Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[101]

8 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

Bearing in mind as has been pointed out numerous times, this started off as "protect the NHS, flatten the curve" etc. I distinctly remember Nicola Sturgeon herself saying she wouldnt keep restrictions a second longer than absolutely neccessary. I think we are now a long way from that mantra.

That was probably true in some of the areas kept in level 3/4 for a week too long, however I think it could be successfully argued that this new strain has ruined the NHS where it has run out of control, so much so that they have gone back to being the Covid health service, where as if we can nip it in the bud whilst ramping up vaccinations then come February we will be in a better place but that requires vaccinations to be ramped up.

[Bairnardo]

2 minutes ago, 101 said:

That was probably true in some of the areas kept in level 3/4 for a week too long, however I think it could be successfully argued that this new strain has ruined the NHS where it has run out of control, so much so that they have gone back to being the Covid health service, where as if we can nip it in the bud whilst ramping up vaccinations then come February we will be in a better place but that requires vaccinations to be ramped up.

I might be in the minority in believing that for politicians, language aswell as actions carry high importance. It's been quite a wee while since I liked the language coming out of scotgov on this, and of late it is actively bothering me. I am having a hard time understanding how it isnt bothering some others. 

I am at the point where even as someone who has, especially since 2016 become desperate for Indyref2, I am going to have to hold my nose hard to vote SNP again based on my current interpretation of their crisis management. It does pain me to say that, but for me they are being flippant with their responsibilities and appear uncomfortable with the vaccine shifting the weight of expectation from public compliance to government organisation and logistical competence. 

[Paco]

Bearing in mind as has been pointed out numerous times, this started off as "protect the NHS, flatten the curve" etc. I distinctly remember Nicola Sturgeon herself saying she wouldnt keep restrictions a second longer than absolutely neccessary. I think we are now a long way from that mantra.

There are more Covid patients in UK hospitals now than there ever have been.

Proper Dave Cormack and Neil Doncaster timing to start throwing a bitch fit.

[Bairnardo]

There are more Covid patients in UK hospitals now than there ever have been.

Proper Dave Cormack and Neil Doncaster timing to start throwing a bitch fit.

Questioning the actions and language of our elected representatives is a bitch fit now?

[renton]

I get why people like the idea of shielding the vulnerable over community wide restrictions. I could still see some practical difficulties with it. 

1) How do you reduce the risk profile sufficiently for those who are shielding? How do you manage their contacts to prevent them coming into contact with the virus? Especially in a scenario where everyone else is exposed and therefore the risk of the shielded population encountering an infectious person rises as the population moves towards herd immunity.

If we assume that those who have died already would have come from a near 100% Venn diagram overlap with those who would be shielding, can we really believe that shielding would have led to a lower, or even equal death toll in a society with much higher levels of transmission and incidence?

2) in terms of NHS capacity, how does the IFR for the virus change if the NHS cannot generate capacity to cope. If only the most vulnerable shield, and the rest of society is open, doesn't it follow that many who haven't or won't get the virus be exposed to it. People who wouldn't get seriously ill if they were hospitalised will get seriously ill if they have to self isolate at home for lack of a hospital bed. Those who might need an ICU bed will die if they can't get one. 

Doesn't that mean that allowing a larger percentage of the population to get it fundamentally alter who you would need to shield in a scenario where the NHS is overwhelmed?

3) Mutations. Shielding the vulnerable and allowing everyone else to so their thing increases the statistical liklihood that the virus mutates into forms that are harder to control and isolate the vulnerable against.

Finally, I guess there is a moral question over the use of shielding if you couldn't guarantee their safety. Otherwise you are throwing a section of society under the bus, which is fine when its someone else. One day though, society might decide its your turn. 

The question still largely relates to NHS capacity. The modelling for capacity and bed space forms a huge element of the tier decisions. There is clearly pressure on the NHS right now. I can'tvthink that pressure would be decreased if the level of population having the virus jumped from 7% to 50%... you just end up killing folk who otherwise wouldn't have died for lack of a hospital bed.

That type of strategy would be more viable if:

1) we had a NHS Louisa Jordan for every local authority. That would generate a significant amount of spare capacity. Assuming you could staff it (you couldnt)

2) Weekly mass testing of the population to target and isolate cases as they come up. 

