Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Wee Bully]

1 minute ago, ICTChris said:

A notifiable disease means that the relevant public health authoriities should be notified of any cases, either in writing or via telephone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notifiable_diseases_in_the_United_Kingdom

I know that, which is why i asked

 

Just now, Todd_is_God said:

No of course it doesn't. But for the SNP to say they couldn't tell people for confidentiality reasons they had obviously been made aware as the legislation had been followed.

There is no excuse for the SNP not acting on this.

This is a word salad, but I'll try to interpret.  

Notification happened correctly?  I'm thinking you agree with this.

The fact that it has been notified to the relevant authorities therefore means the world should be told?  Regardless of patient confidentiality?  

[ICTChris]

1 minute ago, Wee Bully said:

The fact that it has been notified to the relevant authorities therefore means the world should be told?  Regardless of patient confidentiality?  

In some circumstances, yes absolutely.  I think there is provision for that in the legislation.

[Wee Bully]

1 minute ago, ICTChris said:

In some circumstances, yes absolutely.  I think there is provision for that in the legislation.

So, "in some circumstances" suggests that not in all.  In other words, there is a balancing act to be carried out.

I'm not saying the SG made the right call, but it was a call they were entitled to make.

[Todd_is_God]

7 minutes ago, Wee Bully said:

The fact that it has been notified to the relevant authorities therefore means the world should be told?  Regardless of patient confidentiality?  

Let me ask you this.

Whilst the conference took place, there were zero recorded cases of Covid-19 in Scotland.

Do you not agree that, if it later came to light that a number of people who had been at an event in Scotland had tested positive,it may have been a good idea to attempt to test those who may have come in to contact with them, test them and potentially limit the spread?

What is the point in bringing in legislation to then not make use of the information?

Edited May 20, 2020 by Todd_is_God

[Dee Man]

2 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

In some circumstances, yes absolutely.  I think there is provision for that in the legislation.

Playing devil's advocate here, would you be happy for your medical information to be made public without your consent?

[Todd_is_God]

Just now, Dee Man said:

Playing devil's advocate here, would you be happy for your medical information to be made public without your consent?

I'm fairly certain you could notify someone they had potentially been in contact without naming anyone directly

[Dee Man]

2 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

I'm fairly certain you could notify someone they had potentially been in contact without naming anyone directly

Surely that's not what they're referring to if they're saying it would break patient confidentiality?

[Wee Bully]

1 minute ago, Todd_is_God said:

I'm fairly certain you could notify someone they had potentially been in contact without naming anyone directly

Which is not, as I understand it, what the "scandal" is about.  The Tories are saying "The public should have been informed".  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-52741163

The FM's response:

Ms Sturgeon said that the incident management team took "all appropriate steps".

"More than 60 contacts were traced in Scotland. I believe more than 50 were traced by Public Health England south of the border and at any time if that incident management team thought anything further was required, including public notification, they had the powers to do that."

 

[Donathan]

Let me be clear, the Scottish government have done a far better job at managing this crisis than the UK government, but failing to publicly announce a significant outbreak during a time when UK case numbers were barely over a dozen and we didn’t have a death yet is seriously poor IMO.

[NotThePars]

40 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Like I say she gave an explanation that related to an issue of confidentiality of individuals that could not be breached.  Some folk are not willing to accept that explanation.

Granted it's Murray that's arguing it but I think he's claiming the Public Health Act 2008 supersedes confidentiality if it's in the public interest.

[ICTChris]

Just now, Dee Man said:

Playing devil's advocate here, would you be happy for your medical information to be made public without your consent?

I wouldn't be happy about it but it would depend on the circumstances.  Also, I doubt anyone is suggesting that the SG or anyone else would publish peoples medical information.  What seems to be being said is that if the information had been publicised then it would have been possible to identify the people involved.  

Looking at the list of notifiable diseases, it's obvious that if, for example, there was a positive case of smallpox in a Central Edinburgh hotel, by someone who had recently travelled from Novosibirsk in Russia (where they have a lab that has smallpox).  If I was that person and the public were notified then people who know me would immediately realise that it was me and it would be a breach of my confidentiality but the public health concerns would clearly outweigh my privacy.

In this case the decision was made not to notify the public because the concerns about public health were outweighed by the potential for identifying the people involved and breaching their confidentiality.  Three months on, with however many thousand people dead in Scotland from this virus, I think it's fair to say that decision would be different.  If, for example, the same thing happens again in a year when, hopefully, we have a much reduced level of cases, you can be absolutely 100% certain that the public will be notified.

