Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Billy Jean King]

So no threat of an U45 infecting a 50 or 60 year old on furlough who isn't required to shield. Think before you type. My household with two 50s and an U45 living in the same house, explain to me how my wife and myself are not at greater risk with my son going about his daily business. It's not about the threat to the U45, it's the threat they would become to any non shielding over 45. What bit don't you grasp ?

That's an odd take.
We are paying 80% of everyone furloughed's wages atm, therefore we can afford to continue to do so for those over 45 for much longer should those extremely unlikely to die get back to work.
Those vulnerable would continue to be shielded similar to what they are doing just now.

[Turkmenbashi]

6 minutes ago, HeartsOfficialMoaner said:

When the boomers (old folk) die the millennials (offspring/young folk) get the goodies/houses/money.

Shame the boomers are living too long, that by the time we get the goodies, we will be in retirement ourselves. Or global warming will have killed us all anyway.

[Bairnardo]

So no threat of an U45 infecting a 50 or 60 year old on furlough who isn't required to shield. Think before you type. My household with two 50s and an U45 living in the same house, explain to me how my wife and myself are not at greater risk with my son going about his daily business. It's not about the threat to the U45, it's the threat they would become to any non shielding over 45. What bit don't you grasp ?

Well theoretically the shielding requirements would obviously change to align with who is/isnt allowed to work etc.

You might have to face up the realisation that added inconvenience for some might be worth it in terms of the overall impact

[Monkey Tennis]

12 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I have clarified my post. You should either have no commas or another one before "however". The lesson is free.

No I shouldn't.

That's bollocks.

[vikingTON]

8 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:

So no threat of an U45 infecting a 50 or 60 year old on furlough who isn't required to shield. Think before you type. My household with two 50s and an U45 living in the same house, explain to me how my wife and myself are not at greater risk with my son going about his daily business. It's not about the threat to the U45, it's the threat they would become to any non shielding over 45. What bit don't you grasp ?

I don't recall anyone stating that under 45s should be compelled to go out and work, socialise etc. They should be weighing up the risks of that decision with regards to the rest of their household: as millions are already doing on a daily basis in key worker roles. If there are vulnerable people living in close proximity to them then they should stay at home and claim the already existing support packages to do so.

They should however be granted the option of continuing to work and enjoy public and social amenities if they want to though - given the clearly established facts that the virus poses no serious risk to themselves and the critical bonus that this would stop the economy from completely flatlining for an entire generation.

[Thereisalight..]

What do we think will be the first things to get eased? Surely allowing people to see family members again? I also hope being allowed to travel outwith your town. Oh and I want the barbers open again asap as my hair is a riot 

[bennett]

Just now, Thereisalight.. said:

What do we think will be the first things to get eased? Surely allowing people to see family members again? I also hope being allowed to travel outwith your town. Oh and I want the barbers open again asap as my hair is a riot 

Allowing hobbies and interests again, obviously done safely and as you say a wee bit of common sense regarding families and travelling. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bairnardo]

Can someone with a grip on the stats tell me why Nicola is talking about going a different way if Westminster act prematurely to lift measures. Arent the stats generally more favourable up here?

[madwullie]

1 minute ago, Bairnardo said:

Can someone with a grip on the stats tell me why Nicola is talking about going a different way if Westminster act prematurely to lift measures. Arent the stats generally more favourable up here?

Imo because the economy/peoples lives balance is seen differently by her than by the tories. As simple as that. The tories will stomach far far more deaths and will ease restrictions before proper containment measures are in place, sturgeon seems to value life higher and would want to have at least some semblance of test-trace-isolate in operation before easing up  

[Billy Jean King]

Some...it would be tens of millions !!!

Well theoretically the shielding requirements would obviously change to align with who is/isnt allowed to work etc.

You might have to face up the realisation that added inconvenience for some might be worth it in terms of the overall impact

[Bairnardo]

1 minute ago, madwullie said:

Imo because the economy/peoples lives balance is seen differently by her than by the tories. As simple as that. The tories will stomach far far more deaths and will ease restrictions before proper containment measures are in place, sturgeon seems to value life higher and would want to have at least some semblance of test-trace-isolate in operation before easing up  

I agree with that. Having said that, it feeds into what I said a few pages back that I think she might be misreading the Scottish people on that one in terms of patience. 