3) you took the vulnerable populace and hermetically sealed them away with only government approved food drops from delivery services subject themselves to strict isolation and testing.

Edited December 27, 2020 by renton

[Bairnardo]

I get why people like the idea of shielding the vulnerable over community wide restrictions. I could still see some practical difficulties with it. 
1) How do you reduce the risk profile sufficiently for those who are shielding? How do you manage their contacts to prevent them coming into contact with the virus? Especially in a scenario where everyone else is exposed and therefore the risk of the shielded population encountering an infectious person rises as the population moves towards herd immunity.
If we assume that those who have died already would have come from a near 100% Venn diagram overlap with those who would be shielding, can we really believe that shielding would have led to a lower, or even equal death toll in a society with much higher levels of transmission and incidence?
2) in terms of NHS capacity, how does the IFR for the virus change if the NHS cannot generate capacity to cope. If only the most vulnerable shield, and the rest of society is open, doesn't it follow that many who haven't or won't get the virus be exposed to it. People who wouldn't get seriously ill if they were hospitalised will get seriously ill if they have to self isolate at home for lack of a hospital bed. Those who might need an ICU bed will die if they can't get one. 
Doesn't that mean that allowing a larger percentage of the population to get it fundamentally alter who you would need to shield in a scenario where the NHS is overwhelmed?
3) Mutations. Shielding the vulnerable and allowing everyone else to so their thing increases the statistical liklihood that the virus mutates into forms that are harder to control and isolate the vulnerable against.
Finally, I guess there is a moral question over the use of shielding if you couldn't guarantee their safety. Otherwise you are throwing a section of society under the bus, which is fine when its someone else. One day though, society might decide its your turn. 
The question still largely relates to NHS capacity. The modelling for capacity and bed space forms a huge element of the tier decisions. There is clearly pressure on the NHS right now. I can'tvthink that pressure would be decreased if the level of population having the virus jumped from 7% to 50%... you just end up killing folk who otherwise wouldn't have died for lack of a hospital bed.
That type of strategy would be more viable if:
1) we had a NHS Louisa Jordan for every local authority. That would generate a significant amount of spare capacity. Assuming you could staff it (you couldnt)
2) Weekly mass testing of the population to target and isolate cases as they come up. 
3) you took the vulnerable populace and hermetically sealed them away with only government approved food drops from delivery services subject themselves to strict isolation and testing.

Do we know how many people would need to shield ie those identified as likely to die or need hospitalization should they catch the virus?

The 15 million figure in the media is that group, presumably for either England or the whole of the UK. Do we know the number for Scotland?

[Paco]

Questioning the actions and language of our elected representatives is a bitch fit now?

Complaining that we’re ‘a long way’ from keeping restrictions only when necessary when the pandemic is at its highest peak so far is a bit of a bitch fit, yes.

Probably a harsh way of putting it but it doesn’t make it any less true, and it’s on a par with Cormack/Doncaster demanding thousands of fans at all grounds on the day two million went into Level 4 restrictions.

[Jacksgranda]

1 hour ago, djchapsticks said:

That's the key question.

Most sectors of the press have given the UK and devolved governments and exceptionally easy time over this. Seemingly focussing more energy on why and where individuals aren't wearing masks than they are on the actual questions they need to be asking to get us all out of this.

I fully understand that there was little point in doing so in the development stage of the vaccines but we do now have an end game, we do have a point of focus - the cry for 'more patience' to the general population should well and truly be falling on deaf ears. People afforded them a lot of patience and a massive sacrifice of health, happiness and finance for the entire of 2020 in the expectation that some sort of coherent strategy would be drawn up and they fucking dithered and squandered it, leaving us almost exactly at the same point as we were in March.

Why should we, once again, give them time and patience to trust they'll get the rollout correct given that we know what they do with a bit of time an patience on their hands? They squandered an overwhelming amount of goodwill from people the first time round, so the pressure should fully be on them. People have every right to be losing patience.

I think we're worse off in NI than we were in March.

[renton]

4 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

Do we know how many people would need to shield ie those identified as likely to die or need hospitalization should they catch the virus?

