Exactly right. We're too partisan in Scotland with our politics.  Yes, independence is a divisive and emotional subject for many but we have to look past this to get out of this mess.  Like yourself, I'm an SNP supporter and will vote for Sturgeon in May.  She's communicated well and hasn't shirked her duties when it comes to briefings etc. and has done well to make sure the population, for the most part, has been onside throughout this shit-show.

But, as you say, when someone questions a policy or a decision we often get told "oh well in England they're doing Z, Y or Z badly".  Forgive me if this sounds like birthday caird pish but I want Scotland's aspirations to be higher than being just better than England.  That starts with the number of vaccinations we are getting through - I don't care if we have a slightly higher percentage of vaccinations done than England, Wales or Northern Ireland -  is it the most we could be doing for Scotland?  These are the questions that need to be asked of the SG now and should be the acid test if NS's leadership in this pandemic. 

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

1 hour ago, Steven W said:

Disheartening to see a lot of the Scottish newspapers lead with stories of our 'sluggish' roll out of the vaccine, and that we're beginning to lag behind the rest of the UK. I know some of these rags have agendas, but they can't all be wrong.

Also from Jeane Freeman's infamous 1 million by the end of Jan, which last week became Nicola Sturgeon's 900k; I'm now seeing the health secretary quoting 560k by the end of the month. I and a few others on this thread saw the warning signs several weeks ago, but were batted away and accused of worrying about something that hadn't happened yet. The warning signs are there, and Scotland should be getting angry. Pressure should be heaped on the government to ensure its rolled out as rapidly as can be.

On a similar vein, I saw the story on Sky News this morning re the vaccine roll out in Israel. Again, I know there's some stuff about Palestine and what have you, but whatever way you look at it, they're powering through their roll out. Presumably this must begin to reflect in their daily infection / hospitalisation / death numbers - anyone seen anything on this?

Ive been saying this for weeks about the fucked plans for vaccination and roll out but dismissed by the snp can do no wrong brigade. 

[Paco]

I could be wrong here but i'd be absolutely stunned if we have managed to vaccinate 115,000 in the last 7 days.

No chance unfortunately. The AZ vaccine delivery to Scotland was delayed, I don’t know why, so really with the exception of a handful of GP practices last week it wasn’t really present in Scotland. Starting yesterday we should be getting towards that 1100 vaccination centre figure quoted by the SG.

My hunch - and it is only a hunch - is that London and the south swallowed some supply initially destined for other parts of the wider UK (not just Scotland but Cornwall, Suffolk, etc) in response to the unfolding disaster there. I could be wrong but it seems strange to me that GP practices were queueing round the block in London and there were very few AZ doses in Scotland, let alone distributed to practices.

Another key difference at least between Scotland and England is the focus on care homes. Over 75% of residents have been done here, 40% or so in England. I suspect that process is a bit slower than lining them up at a GP practice.

That is also significantly less than the 1m we were originally promised and the 900k target Sturgeon mentioned more recently.

I posted this at the time but Sturgeon was very clear in her words that Scotland would have access to 900k DOSES by the end of January. Doses are very different to numbers of people vaccinated, and it’s all in the delivery schedule. Having 500k landing on Jan 30th wouldn’t really help.

The latest from yesterday however is that they are confident the priority list from over 70’s up will be done by mid-Feb. They need to up the tempo but there are now no excuses - I think we have enough vaccines to hit the mid-Feb target, and a bit of media pressure isn’t the worst thing.

[welshbairn]

The test for the SG and NHS Scotland is whether delivery of jags is keeping up with the rate of supply. There's no point in going 24/7 if it means shutting it down for a fortnight while they wait for the next batch of supplies. I don't think anyone knows on here whether that test is being met or not. There will always be anecdotal evidence of somebody fucking up by not having vaccinators ready at some clinic or something, but it's too soon to give the whole picture.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

5 hours ago, peasy23 said:

Yesterday was the first time since this started that I went in to Asda and they had a member of staff at the door with a box of masks ready to hand out to anyone without one.

Maybe it's just me, but if somebody claims they can't wear a mask because it causes them breathing problems, perhaps a busy supermarket in the middle of a pandemic isn't the smartest place for them to be?

Absolutely this. I'm not the first, and I probably won't be the last, but the shopping rules should be:

1. No mask, no entry, no exceptions. If you can't wear a facecovering for twenty minutes walking round a shop, you aren't safe to be out unsupervised, which leads neatly to:

2. Shopping is not a social activity. One trolley/basket, one shopper. No exceptions.

If you have issues with "ma assma!" then get someone else to pop to Tesco for you. Other supermarkets/bullshit justifications are available.

