ddfg Posted February 14, 2021 Share Posted February 14, 2021 How sustainable are the local authority wide tiers? One council area in the central belt was hitting 11% positivity a few days ago with the cases almost exclusively attributed to door to door transmission in two housing estates/schemes. Is it justifiable to keep a whole council area in a higher tier because of the actions of a few. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted February 14, 2021 Share Posted February 14, 2021 4 minutes ago, parsforlife said: Religious freedom is completely secondary to public health. You can’t claim religious freedom when it badly effects others. Requiring proof of vaccine, whilst comes from a good place, is logistically complicated. I much prefer shotgun to the face for anybody who refuses to be vaccinated. We wouldn’t lose any worthwhile members of society. Religious freedom is the law of the land. Good luck telling someone you can or can’t do something because of their religious beliefs. Are you going to ban the non vaccinated from indoor workplaces as well. The same potential hazards apply. Like I said this is a can of worms that surely can never get any backing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theroadlesstravelled Posted February 14, 2021 Share Posted February 14, 2021 37 minutes ago, Mark Connolly said: Cheltenham was what kicked all this shite off in the first place, it can get in the fucking bin tbqhwy It’ll be like Cheltenham on steroids if they open up too quickly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted February 14, 2021 Share Posted February 14, 2021 1 minute ago, Left Back said: Religious freedom is the law of the land. Good luck telling someone you can or can’t do something because of their religious beliefs. Are you going to ban the non vaccinated from indoor workplaces as well. The same potential hazards apply. Like I said this is a can of worms that surely can never get any backing. Religious freedom is part of the law. It’s not it in full. Which is why you can’t stand up in court and say your religion states you should drive around your estate at 50 mph high on cocaine. And why Sutcliffe was jailed despite claiming god told him to do kill. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael W Posted February 14, 2021 Share Posted February 14, 2021 11 minutes ago, parsforlife said: Religious freedom is completely secondary to public health. You can’t claim religious freedom when it badly effects others. Requiring proof of vaccine, whilst comes from a good place, is logistically complicated. I much prefer shotgun to the face for anybody who refuses to be vaccinated. We wouldn’t lose any worthwhile members of society. If government measures are infringing on religious freedom, the government will more than likely be taken to court and will probably lose. Public health is probably the best get out card the government has to defend itself, but if it loses then it's game over and the measure is disapplied. There are also some who cannot have a vaccine on grounds of a medical condition, in which case you're in dangerous territory on disability discrimination. Hopefully it's just the government floating policy in the press. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Jean King Posted February 14, 2021 Share Posted February 14, 2021 They wouldn’t be able to travel from Cheltenham mate.They are local, meant guys I normally go to Cheltenham with. I have a crowd of mates live in Gloucester and Somerset who we stay with normally but fully aware I can't see them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alternative Title Posted February 14, 2021 Share Posted February 14, 2021 (edited) 24 minutes ago, 101 said: It would still be good to vaccinate the person who is speaking and therefore most likely to spread Covid as they meet hundreds of people in a often small room It may be, but I can't see any scientific evidence that supports the argument. With so many people in different jobs being in the same boat, it's difficult to justify moving them up the queue. Think how many people a bus driver, or taxi driver, or police officer come into contact during a day. Edited February 14, 2021 by Alternative Title 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superbigal Posted February 14, 2021 Share Posted February 14, 2021 (edited) Scotgov will kick the can down the road on Tuesday for at least one week, because the bold Boris is next Monday for his roadmap. She does not have the balls in more than one way to take a leap of faith. This still allows a plan for kids going back to school to at least match England's 8th March. I suspect if Aberdeen had Zero cases it would make no difference nationally. Edited February 14, 2021 by superbigal 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Jean King Posted February 14, 2021 Share Posted February 14, 2021 Cheltenham was what kicked all this shite off in the first place, it can get in the fucking bin tbqhwyAye of course it was and tubes, trains, planes, buses, Champions League, six nations, Saints v Hearts etc etc. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted February 14, 2021 Share Posted February 14, 2021 1 hour ago, Marshmallo said: The boomers are going to get to go for a pint while the rest of us are chained to our sofas A year ago this was a fringe conspiracy theory now it's being considered as government policy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Jean King Posted February 14, 2021 Share Posted February 14, 2021 Agree currently, but I do wonder what sort of hospital and ICU figures will be seen as acceptable? I assume there will be a discrepancy between what I would accept and what SG would.Yes it's delicate like "acceptable deaths" a very difficult path to tread. Overwhelmed is a word banded about like confetti currently. That should be the benchmark. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted February 14, 2021 Share Posted February 14, 2021 2 minutes ago, parsforlife said: Religious freedom is part of the law. It’s not it in full. Which is why you can’t stand up in court and say your religion states you should drive around your estate at 50 mph high on cocaine. And why Sutcliffe was jailed despite claiming god told him to do kill. Jehovas Witnesses attitude to medicine is well known and established. Completely different scenario to your made up nonsense. If you tried to establish a religion that believed your two points should be valid it would be outlawed and you’d likely be sectioned (as Sutcliffe eventually was). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted February 14, 2021 Share Posted February 14, 2021 Scotgov will kick the can down the road on Tuesday for at least one week, because the bold Boris is next Monday for his roadmap. She does not have the balls in more than one way to take a leap of faith.Or knowledge on what’s going to happen with furlough, or what border policy is going to be. It’s either a convenient excuse for the devolved governments or an outrage, depending on your politics. But the simple fact is the Scottish Government, or indeed the Welsh with lower case rates and higher vaccinations, would be wasting their time setting out a roadmap before knowing what the story is with furlough/borders. That fact is inescapable. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted February 14, 2021 Share Posted February 14, 2021 1 minute ago, Paco said: Or knowledge on what’s going to happen with furlough, or what border policy is going to be. It’s either a convenient excuse for the devolved governments or an outrage, depending on your politics. But the simple fact is the Scottish Government, or indeed the Welsh with lower case rates and higher vaccinations, would be wasting their time setting out a roadmap before knowing what the story is with furlough/borders. That fact is inescapable. That’s a rational and thought out point. A bit out of place on here tbh. -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elixir Posted February 14, 2021 Share Posted February 14, 2021 wE jUsT nEeD tO gEt oUr TeSt AnD tRaCe SyStEm SoRtEd!!!11 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted February 14, 2021 Share Posted February 14, 2021 1 minute ago, Left Back said: Jehovas Witnesses attitude to medicine is well known and established. Completely different scenario to your made up nonsense. If you tried to establish a religion that believed your two points should be valid it would be outlawed and you’d likely be sectioned (as Sutcliffe eventually was). Jehavas witnesses have a legitimate right to refuse treatment to themselves, when it’s only them that will suffer. They have absolutely no right to spread disease to those that are medically vunrable. Glad we agree sutcliffe was mentally ill, and that using religion to excuse bad behavior isn’t justified. Now please explain why that should only apply in some circumstances. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted February 14, 2021 Share Posted February 14, 2021 1 hour ago, Todd_is_God said: Boomers and Shielders celebrating in a beer garden in July. Socially distanced, of course. Can't wait to shoot the shit with you in the car park behind the vaults mate 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted February 14, 2021 Share Posted February 14, 2021 6 minutes ago, parsforlife said: Jehavas witnesses have a legitimate right to refuse treatment to themselves, when it’s only them that will suffer. They have absolutely no right to spread disease to those that are medically vunrable. Glad we agree sutcliffe was mentally ill, and that using religion to excuse bad behavior isn’t justified. Now please explain why that should only apply in some circumstances. Sutcliffe’s actions because of his so called belief was against the law. Refusing medical treatment on religious grounds is not against the law and therefore in those circumstances is completely justified and you cannot be discriminated against because of it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted February 14, 2021 Share Posted February 14, 2021 1 minute ago, madwullie said: Can't wait to shoot the shit with you in the car park behind the vaults mate 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elixir Posted February 14, 2021 Share Posted February 14, 2021 (edited) At what point do we start labelling claims about being unsure of transmission reduction as misinformation? Edited February 14, 2021 by Elixir 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.