The 15 million figure in the media is that group, presumably for either England or the whole of the UK. Do we know the number for Scotland?

About 1.25 million, assuming population share.

[Honest Saints Fan]

4 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

Do we know how many people would need to shield ie those identified as likely to die or need hospitalization should they catch the virus?

The 15 million figure in the media is that group, presumably for either England or the whole of the UK. Do we know the number for Scotland?

I think it was approx 180,000. ETA - Don't think this included old people, just those with illness that would cause issues if caught covid.

 

If we were to shield the vulnerable and let the rest of the population go about normal day to day activities I would have to shield my husband, mum and children too or live without them. It isn't as easy as saying shield the vulnerable.

Edited December 27, 2020 by Honest Saints Fan

[Bairnardo]

Complaining that we’re ‘a long way’ from keeping restrictions only when necessary when the pandemic is at its highest peak so far is a bit of a bitch fit, yes.

Probably a harsh way of putting it but it doesn’t make it any less true, and it’s on a par with Cormack/Doncaster demanding thousands of fans at all grounds on the day two million went into Level 4 restrictions.

No it isnt on a par with that at all. The crux of my recent moaning has been aimed at a complete lack of scrutiny of the governments actions, specifically related to the vaccine. And also re the language they use, which has a very real effect on people.

My opinion that the government are being over cautious, and not fulfilling their obligations re getting the vaccine out there as quickly as possible is a long way from claiming I should be shoulder to shoulder with strangers at the football this Saturday.

The counter argument to all of these issues seems to be "it's really bad the now, just let them do their job" and that's fine if you can accept that. I dont find that acceptable for a lot of reasons, most of which I would be repeating if I knocked them out all over again now.

[djchapsticks]

20 minutes ago, Paco said:

 

There are more Covid patients in UK hospitals now than there ever have been.

Proper Dave Cormack and Neil Doncaster timing to start throwing a bitch fit.

 

Are there more Covid patient in UK hospitals in summer 2021 than there ever have been?

Of course not, it hasn't happened yet.....so why the f**k is 2021 essentially being written off already?

[mizfit]

4th Jan is the date they’re expecting 2 million doses of the Oxford vaccine to be distributed across the UK.

If that is correct then there is no reason for the restrictions to continue beyond the 3 week window.

[renton]

7 minutes ago, djchapsticks said:

Are there more Covid patient in UK hospitals in summer 2021 than there ever have been?

Of course not, it hasn't happened yet.....so why the f**k is 2021 essentially being written off already?

Who's written off 2021?

[Wee Willie]

11 hours ago, djchapsticks said:

It's legitimately terrifying how quickly a populace can be conditioned into buying into this as 'the new normal'. 

Someone such as myself, always very left leaning, never voted any party other than SNP, simply does not buy into this ethos of blindly nodding and going 'oh well, them's the rules'. I've always said on here, restrictions are begrudgingly fine as long as they are a) strictly temporary and b) there is an end game. 

Now the vaccine is apparently the end game but people are seemingly happy enough for us to kick the can down the road indefinitely and going 'it will take more time' at a point where really hard questions should be getting asked. Why was 1m vaccines lauded by the end of January but thrown out and quickly reneged on? What is the time scale now? If there are delays, why are there delays and what is being down to resolve? 

I always have believed that a party's harshest critics should not be people who vote for opposing parties but be those people who have given their support for and entrusted their vote to a party. There is not a lot I've seen from the SGs response to this in the past several days and weeks that has made me particularly confident of where I'd place my vote in future or, more likely, if I'd even place one at all. 

That's me tae a T.

"simply does not buy into this ethos of blindly nodding and going 'oh well, them's the rules'

But what else can we do?

If whatever is the rule then we must follow them else why bother with a rule.

Do you really want every one of us to decide ourselves which rules to follow or disregard?

I have absolutely no idea what is the way forward with this virus so I rely on the folk we have voted in as our government (and their advisors) to keep me (us) right.

But even as a government there is the human element.

Whatever they say today could change tomorrow depending on events.

 

“There is not a lot I've seen from the SGs response to this in the past several days and weeks that has made me particularly confident of where I'd place my vote in future or, more likely, if I'd even place one at all.”

