Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[FireStarter]

2 minutes ago, madwullie said:

Apostrophes denote possession mate, not plurals  

Plural’s*

[Lyle Lanley]

12 minutes ago, FireStarter said:

Roll on the election when yous are voted out and we’re a strong union again!! 

Hi Douglas. 

Edited January 19, 2021 by Lyle Lanley

[FireStarter]

3 minutes ago, Lyle Lanley said:

Hi Douglas. 

First boris now Douglas. Make up your mind

[ICTJohnboy]

57 minutes ago, doulikefish said:

I remember the good old days of ppe counting...1 pair of gloves=2 

 

You mean all that sub-standard PPE they bought from the Turkish equivalent of Del Boy Trotter?

[Paco]

In my opinion ScotGov is extending lockdown because they simply  can get away with it due to the doom and gloom in England.

Yeah, nothing at all to do with the record number of Covid patients in hospital that’s still rising. Just pointlessly extending it for funsies.

I quite like your daily rundown of the 7 day averages but it isn’t the only indicator out there. Today’s have a pretty clear lag as well, only 13k tests reported. We’ll see a bit of a jump in the coming days.

[Todd_is_God]

24 minutes ago, Elixir said:

She adds: "We do now have hope, more so than at any time since the start of this pandemic, of a path to much greater domestic normality - something that all of us crave.

'Greater domestic normality' does not fill me with much hope whatsoever.

This all needs to end once deaths and hospitalisations remain at normal historic levels. Why can they not just fucking say so?

Here's the thing for me. I raised concern that the covid plan the SG released last year made no mention of, plan for, or give any indication what the criteria for "normal" would be.

I was told it was nothing as we would need a vaccine for that.

Now we have a vaccine, there is still, seemingly, no plan for allowing "normal" and NS is very deliberate in her use of "greater normality" at all times.

It's one thing to say "awch we will get there eventually, don't worry" but literally no one seems to be suggesting it is something they are even trying to achieve.

Am i jumping the gun and reading too much into it? Maybe, but politicians etc must surely understand the impact their specific choice of words will have on people who are being asked to make such drastic changes to their way of life, for what is looking increasingly like closer to at least 21 months than the original "3 weeks" 

People aren't necessarily looking for a guarantee that life will be back to normal (i.e. no restrictions) by a specific date, just that getting to that point is actually possible, and something that our leaders are actively working towards.

I'm assuming that type of questioning is probably not going to be on the table until at least well into the summer, but that length of wait is far too long for those who will already be suffering mentally as a result of that uncertainty.

[Left Back]

1610 deaths today.  Some of them the weekend lag I hope.

[DiegoDiego]

Why? I’ve not been aggressive to anyone?

u imbecile

[Michael W]

Deaths are always higher on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. 

However last week the equivalent figure was 1250 which is more the issue than anything else. They are still rising. 

Edited January 19, 2021 by Michael W

[Granny Danger]

Can’t make out if it’s just the schools or other aspects of lockdown.  Hopefully clarified soon.

[doulikefish]

35 minutes ago, superbigal said:

Why is NS hiding (Behind this confidential bulllshit) when questioned about the huge stocks of unused Pfizer we have.

I know the Healthcare rollout and the carehomes were Pfizer.   If they have decided GPs are AZ then where the fuckk is all this Pfizer gonna go.

Waiting for the larger Vaccine hubs ?

Even Willie Thicko Rennie has worked out she is at it.

 

 

She repeats that she is not allowed to discuss the numbers of vaccines available and says there is also a restriction with the Pfizer vaccine.

broken record blah blah

Last week when the sg published the vaccine plan it had to be taken down and as the ukgov said it went against national security and wanted the sg health minister sacked for it......this week is slightly different 

[Hedgecutter]

1 minute ago, doulikefish said:

Last week when the sg published the vaccine plan it had to be taken down and as the ukgov said it went against national security and wanted the sg health minister sacked for it......this week is slightly different 

Was that not largely because Freeman revealed the storage site? 

[doulikefish]

Just now, Hedgecutter said:

Was that not largely because Freeman revealed the storage site? 

Numbers and types 

[10menwent2mow]

Absolutely - I'm surprised it was extended into April so far in advance to be honest.  
I sincerely hope you are right about crowds, of course.  Like I say, I'm a bit scunnered with all the constant goalpost shifting chat.  

I don't see what choice the government has though. It is illegal for a huge swathe of businesses to operate. They either extend furlough or you suddenly have millions of people unemployed. What business can afford to pay its employees with literally zero income coming in? Or do we just expect businesses to make people unemployed and then have them reapply for their jobs in the future and f**k the employees in the meantime?

[effeffsee_the2nd]

12 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

Here's the thing for me. I raised concern that the covid plan the SG released last year made no mention of, plan for, or give any indication what the criteria for "normal" would be.

I was told it was nothing as we would need a vaccine for that.

