Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Dons_1988]

1 minute ago, The Moonster said:

He's alluding to that though, and he seemingly works in the industry. If the NHS will continue to be "compromised" then what's the alternative to restrictions?

I'm not sure what you mean about one jag, are people not receiving two jags?

There could be any number of reasons that other countries don't want to use the AZ vaccine, political or otherwise. I have faith in our scientific methods though, so unless AZ have fraudulently claimed their results then I'm not too worried about efficiency there - having the AZ vaccine is still better than having no vaccine at all. And we have other vaccines and treatments to use alongside this.

We're the third most vaccinated country in the world so far (or were the last time I looked), we should absolutely be one of the first out of these restrictions, so looking at other countries who are less vaccinated than us and saying "see they don't want restrictions lifted yet either" doesn't wash for me. You'll note that Israel, the most vaccinated country in the world, started easing restrictions yesterday.

Of course we should keep asking important questions but this point blank refusal from the SG or WM to give people an idea of what sort of levels they find acceptable to return to normal life is squeezing every last bit of patience out of the population. When you wake up every day and hear "Oh we don't know we're worried about VARIANTS" it pushes me to the fucking edge. 

The worst ones on the news are the really vague "well we don't know x or y yet so just keep washing your hands and wearing your facemasks and we'll let you know when you can start living your life again, there's a good boy".

[super_carson]

Just now, Bairnardo said:

Iv gone full TFH, purely to provide a vent path for my head, and emailed my MSP asking him about the adult conversation. 

I was thinking about doing something similar myself; it might be the only way, if sufficient people were to do it, that we start to think about we live with this virus rather than all of the scare stories and permanent restrictions.  

[Left Back]

4 minutes ago, virginton said:

There needs to be a meaningful choice at elections for that to work. The majority of mainstream parties are fully signed up to lockdown restrictions - including the opposition party at UK level whose take is 'we'd have more effective restrictions than the government!'

 

More fool them if they aren't trying to gauge the mood and attempt to provide a method to give them what they want.  I'm not saying any party is going to start saying they'll end all restrictions the day after the election (and I don't think anything I've read on here is people calling for that) but the adult conversation, routemap etc should be something all parties are looking at.

[Paco]

The route map will come in time. Feb 22nd is the promised UK route map is it not? I can’t see Scotland being far behind on that. There are likely parts of the UK plan, particularly on furlough and border control, that kind of dictate what devolved governments can or can’t do in the longer-term so it makes sense they would wait for clarity on these before launching in with their own.

There is a collective head loss on this thread over very little (I admit I found the Swinney comments troubling yet vague and Sturgeon should be pressed on these today). Calm down. We’ll get there.

[Elixir]

 

[coprolite]

35 minutes ago, Left Back said:

They're called elections.  If you don't like government policy you don't vote for that party.

Was pandemic response an issue in many manifestos? 

[Shipa]

If mass vaccination of the population is not enough to lift restrictions, then what, if anything, will be? Zero Covid? Even if we were to achieve that within Scotland, to maintain it we would surely to either:
 

a) reach zero Covid globally, or

 

b) strictly close all our borders, including those with rUK, indefinately, or at least untilk a) can be attained.

 

As for the risk of other strains, th "ones we don't know about yet," where do you draw the line? It could be argued that there are hundreds of animal species out there carrying diseases which could be harmful to humans if they were to cross the species boundary. Do we then lock down permanently just in case?

 

As an aside, I do some concerns about where the likes of Australia/NZ go from here. Yes, they have done a great job of mainly keeping the virus out until vaccination can take place, and a result of this is that is that they have not had restrictions on day-to-day life to anywhere near the extent of ours. Will this result in lower vaccine uptake, the hope of return to normal here probably encouraging people who may otherwise have refused/not bothered, while Aus/NZ don't really have that carrot? Although being a success so far, are they still saving up problems for the future?

[Elixir]

1 minute ago, Paco said:

The route map will come in time. Feb 22nd is the promised UK route map is it not? I can’t see Scotland being far behind on that. There are likely parts of the UK plan, particularly on furlough and border control, that kind of dictate what devolved governments can or can’t do in the longer-term so it makes sense they would wait for clarity on these before launching in with their own.

There is a collective head loss on this thread over very little (I admit I found the Swinney comments troubling yet vague and Sturgeon should be pressed on these today). Calm down. We’ll get there.

What will this be, the third route map that's been published by both governments?

I want to see a definitive set of criteria for all restrictions and emergency powers taken out of law, and that this will happen when triggers are met, i.e. vaccination rates and hospitalisation data.

[Binos]

2 minutes ago, Shipa said:

If mass vaccination of the population is not enough to lift restrictions, then what, if anything, will be? Zero Covid? Even if we were to achieve that within Scotland, to maintain it we would surely to either:
 

a) reach zero Covid globally, or

 

b) strictly close all our borders, including those with rUK, indefinately, or at least untilk a) can be attained.

 

As for the risk of other strains, th "ones we don't know about yet," where do you draw the line? It could be argued that there are hundreds of animal species out there carrying diseases which could be harmful to humans if they were to cross the species boundary. Do we then lock down permanently just in case?