So what you are saying (as a very left leaning voter) is that you would accept the current status quo to continue with a Tory Government in Westminster rather than a (hopefully) left leaning government in an independent Scotland. Bearing in mind that after independence there will be an election where you and I could be voting for a strong socialist government which does not have to include the present SG.

 

[renton]

7 minutes ago, mizfit said:

4th Jan is the date they’re expecting 2 million doses of the Oxford vaccine to be distributed across the UK.

If that is correct then there is no reason for the restrictions to continue beyond the 3 week window.

Well, 4 million doses is 2 million vaccinations, right? So you need 7 times that to hit the magical number being quoted earlier.

[Arthur Orton]

1 minute ago, djchapsticks said:

Are there more Covid patient in UK hospitals in summer 2021 than there ever have been?

Of course not, it hasn't happened yet.....so why the f**k is 2021 essentially being written off already?

Correct and it must be remembered that the NHS gets battered every winter with admissions to a point where we have the images of patients in corridors.   Is it a surprise that the hospitals are full of patients with  a respiratory virus, no it is not.

The media have done nothing except whip up a frenzy of disaster and scaremongering right through this with their click bait headlines and the world is going to end rhetoric.

The oh my goodness the virus has mutated rhetoric being peddled by leitch et al was lapped up by them.  Very little said that it was not more potent, that vaccine was still effective etc, no let's get more people panicking.

It suited a lot of governments agenda's to have peopke scared to go out after another policy u turn on bubbles etc over Christmas fiasco.

Also throw into the mix the thick and gullible that believe everything they read on Facebook and are quite happy to stay inside in their onesies for the next decade, you have a country paralysed by fear.

Let's not even touch on the schools lies.

In the meantime the  economy is crippled, nhs are way behind on targets amd waiting lists, people's mental health is in the toilet etc etc.

The vaccine is here so tell us how we are going to get restrictions lifted and a reasonable timescale.

Do some people need to shield for a few months to get things open for everyone else then yes do it as this is no way to live life.

 

[djchapsticks]

35 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

I might be in the minority in believing that for politicians, language aswell as actions carry high importance. It's been quite a wee while since I liked the language coming out of scotgov on this, and of late it is actively bothering me. I am having a hard time understanding how it isnt bothering some others. 

I am at the point where even as someone who has, especially since 2016 become desperate for Indyref2, I am going to have to hold my nose hard to vote SNP again based on my current interpretation of their crisis management. It does pain me to say that, but for me they are being flippant with their responsibilities and appear uncomfortable with the vaccine shifting the weight of expectation from public compliance to government organisation and logistical competence. 

Pretty much in a nutshell.

Being a proponent of an independent Scotland, which I remain, does not mean being accepting of all the ham-fisted rhetoric coming from the governing party.

The government would do well to remember that many, many SNP voters, myself included, routinely vote for them as a means to an end in regards to IndyRef2. It does not mean that we accept their stance and viewpoints as gospel and are willing to let them go without question - though there does appear to be a large percentage of the electorate who are willing to do so unfortunately.

I can say with a quite substantial amount of confidence that in the event of a fully Independent Scotland, I'd be interested in the policies of any new parties which ultimately will be formed and that based on their handling of this crisis, the SNP would not be getting my vote.

[Bairnardo]

Who's written off 2021?

In the absence of the scottish government telling us the key numbers for loosening restrictions, and Sturgeon/Leitch both hinting towards restrictions in place for most of the year, I think it's the sensible conclusion to arrive at that 2021 is already planned to be a year of shit.

Hinting has been a big part of their strategy of that there is no doubt, so it seems over optimistic to ignore the language they are using in terms of lifting restrictions.

[djchapsticks]

5 minutes ago, renton said:

Who's written off 2021?

Jason Leitch for one:

Quote

Speaking on Radio Clyde, Jason Leitch said: “In the long term it’s going to take well into next year before we can think about any form of normality.

“We said we want to vaccinate the particularly at risk group by the summer if we get vaccine supply which depends on manufacturing and regulation.

I mean, that 'at risk' group being vaccinated by summer is not going to be enough people to ease restrictions in any meaningful way. How many people fall under 'at risk?'