Now we have a vaccine, there is still, seemingly, no plan for allowing "normal" and NS is very deliberate in her use of "greater normality" at all times.

It's one thing to say "awch we will get there eventually, don't worry" but literally no one seems to be suggesting it is something they are even trying to achieve.

Am i jumping the gun and reading too much into it? Maybe, but politicians etc must surely understand the impact their specific choice of words will have on people who are being asked to make such drastic changes to their way of life, for what is looking increasingly like closer to at least 21 months than the original "3 weeks" 

People aren't necessarily looking for a guarantee that life will be back to normal (i.e. no restrictions) by a specific date, just that getting to that point is actually possible, and something that our leaders are actively working towards.

I'm assuming that type of questioning is probably not going to be on the table until at least well into the summer, but that length of wait is far too long for those who will already be suffering mentally as a result of that uncertainty.

Maybe they're just being careful with their words incase they then get it used against them " you said we widny need masks by now and could have big pairtys you lied!"  But it does seem as tho they are being a bit too careful not to say          " well obviously at some point in time we will have completely reverted back to the  2019 way of life, from then on  things like WFH is between you and your employer blady blah, but we just can't really put even a rough time on it with so many unknowns right now- does that answer your question todd? " 

Thing is the SNP are a bit of a nanny state party, part of me wonders if they think that if they drag out the covid restrictions harder and longer than necessary , then the public will accept freedoms of less than what they used to take for granted simply because they're so fed of living under enhanced covid measures?   that's the tactic of professional negotiators - to ware people down by dragging things out forever.  the snp could be looking at the side effects of lockdown and think ; we could use this to meet our climate change and CO2 targets, to reduce alcohol comsumption, to reduce road congestion, etc  

I don't know, lets just hope its the top part

 

[Michael W]

Have said it before, but surely that will be time to target the furlough at certain industries? Hospitality clearly isn't going to be fully open until at least the vulnerable list is done and second vaccinations given, so even if allowed to open the takings will still be taking a hit and they'll be needing less staff. 

[djchapsticks]

55 minutes ago, Elixir said:

She adds: "We do now have hope, more so than at any time since the start of this pandemic, of a path to much greater domestic normality - something that all of us crave.

'Greater domestic normality' does not fill me with much hope whatsoever.

This all needs to end once deaths and hospitalisations remain at normal historic levels. Why can they not just fucking say so?

That fucking fence sitting patter needs to get in the bin from them immediately. It should be made totally and indisputably clear that the path leads to no restrictions whatsoever, not fucking 'greater normality'... a term which is being deliberately communicated as it leaves them open to all sorts of manoeuvring.

Greater normality is what will be achieved on the road to no restrictions. Greater normality is something that people should feel returning gradually as the weeks and months pass.

The end goal is no restrictions, not fucking watered down restrictions at which point we settle on it for an undetermined amount of time.

 

 

[Todd_is_God]

3 minutes ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

Maybe they're just being careful with their words incase they then get it used against them " you said we widny need masks by now and could have big pairtys you lied!"  But it does seem as tho they are being a bit too careful not to say          " well obviously at some point in time we will have completely reverted back to the  2019 way of life, from then on  things like WFH is between you and your employer blady blah, but we just can't really put even a rough time on it with so many unknowns right now- does that answer your question todd? " 

"Vaccines are key to getting back to normal" is all i'm looking for tbh. They don't yet need to say when that is likely to be.

[djchapsticks]

6 minutes ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

Maybe they're just being careful with their words incase they then get it used against them " you said we widny need masks by now and could have big pairtys you lied!"  But it does seem as tho they are being a bit too careful not to say          " well obviously at some point in time we will have completely reverted back to the  2019 way of life, from then on  things like WFH is between you and your employer blady blah, but we just can't really put even a rough time on it with so many unknowns right now- does that answer your question todd? " 

Thing is the SNP are a bit of a nanny state party, part of me wonders if they think that if they drag out the covid restrictions harder and longer than necessary , then the public will accept freedoms of less than what they used to take for granted simply because they're so fed of living under enhanced covid measures?   that's the tactic of professional negotiators - to ware people down by dragging things out forever.  the snp could be looking at the side effects of lockdown and think ; we could use this to meet our climate change and CO2 targets, to reduce alcohol comsumption, to reduce road congestion, etc  

I don't know, lets just hope its the top part

 

Nah, they won't put timescales on it and I don't think set timescales can be realistically requested. At least not just now.

Reassuring language though, would be that the absolute goal is getting back to no restrictions, not 'the path that leads to greater normality' given that any reduction from this point can be feasibly called 'greater normality'.

[djchapsticks]

9 minutes ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

  the snp could be looking at the side effects of lockdown and think ; we could use this to meet our climate change and CO2 targets, to reduce alcohol comsumption, to reduce road congestion, etc  

I don't know, lets just hope its the top part

 

 

I'd be very, very confident that the opposite effect would be the outcome here.