 

[welshbairn]

2 minutes ago, Paco said:

My hunch - and it is only a hunch - is that London and the south swallowed some supply initially destined for other parts of the wider UK (not just Scotland but Cornwall, Suffolk, etc) in response to the unfolding disaster there. I could be wrong but it seems strange to me that GP practices were queueing round the block in London and there were very few AZ doses in Scotland, let alone distributed to practices.

They seem to be targeting the worst hit areas, in the Highlands the GPs in East Ross-shire have been the first to get the AZ rollout, with outbreaks in Dingwall and Invergordon.

[Marshmallo]

14 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

Absolutely. But people should remember that the SG themselves set these targets and expectations, not once or twice, but three times, and still  don't look like getting near it.

They've set themselves a target rate now which would allow them to have given 1.6m people their first dose by the end of March, with the capacity to do even more if stocks allow.

Absolutely no one surely believes that.

Yip. As I've said throughout all of this I just want some honesty rather than being treated like a kid who won't get golden time if I don't behave. Kids being in school is clearly very important and IMO should have been near enough the last thing to shut, but the nonsense that got spun about them being safe/kids not being part of transmission was an insult to our collective intelligence. If you can't roll out 1m vaccines by the end of the month then just tell us that rather than picking a nice round number to try and get a positive headline on the front of the Record the following day.

Unsurprisingly the "but SUPPLY" stuff has already started following my last post so I'll duck out for a bit, baby!

[WhiteRoseKillie]

3 hours ago, Hillonearth said:

I always wondered that too - the very conditions that make mask-wearing problematic would also seem to indicate that somebody should be shielding in the first place.

Regarding supermarkets, I reckon they probably need to return to the one-in/one-out limited numbers in-store they did early doors last year, and maybe also get a bit more draconian about insisting on single shopping or two together at the most - seem to be a lot of tinky families of five or six treating it like a big day out as things stand.

Yep, beaten to it again. The bit in bold is what really, really boils my piss. I wouldn't use the word "tinky" myself, preferring the more inclusive term "scum". Even though I do not see it as problematic, I know how some of the chaps on here do like a wee diversity campaign..

[Marshmallo]

2 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

Yep, beaten to it again. The bit in bold is what really, really boils my piss. I wouldn't use the word "tinky" myself, preferring the more inclusive term "scum". Even though I do not see it as problematic, I know how some of the chaps on here do like a wee diversity campaign..

It's literally a word rooted in a racial slur

[hk blues]

2 hours ago, mizfit said:

 

I’d love to see one of these people challenged on it.

 

I read a story about some bloke who was refused entry into Argos for not wearing a mask.  He went off on one and has sent them a letter instigating legal action.  He said he was exempt on health grounds but didn't produce any evidence.  Apparently, he's not required to so shops are on a hiding to nothing.  

[Steven W]

3 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

The test for the SG and NHS Scotland is whether delivery of jags is keeping up with the rate of supply. There's no point in going 24/7 if it means shutting it down for a fortnight while they wait for the next batch of supplies. I don't think anyone knows on here whether that test is being met or not. There will always be anecdotal evidence of somebody fucking up by not having vaccinators ready at some clinic or something, but it's too soon to give the whole picture.

I disagree. When vaccine arrives, power through it at a rate of knots. If that means running out of vaccine for a period (granted it won't be a good look) so be it. You're advocating willfully allowing people to go un-vaccinated for a couple of weeks, just as a means of ensuring supply remains constant.

Easing off the pace for any reason, to my mind, as well as sending out the wrong signals, seems illogical

 

[welshbairn]

2 minutes ago, Steven W said:

I disagree. When vaccine arrives, power through it at a rate of knots. If that means running out of vaccine for a period (granted it won't be a good look) so be it. You're advocating willfully allowing people to go un-vaccinated for a couple of weeks, just as a means of ensuring supply remains constant.

Easing off the pace for any reason, to my mind, as well as sending out the wrong signals, seems illogical

 

They need a delivery system that's sustainable for many months, pulling staff off other patient centred duties to go mad jagging for a week while other appointments and procedures are cancelled, then to shut it down for a fortnight would be insane.

[No_Problemo]

14 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

Absolutely this. I'm not the first, and I probably won't be the last, but the shopping rules should be:

1. No mask, no entry, no exceptions. If you can't wear a facecovering for twenty minutes walking round a shop, you aren't safe to be out unsupervised, which leads neatly to:

2. Shopping is not a social activity. One trolley/basket, one shopper. No exceptions.

If you have issues with "ma assma!" then get someone else to pop to Tesco for you. Other supermarkets/bullshit justifications are available.