 

As an aside, I do some concerns about where the likes of Australia/NZ go from here. Yes, they have done a great job of mainly keeping the virus out until vaccination can take place, and a result of this is that is that they have not had restrictions on day-to-day life to anywhere near the extent of ours. Will this result in lower vaccine uptake, the hope of return to normal here probably encouraging people who may otherwise have refused/not bothered, while Aus/NZ don't really have that carrot? Although being a success so far, are they still saving up problems for the future?

Australia have virtually achieved it, prior to any vaccinations, as you say yourself

Edited February 8, 2021 by Binos

[Left Back]

3 minutes ago, coprolite said:

Was pandemic response an issue in many manifestos? 

Ah.  If it wasn't in the manifesto the government(s) should have ignored the pandemic when it cropped up then?  Your question is ridiculous.

[ICTChris]

Quite a few people on here are going to be in shaky YouTube videos in the summer shouting about the Magners Carter as they get chucked into a police van aren't they?

[coprolite]

1 minute ago, Left Back said:

Ah.  If it wasn't in the manifesto the government(s) should have ignored the pandemic when it cropped up then?  Your question is ridiculous.

So we had a say by voting on policies that the parties didn't even have? My question was fair, you are ridiculous. 

[Left Back]

1 minute ago, ICTChris said:

Quite a few people on here are going to be in shaky YouTube videos in the summer shouting about the Magners Carter as they get chucked into a police van aren't they?

Depends how drunk they are.

[Shipa]

1 minute ago, Binos said:

Australia have virtually achieved it, prior to any vaccinations

My concern though is that they have done so with their borders all but closed, what happens when the time comes to open up? Presumably strict checks at borders can be kept in place long-term, but these are not a guarantee it will not get in. I imagine they will have plans in place, but again they will rely on sufficient vaccination and controls being strictly enforced.

[Dons_1988]

Just now, Left Back said:

Ah.  If it wasn't in the manifesto the government(s) should have ignored the pandemic when it cropped up then?  Your question is ridiculous.

No, but the point stands that no one voted for this.

The public is accepting of an emergency response to a crisis where a health system may collapse. Indeed, it's right for the government to have the power to take appropriate action in an emergency without needing to consult the public.

Once the emergency ends though we are talking about healthcare policies that the public really should be getting a say on. The measures are so pervasive that it isn't really acceptable just say just wait until the elections come around. Not to mention the fact that an election fought on the grounds of an end to lockdown is not very healthy.

[Michael W]

19 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

 

There could be any number of reasons that other countries don't want to use the AZ vaccine, political or otherwise. I have faith in our scientific methods though, so unless AZ have fraudulently claimed their results then I'm not too worried about efficiency there - having the AZ vaccine is still better than having no vaccine at all. And we have other vaccines and treatments to use alongside this.

 

Agreed. It's also been shown to be effective against the Kent varient, which is a particular issue in the UK. It's obviously bad news it doesn't work as well against the SA varient, but neither is it an utter travesty. More a problem for SA given they now have a million doses of the vaccine that they won't be administering any time soon. 

Unless the SA varient takes hold in the UK and the vaccine doesn't protect against serious illness then this is not the disaster it might be made out to be. Unfortunately, disaster is exactly the type of reaction I expect from the politicians. In the meantime, we really do however need to bar all entry from SA. 

[Dons_1988]

1 minute ago, Michael W said:

Agreed. It's also been shown to be effective against the Kent varient, which is a particular issue in the UK. It's obviously bad news it doesn't work as well against the SA varient, but neither is it an utter travesty. More a problem for SA given they now have a million doses of the vaccine that they won't be administering any time soon. 

Unless the SA varient takes hold in the UK and the vaccine doesn't protect against serious illness then this is not the disaster it might be made out to be. Unfortunately, disaster is exactly the type of reaction I expect from the politicians. In the meantime, we really do however need to bar all entry from SA. 

OK, I was willing to resist pedantry earlier as assumed it was a typo, but you've written 'varient' three times in that post.

[Left Back]

2 minutes ago, coprolite said:

So we had a say by voting on policies that the parties didn't even have? My question was fair, you are ridiculous. 

Who has said we've had a say?  I certainly haven't claimed anything of the sort..  The governement(s) had to respond on the best information they had at the time.  You may agree or disagree with that response but they had to do something at the time to deal with an unforeseen event.

[Aladdin]

To date, the arguments against restrictions have been made, in the main, by absolute moon howlers comprising of COVID deniers, Qanon believers and professional contrarians whose entire job is to generate clickbait.

As the percentage of the population vaccinated increases and, provided it results in a measurable reduction in serious illness and hospitalisation, you will see reasoned challenges to restrictions based on human rights and civil liberties.  Its not clear if Leitch et al genuinely want  the kind of state where the government can impose sweeping restrictions without challenge or simply enjoy their current position of relevance but, if its the former, I think they may be disappointed.

[Michael W]

1 minute ago, Dons_1988 said:

OK, I was willing to resist pedantry earlier as assumed it was a typo, but you've written 'varient' three times in that post.

I will do better next time.