Jump to content

Coronavirus (COVID-19)


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Billy Jean King said:
3 minutes ago, Mark Connolly said:
There's the question P&B has been waiting for for weeks

Yip and going by her answer IF there is no "significant pressure on the NHS" in a couple of weeks they finally DO KNOW and their ball will be well and truly burst.

Aye we'll all be furious that there is no "significant pressure on the NHS" and we'll have some more civil freedoms open to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:

It was but it looks like they are finally realising that at the low levels we are at now they don't really suit.

Would you rather they put ER to L3 based on 17 new cases just because their population means that's higher per 100k than Glasgow. In theory an outbreak like the ER one "should" be much easier to contain than one involving 100+ cases.

So why do we bother having the "100k" calculation ?

I can see both sides here, however to someone looking in it could be perceived that the area containing many of the rich, powerful and influential in society have put pressure on in order to be treated differently.

I'm afraid a precedent has now been set, so if Inverclyde or North Ayrshire or South Ayrshire etc, etc get stuffed into level 3 for a similar  / less % rate that currently in East Ren, then there will be Hell to pay and quite rightly so.

What's the point in setting targets when they're just going to be ignored / altered to suit a specific group ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Billy Jean King said:
2 minutes ago, Marshmallo said:
Aye we'll all be furious that there is no "significant pressure on the NHS" and we'll have some more civil freedoms open to us.

Hopefully yes. If no hospital "surge" in 3 weeks or so the "we just don't know" will have been tested and answered.

Then a new variant will be wheeled out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my issue, it’s the inconsistency of messaging and the “data not dates” mantra, but maybe kind of, depends on the data. Glasgow appears to be a city that has a higher background case level than others. You can argue why that is. But now Glasgow is the only place in Scotland with a higher level of restrictions, whereas ER (which is literally connected) doesn’t have any. I’m definitely not asking for extra restrictions for ER. 

It has been illegal to enter someone else’s house in Glasgow since September/October now. There is hardly anyone in hospital. Hardly anyone is dieing. This is ludicrous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why do we bother having the "100k" calculation ?
I can see both sides here, however to someone looking in it could be perceived that the area containing many of the rich, powerful and influential in society have put pressure on in order to be treated differently.
I'm afraid a precedent has now been set, so if Inverclyde or North Ayrshire or South Ayrshire etc, etc get stuffed into level 3 for a similar  / less % rate that currently in East Ren, then there will be Hell to pay and quite rightly so.
What's the point in setting targets when they're just going to be ignored / altered to suit a specific group ??
Absolutely it's set now so it should be the criteria going forward.

Never thought of the ER financial demographics, I suppose that is an angle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, WATTOO said:

So why do we bother having the "100k" calculation ?

I can see both sides here, however to someone looking in it could be perceived that the area containing many of the rich, powerful and influential in society have put pressure on in order to be treated differently.

I'm afraid a precedent has now been set, so if Inverclyde or North Ayrshire or South Ayrshire etc, etc get stuffed into level 3 for a similar  / less % rate that currently in East Ren, then there will be Hell to pay and quite rightly so.

What's the point in setting targets when they're just going to be ignored / altered to suit a specific group ??

That's been the issue from the start.  The inconsistency and moving of the goalposts is fucking ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Marshmallo said:

Essentially "Is there pressure on the NHS or an increase in death figures due to the rise in case numbers? If not, why are these restrictions persisting?"

Ooft, lovely stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Marshmallo said:

Essentially "Is there pressure on the NHS or an increase in death figures due to the rise in case numbers? If not, why are these restrictions persisting?"

This needs to be asked EVERY. FUCKING. TIME.

This is the question that should be been getting asked for the past 7 months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, djchapsticks said:

This needs to be asked EVERY. FUCKING. TIME.

This is the question that should be been getting asked for the past 7 months.

With the inevitable follow up of "but Variants" swatted away courtesy of the WHO, that only leaves "we just don't know!!!" which to my mind is a simple "Well what is it about the real world vaccine efficacy data specifically that is giving you cause for concern?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, flyingscot said:

So Glasgow and Moray gets stuffed in Level 3 cause 'cases' yet East Renfrewshire doesn't cause...? Baffling inconsistent. 

East Renfrewshire doesn't because it was wrong to leave Glasgow and Moray parked there in the first place, especially at such short notice. No point repeating that stupidity for the sake of consistency.

It is good to see more pressure to see the levels being climbed down quickly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, flyingscot said:

So Glasgow and Moray gets stuffed in Level 3 cause 'cases' yet East Renfrewshire doesn't cause...? Baffling inconsistent. 

I haven't watched it so could be entirely wrong, but is it possible that the intervening time period has let them get a bit more of a handle on whether or not it was as transmissible and as concerning as first reported, and as it turns out it isn't, they've acted accordingly 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Paco said:

Why do we leave the briefing in Scotland to go to opposition leaders, but this doesn’t happen in the UK ones?

Because its a party political broadcast by wee nippy krankie otherwise 

Edited by madwullie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Netan Sansara said:

The entire point of a per 100k measure is to normalise case loads against population. 

This is true, but any measure which involves a division by a small denominator (in this case population) is susceptible to large fluctuations being driven by very small changes in the underlying numbers (or even random noise). The population of East Renfrewshire is under 100,000, so every single individual case leads to the rate increasing by more than 1.

This means that a very small number of cases, localised to a single area (eg an outbreak of 20 cases in a school) can lead to a massive increase in the case rate. That isn't true of the larger areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, madwullie said:

I haven't watched it so could be entirely wrong, but is it possible that the intervening time period has let them get a bit more of a handle on whether or not it was as transmissible and as concerning as first reported, and as it turns out it isn't, they've acted accordingly 

This is the answer I got from my MSP about the Glasgow restrictions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...