 

[Todd_is_God]

7 minutes ago, Dee Man said:

Surely that's not what they're referring to if they're saying it would break patient confidentiality?

Maybe, but it also didn't happen

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-nike-delegates-at-centre-of-outbreak-performed-haka-in-hotel-before-edinburgh-tour-11991104

I don't understand how not alerting people in Scotland to the fact a virus we'd heard of impacting China and spreading across Europe was here is a good idea either.

Everyone knew it was coming. Why cover it up?

[vikingTON]

3 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

 

 

Did I say throw money at it?

Try fucking reading the previous content before sticking your obnoxious fucking oar in.

No-one here is saying that we should act because the manchild President says so - some are just asking what is the actual demand for the drug in normal circumstances and whether of not it is worth stocking up on the drug if there is a shortage.

Except that you 'asked' nothing of the sort: you instead did a quick Google search, plucked the most ludicrous number that you could find - half a million people in the UK - and insisted that it was therefore the right use of public funds for reasons.

Thanks for playing anyway.

7 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

Let me ask you this.

Whilst the conference took place, there were zero recorded cases of Covid-19 in Scotland.

Do you not agree that, if it later came to light that a number of people who had been at an event in Scotland had tested positive,it may have been a good idea to attempt to test those who may have come in to contact with them, test them and potentially limit the spread?

What is the point in bringing in legislation to then not make use of the information?

According to FM questions today over 100 people were in fact contact traced from the event in Scotland and the UK alone. Contact tracing is more sophisticated than telling absolutely everyone who could have possibly been in the same area to self-isolate: the degree of probable contact is important. In countries like Singapore the authorities are interested in tracing who you were directly interacting with, not somebody that you might have bumped into on a street corner for two seconds. It's possible that the numbers traced were a little too low or weren't contacted promptly enough but the current argument strikes me as a bit of a red herring.

 

[dirty dingus]

 

 

We don't do COVID 19,  let's hit the beach and hang out with loads of other ignorant chunts.

https://www.itv.com/news/london/2020-05-20/southend-beach-packed-with-thousands-of-sunseekers-struggling-to-social-distance/

 

Edited May 20, 2020 by dirty dingus

[dirty dingus]

31 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

I'm fairly certain you could notify someone they had potentially been in contact without naming anyone directly

It might be hard to trace their contacts as I don't think Mandy and Charmaine are the real names of the lassies that advertise in phoneboxes.

[Doctor Manhattan]

Absolutely no sense of humour, the Koreans...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52740867

Quote

K-League: FC Seoul fined 100 million won for sex dolls in stands

A South Korean club has been fined 100 million won (£66,500) by the K-League for filling empty seats with 'sex dolls' at their recent home match.

FC Seoul put 30 "premium mannequins" in the stands, with fans unable to attend because of coronavirus restrictions.

The club said they did not know the dolls were adult products and apologised on Monday.

"The incident has greatly insulted and hurt female and family fans," a K-League statement said.

Some of the dolls were holding signs advertising x-rated websites, despite pornography being banned in South Korea.

The K-League added that the club had made "a serious mistake" by not removing the dolls before the match.

 

[Wee Willie]

34 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

Granted it's Murray that's arguing it but I think he's claiming the Public Health Act 2008 supersedes confidentiality if it's in the public interest.

Does that also apply for that cnut Charlie Windsor and his entourage flying from London to his holiday home at Balmoral against government advice then getting Grampian Health Board to go to Birkhill to test him, his wife and presumably his staff for the virus.

The then CMO for Scotland, Catherine Calderwood, says on TV there were 'clear medical reasons' for testing them.

She didn't elaborate on why they were tested. She should have told us what the criteria was.

[Detournement]

37 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

Why cover it up?

The SNP don't like to tread on the toes of big corporations and this would have been bad PR for a few different brands. 

[Dee Man]

15 minutes ago, Doctor Manhattan said:

Absolutely no sense of humour, the Koreans...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52740867

 

Wasn't it Koreans who put the dolls there in the first place?

[Detournement]

27 minutes ago, dirty dingus said:

 

 

We don't do COVID 19,  let's hit the beach and hang out with loads of other ignorant chunts.

https://www.itv.com/news/london/2020-05-20/southend-beach-packed-with-thousands-of-sunseekers-struggling-to-social-distance/

 

It's guaranteed that this is another distorted perspective lens.