 

There clearly needs to be exceptions.
Single parents, and supervised shops which I do at work are two. But there will be several others. 

[WhiteRoseKillie]

3 hours ago, Aufc said:

Why the f**k would anyone want to take their kid(s) to the supermarket? From my experience, its shite. They spend their time running away and hiding half the time and you get to the till and you find you have extra items you didnt put in. It also adds an extra 20 or so minutes onto a job that is necessary but infinitely shite.

Oh, yes. How much I agree with this. How little imagination do these people have, ffs? What is all round better for health, social responsibility, and even household finances - a walk round the local area (hopefully, like the environs of WRK Towers, there is some green space, but even just a wander round Onthank in the fresh air would be beneficial), or cramming into an enclosed building, with community handling of any and all stock on the shelves, unknown numbers of carriers* in the same building?

 

*Unknown, but I'll bet my house it's more than none.

[Steven W]

Just now, welshbairn said:

They need a delivery system that's sustainable for many months, pulling staff off other patient centred duties to go mad jagging for a week while other appointments and procedures are cancelled, then to shut it down for a fortnight would be insane.

It's like going to a pub (when you could do such a thing) and seeing the fridge with six beers in it - You asking for a beer and being told "No, we need to save them for tomorrow so we don't run out"

[Guest bernardblack]

Has anyone had difficulties having conversations with family about taking unnecessary risks? I think we are on the verge of having a big blow up with some of my wife’s family soon.

Maybe smaller scale, but I’ve had to say “absolutely not what a stupid idea” to a family member who should know better which is now kicking off

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, Marshmallo said:

It would hardly be "needless" given the role in person schooling plays in both education and freeing up parents to get the economy moving.

It would be needlessly prolonged if we then plateau at the same case rate for another two months, absolutely. Reopening schools is like mixing on Christmas Day: it is going to have an impact on figures again and so we should be well down the track before doing so.

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, The Stig said:

your living in a fantasy land if you think that the schools will not open again until your criteria above have been met , as stated the schools will be the first thing to reopen and if the government can prove it is in control through vaccination numbers and ICU capacity (irrespective of the number of cases per day) then they should and will be opened

I don't expect my criteria to be used: I expect the government to cave in to snippy parents, let the case rates go back up and then lecture everyone about Why We Must Keep Restrictions well into the summer as a result.

That this would be the worse outcome all round should be no surprise to anyone who has been following our clowncar handling of the situation for the past ten months.

[renton]

8 minutes ago, Steven W said:

I disagree. When vaccine arrives, power through it at a rate of knots. If that means running out of vaccine for a period (granted it won't be a good look) so be it. You're advocating willfully allowing people to go un-vaccinated for a couple of weeks, just as a means of ensuring supply remains constant.

Easing off the pace for any reason, to my mind, as well as sending out the wrong signals, seems illogical

 

You are removing staff from other duties to carry out this rapid vaccination program. Then leaving them hanging, or trying to rapidly redeploy them to other duties on an ad hoc basis for the periods we don't have available vaccine supply.

There is no way that works from a planning perspective. You will, in short order, create chaos and breakdowns both technical and human.

You need a sustainable delivery system and a constant supply. Not a series of half arsed sprints. The global supply chain gives you a forecast of how many vaccinations will be available on a given date. The thing arrives in batches. You work to get through the majority if not all of the batch in time for the next one arriving, adapting your workforce and local supply chains based on what you can expect to have. Anything else will produce vast wastage of hours and money, and lead to breakdowns in the system.

 

[effeffsee_the2nd]

12 minutes ago, hk blues said:

I read a story about some bloke who was refused entry into Argos for not wearing a mask.  He went off on one and has sent them a letter instigating legal action.  He said he was exempt on health grounds but didn't produce any evidence.  Apparently, he's not required to so shops are on a hiding to nothing.  

the difference with this, as opposed to say proving you are over 18 in order to buy alcohol , is because exemptions are for medical reasons. In the uk under an equalities act you are not obliged to disclose any of your medical information , those who wish to view your information need your written permission to do so,  Your  can in certain circumstances, Eg sickness from employment or for disability help , be asked to provide evidence but something like a shop has no right to ask you

Shops were specifically told not to challenge individuals on mask use, exactly the opposite of the stance on alcohol where sellers are directly responsible for upholding the law