Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[renton]

14 hours ago, D.A.F.C said:

Stop making excuses for an absolute failure at all levels of government. I’ve already posted the video in here where NS defends mass gatherings and schools that was three months ago. What the SNP has shown is that at their first major problem they’ve been caught out of their depth.

Italy was literally screaming down the tv at our scientific advisors to stop herd immunity yet the Scottish government never argued against it. Following scientific advice that a five year old could see was just driven by money and the economy. The scientists might as well not be there.

How can several other countries with little or no resources stop this so quickly? I get that we are in step with England but there’s so much more we could have done, if the tests are unreliable then test twice. Care homes were allowed to get decimated to keep the hospitals clear. Hospitals were built that never got used.

People have to answer as to why we got everything so badly wrong, the snp are accountable and cannot behind whatabootery and let’s see what happens at the end of it. We’ve just lost 10-0 and are watching the results come in saying well at least we aren’t losing 11-0.

I voted snp and I’m pro independence but this has cost the snp once questions get asked they have zero defence but will try hiding and scapegoating Boris.

I don't think he is making excuses for them, but he is highlighting the important point that hindsight is well and good, but that decisions were made on the existing data.

The general UK response was caught short because the makeup of it's civil service response groups was all wrong, and slow. They thought they were dealing with a flu type illness to start - there seems to have been little outwards curiosity to ask those in the Far East who started seeing it in January and early February how they were coping, and what they were experiencing. 

Likewise, the modelling that caused the big U-Turn in late March (and let's recall that there was two separate modelling groups, who came to largely similar conclusions though we tend to focus on the Imperial model) why wasn't that done in January. That should be standard practice, to build up a model of potential infection before it gets to the UK, not once we have it.

Another thing is that the FCO travel advice was limited to not much more than BE A WEAR and even then that was limited to Far Eastern nations. The problem being that a genealogical breakdown of the virus revealed the vast majority of viral entries came via Italy and France. We were looking in the wrong places.

What *should* happen in those circumstances is that there needed to be a fully fledged Test and trace system working from ports of entry. I was in Singapore in early February, and they were tracking the fever symptom on anyone coming into the country.  Anyone coming in had to give notice of where they were staying and working. You had your temperature taken twice a day in the office. All large outdoor gatherings had FLIR cameras setup and people with high temps were being taken aside. Basically, while they still didn't know exactly what they were dealing with, they were aggressively stomping on anything that looked like an outbreak.

The sad fact is that we, in the UK generally, do not have the infrastructure in place to do that. We don't stockpile equipment, and particularly PPE because stockpiling costs money in inventory space, and in replacing unused stock that expires. The whole procurement chain is based on Just In Time delivery. Stockpiling is anathema, it just doesn't happen.

In the UK, our socio-economic outlook is based on free market economics to such a degree that the government and civil service tends to baulk at anything that looks like contingency planning as that involves sinking capital costs into things. That combined with our already noted lack of alacrity in modelling the outbreak earlier meant we would always be running to catch up.

A further complication with timing was the lack of data around asymptomatic carrier infection rates. I'm still not sure if we have bottomed out on that. It was assumed that at the time we were clearing out hospitals that you were only infectious if you were symptomatic. Had they known otherwise at the time the decision was made, they never would have. Still though, infection vectors into care homes via staff and visitors in that period certainly caused infections. I think it will be impossible to tell one way or the other which set of vectors caused the most damage: staff and visitors or discharged patients.

What I've focused on so far, is largely around UK, reserved matters as this is where the big gains were to be found, and working off of the same civil service and public health advice , its no surprise that the Scottish Government came out  confidently communicating that advice. That causes an issue when you have to backtrack.

There will obviously be an inquiry. I think there are several things ScotGov should do:

1. Push for a separate Scottish civil service. While not of instantaneous value, it would hopefully allow, over the next decade, a more Scottish centric outlook, and more independent advice.

2. Devolution, or partial devolution of ports and entries, so that we could establish stricter access criteria on our own. It may not even need a devolved law to state that on entry you have to be able to give details of stay, contact details and the like. The point is that track and trace should begin at port of entry.

3. Establishment of an independent science group, with a rotating membership for public health and other emergencies. Possibly funded on the lines of a think tank. This group should be able to come together when it wants to and establish modelling and guidelines that can be presented to the government of the day. This would allow ScotGov another source of advice. Call it the Interesting Times Gang because I like Iain Banks.