[Bairnardo]

Just now, Billy Jean King said:

Some...it would be tens of millions !!!

It would be less than it is currently. Do you think "fairness" should come into it if theres scientific backing to allow age based loosening? 

[Monkey Tennis]

8 minutes ago, Snafu said:

Except most if not all of us aren't given the luxury of being given airtime on the radio to voice our opinions, where as this a football forum is for anyone or everyone who wishes for their opinions to be read, that is the point of the forum or most forums.

 

Indeed.  And those opinions are less easily understood if expressed with a lack of care.

The point I was making, is that the belief that norms of communication needn't apply in the realm of football, has led to us being offered morons in the media.

Sometimes the knowledge that I'm being a bit of a dick, deters me from continuing.  This is not one such occasion.

[madwullie]

4 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

I agree with that. Having said that, it feeds into what I said a few pages back that I think she might be misreading the Scottish people on that one in terms of patience. 

Any polls I've seen show support for continuing the lockdown is pretty high, across all age groups. Sure, it's stronger as the age increases, but it's still widely supported. 

[Billy Jean King]

FFS Eugenics now, let's just go the whole ethnic cleaning while we are at it eh ? Why don't we just concentrate on getting deaths and infections down to a reasonable rate before we let any one group out of lockdown. It's been 5 weeks with furlough schemes in place for another 9 weeks or so. Let's see where we are then.

I don't recall anyone stating that under 45s should be compelled to go out and work, socialise etc. They should be weighing up the risks of that decision with regards to the rest of their household: as millions are already doing on a daily basis in key worker roles. If there are vulnerable people living in close proximity to them then they should stay at home and claim the already existing support packages to do so.
They should however be granted the option of continuing to work and enjoy public and social amenities if they want to though - given the clearly established facts that the virus poses no serious risk to themselves and the critical bonus that this would stop the economy from completely flatlining for an entire generation.

[Billy Jean King]

I haven't seen any govt scientist saying there is.

It would be less than it is currently. Do you think "fairness" should come into it if theres scientific backing to allow age based loosening? 

[pandarilla]

FFS Eugenics now, let's just go the whole ethnic cleaning while we are at it eh ? Why don't we just concentrate on getting deaths and infections down to a reasonable rate before we let any one group out of lockdown. It's been 5 weeks with furlough schemes in place for another 9 weeks or so. Let's see where we are then.

Because the social and economic damage is going to be too great a risk.

[ayrmad]

53 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Of course it's not a contest.  Who's competing?

It is however, an arena in which we communicate with each other by writing.   Is it too much to ask that people take sufficient care with that to ensure that meaning is immediately clear?

I hate this stuff about "it's a football forum" as if it makes a difference.  It's that kind of thought that means it's somehow acceptable to subject us to media figures like Pat Bonner.  

Being grammatically correct doesn't make it worth reading, this place is full of grammatically correct drivel. 

[madwullie]

When it comes down to it, we're in no shape to ease the lockdown atm. We have no methods available to us (atm) for slowing /containing it beyond locking down again. There will be a second peak, and because we fucked it so badly in Feb and March, our second peak will be particularly nasty in comparison to other countries that locked down earlier and smarter. I think you're underestimating the how much stomach people will have for another serious spike in cases and deaths, and outwith tories, I don't see decent people accepting a shit load of deaths as acceptable collateral damage for the economy

That's before you even consider that people aren't going to want to spend money they don't have on things they don't need in places that aren't safe to be in. 

Edited April 26, 2020 by madwullie

[pandarilla]

When it comes down to it, we're in no shape to ease the lockdown atm. We have no methods available to us (atm) for slowing /containing it beyond locking down again. There will be a second peak, and because we fucked it so badly in Feb and March, our second peak will be particularly nasty in comparison to other countries that locked down earlier and smarter. I think you're underestimating the how much stomach people will have for another serious spike in cases and deaths, and outwith tories, I don't see decent people accepting a shit load of deaths as acceptable collateral damage for the economy
That's before you even consider that people aren't going to want to spend money they don't have on things they don't need in places that aren't safe to be in. 

I agree that we're not ready to ease anything yet, and I'll be amazed if that happens in the next week.

But the economy isn't just the spivs in the city of London. It's folks livelihoods as well, and the effects will be felt for a long time.