4. Keep at least the skeleton of Track and Trace after this is over. Be able to bring it out from mothballs quickly. We should also establish a cadence of full exercises of pandemic control, say every 5 years. This will not be the last time this happens.

5. Establish an independent set of guidelines seperate from the UK. It should favour early and aggressive track and trace and complete lockdowns based on a calculated value for infection rates so that everyone knows definitely where they stand

6. Stockpile not just ppe, but respirators and other emergency equipment. Maintain a plan for conversion of St least one public space into a pop up hospital in a 7 day time frame.

 

Edited June 21, 2020 by renton

[Wee Willie]

17 hours ago, Wee Willie said:

Surely that's only until the first general election when things can change.

I'm looking forward to the manifestos of the new Scottish Tory, Labour and Lib-Dem parties after independence.

Do ye think they'll mention Trident?

I'll hae a pint of whatever you're drinking!

Having approx 8% of the UK population I would never expect Scotland to be an equal partner in the UK.

That is why I want independence.

Do you disagree?

16 hours ago, Todd_is_God said:

What are your views on EU membership?

I'm auld and on a fixed income so my view is strictly personal. I abstained from voting cos I knew that England would make the decision for us.

I was proved correct but as over 62% in Scotland voted to bide in the EU I will go along with that.

15 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Can't talk for Wee Wullie but it was the final nudge towards supporting independence for me.

 

I've always been pretty much a pro-European federalist - I spoiled my paper in 2014 - something I regret.

 

The SNP have been the only consistent party on EU membership - and independence within the EU is as about as closs to federalism as we'll get.

 

I didn't expect the Tories to react any d differently after the EU result - the real disappointment for me was Labour's sitting on the fence attitude. The Lib Dems were never going to be a choice given their selling out over austerity. In any case, I was politically (independence aside) closer to the SNP's social democracy, even before this point, it did not take much of a shift to support them.

 

1953 pushed me towards independence but after I was allowed to vote in 1961 at every opportunity I voted for SNP/Independence. Nothing has changed.

As for the EU see my answer above.

14 hours ago, Todd_is_God said:

Likewise.

It was his "small percentage of population but equal partner is impossible" point I was asking about.

He claims it would be absolutely impossible within the UK, yet this is exactly what the EU offer.

Are we no talking about two different types of union? One is an incorporating one and the other is a union of equals.

Do you really think that Scotland with a wee population can have equality with England in the UK?

I look forward to the day that Scotland votes to get rid of Trident and England says fair enough!

9 hours ago, DosserDel said:

Don't think it matters when she does it as a large percentage of the population have binned it off completely already anyway. 

Trains have been mostly utilised by jakies, junkies, and the young team in recent weeks , but in Glasgow and the West today there were groups of all ages and backgrounds travelling in groups together, obviously heading off to various social gatherings and events with absolutely none of the guidelines being adhered to. 

Social distancing, for the most part, is already a lost cause. 

The figures indicate steady progression and to be seen to follow suit to 1M with down south, without the two week delay, could ingratiate her a bit with some of her detractors, as its already beyond that level with a lot of folk anyway. 

What do the opinion polls say about Nicola Sturgeon?

[pandarilla]

People don't really care about some generic, unrelated old or vulnerable person dying.  
After 3 months of 'lockdown' you can't reasonably expect a young, healthy person to follow guidelines regarding a virus which has basically zero chance of killing them.
I said some time ago - tongue in cheek- weld old people into their homes and let the rest of us get on with it and I stand by the sentiment.

I genuinely don't think this is the case, and if it's a view you hold them i think it makes you look like a c**t.

I've found that most people do care about the elderly, and not just those directly related to them.

But it's obviously a very difficult balance when it comes to how much sacrifice folk are willing to make for them. I know things are getting busy but i still have faith that most people are taking sensible precautions of some sort.

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!  

This is a much more balanced point.

I think for some people the fear factor has gone a bit but weirdly for others the opposite is true.

There are some people who seem to have been consumed by fear, and have lost all ability to work out the actual level of risk involved in a task. These folk are the ones who are raging at anyone who breaks any of the rules, and i find them a bit tedious.

[madwullie]

Absolute brain damage on the local Hamilton fb page. Someone from local taxi company posted that masks will be required from now on, and a proper covid conspiracy theory nut crawled out the woodwork invoking the greatest hits. That video, death rate fiddled up and down, masks are for "control", Bill Gates vaccine etc etc. The kind of person Q was made for. 

A couple of folk called her out on it, tried to argue rationally with her, but it quickly descended into shouting abuse at people cos we're brainwashed and don't even know it, shit-posting long debunked theories and rants about us all being spoon-fed by the MSM. 

Quite eye-opening tbh how deeply into the covid nutcase world some seemingly normal people will allow themselves to be dragged. 

Edited June 21, 2020 by madwullie

[Wee Willie]

31 minutes ago, Am Featha *****h Nan Clach said:

I am comfortable to admit I have picked and chose what restrictions to follow to the letter and which not to.

In the early days when it was one time out for exercise per day, I'd go out 3 or 4 times. Where I am, it is easy to keep a good distance from anyone else and so my chance of contracting it or passing it on was as close to 0 as you can get.

However, I waited until you were allowed to meet others outdoors to go and see my parents. Each time I go we sit outside a good 3 or 4 metres apart and I pee in a bucket behind the shed!

I've tried to make decisions based on actual risk. The problem is that quite a large number of people are complete idiots and so you have to have possibly more severe than necessary (now anyway) blanket restrictions and hope the level of compliance only needs to be fairly high.

An excellent post. That is why there has to be blanket restrictions cos everybody is no adhering to the rules.

[Marshmallo]

4 minutes ago, Wee Willie said:

An excellent post. That is why there has to be blanket restrictions cos everybody is no adhering to the rules.

Why does one region of Scotland need to have the same restrictions as another region of Scotland if the conditions could be wildly different?

[pandarilla]

Why does one region of Scotland need to have the same restrictions as another region of Scotland if the conditions could be wildly different?

It creates a problem cos then loads of folk descend on that part of the country. I'm not sure that's a great idea, but it might be a risk worth taking if we can move things along a bit quicker in some places.

[Marshmallo]

1 minute ago, pandarilla said:

4 minutes ago, Marshmallo said:

Why does one region of Scotland need to have the same restrictions as another region of Scotland if the conditions could be wildly different?

It creates a problem cos then loads of folk descend on that part of the country. I'm not sure that's a great idea, but it might be a risk worth taking if we can move things along a bit quicker in some places.

I get what you're saying but I don't see people travelling from eg Hawick to Orkney just because beer gardens are open up there.

[Am Featha Taigh Nan Clach]

7 minutes ago, Marshmallo said:

Why does one region of Scotland need to have the same restrictions as another region of Scotland if the conditions could be wildly different?

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.

[pandarilla]

I get what you're saying but I don't see people travelling from eg Hawick to Orkney just because beer gardens are open up there.

(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.

[Marshmallo]

2 minutes ago, Am Featha *****h Nan Clach said:

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.

We're at a stage now where we should be trusting people to use their judgement and trust the advice they're given.

The stuff in Kelvingrove Park yesterday was an example of mixed messaging again. Strong hints that beer gardens would be opened. That gets whipped away at the last minute. Boozers allowed to do takeaway cocktails/pints. Folk can't drink them in beer gardens but can buy them so head to a park. No toilets so you get people pishing in the street.

I'm not condoning anyone getting tanked up and causing a scene but you can see how it happened.

[Wee Willie]

13 minutes ago, Marshmallo said:

Why does one region of Scotland need to have the same restrictions as another region of Scotland if the conditions could be wildly different?

I think some folk have answered that

10 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

14 minutes ago, Marshmallo said:

Why does one region of Scotland need to have the same restrictions as another region of Scotland if the conditions could be wildly different?

It creates a problem cos then loads of folk descend on that part of the country. I'm not sure that's a great idea, but it might be a risk worth taking if we can move things along a bit quicker in some places.

 

4 minutes ago, Am Featha *****h Nan Clach said:

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.

 

[Bairnardo]

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.

[Billy Jean King]

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.

[Marshmallo]

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.

[pandarilla]

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.

[101]

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.

[Todd_is_God]

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?

[Marshmallo]

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.

[Paco]

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?