Coronavirus and the Scottish Championship

[1320Lichtie]

5 minutes ago, jagsfan57 said:

What does protect the vulnerable mean to you ?

 

What do you think it means???? Do as much as you possibly can to protect the elderly and people who are vulnerable. I would’ve been all for closing off care homes and hospitals to people, a negative test to enter these places or whatever. Instead we completely shut down society and caused a whole load of other problems. Cases are at all time highs in certain settings right now with vaccination uptake in the high 90s, vaccine passports and all kind of restrictions.
 

The fact politicians anywhere thought that they could control the spread a highly contagious respiratory virus and the behaviour of millions of people is lunacy. On your other point you’re just havering shite.

[jagsfan57]

11 hours ago, 1320Lichtie said:

 

What do you think it means???? Do as much as you possibly can to protect the elderly and people who are vulnerable. I would’ve been all for closing off care homes and hospitals to people, a negative test to enter these places or whatever. Instead we completely shut down society and caused a whole load of other problems. Cases are at all time highs in certain settings right now with vaccination uptake in the high 90s, vaccine passports and all kind of restrictions.
 

The fact politicians anywhere thought that they could control the spread a highly contagious respiratory virus and the behaviour of millions of people is lunacy. On your other point you’re just havering shite.

So you are quite happy to lock up these old people ? You still think they are the most vulnerable ?  We can’t control it but you want to “protect” old people? What age is old ?

The old people might have been most vulnerable in 2020, before vaccinations, but by and large they have had all their vaccinations. My Aunt is in a care home. She’s 93. She tested positive on 27th December, had to self isolate for 14 days, had absolutely no symptoms and felt fine. In the same care home in autumn 2020 an outbreak resulted in several deaths. 
 

[vikingTON]

Old people have all had (three and counting) priority vaccinations, yet we must restrict crowds at Gayfield because Sturgeon launched Covid patients into care homes two full years ago. 

[Monkfish85]

A vulnerable person is anyone who deems themselves in that category. They may feel their age is a factor, their underlying health issues, their general health and well being. It’s then down to that individual to make their decision based on the positives and risks . 
Hospital beds are full just now not because of covid but due to the lack of staff in hospitals . A lot of patients are currently in hospital waiting to be moved into care homes but because the care home have staff isolating these patients have to remain on a hospital bed until this is resolved. 
Everyone has their own judgment to make decisions 

[stevoraith]

[emoji23]
 
What do you think it means???? Do as much as you possibly can to protect the elderly and people who are vulnerable. I would’ve been all for closing off care homes and hospitals to people, a negative test to enter these places or whatever. Instead we completely shut down society and caused a whole load of other problems. Cases are at all time highs in certain settings right now with vaccination uptake in the high 90s, vaccine passports and all kind of restrictions.
 
The fact politicians anywhere thought that they could control the spread a highly contagious respiratory virus and the behaviour of millions of people is lunacy. On your other point you’re just havering shite.

So all vulnerable people are in controlled settings like care-homes or hospitals?
What about people on immunosuppressants etc that live and work among us?

Ironically, the government ARE doing “as much as [they] possibly can to protect the elderly and people who are vulnerable” as you put it.
That’s why restrictions are in place.
We can argue that they’ve gone too far, and I don’t think anyone could put forward a case for restricting crowds to a blanket 500 as being the correct decision, but they’re working almost blind here so to err on the side of caution is probably the most sensible thing to do.

As someone else said, it’s very easy to come out and criticise decisions made by others. But the general public were neither in possession of all the facts which led to the decisions being made, nor do we know how things would have played out if different decisions were made.

Politicians could, and did, control the behaviour of millions of people and in turn the spread of the disease so I’m not sure why you say it’s lunacy for politicians to think that they could?

[1320Lichtie]

8 minutes ago, stevoraith said:

So all vulnerable people are in controlled settings like care-homes or hospitals?
What about people on immunosuppressants etc that live and work among us?

Ironically, the government ARE doing “as much as [they] possibly can to protect the elderly and people who are vulnerable” as you put it.
That’s why restrictions are in place.
We can argue that they’ve gone too far, and I don’t think anyone could put forward a case for restricting crowds to a blanket 500 as being the correct decision, but they’re working almost blind here so to err on the side of caution is probably the most sensible thing to do.

As someone else said, it’s very easy to come out and criticise decisions made by others. But the general public were neither in possession of all the facts which led to the decisions being made, nor do we know how things would have played out if different decisions were made.

Politicians could, and did, control the behaviour of millions of people and in turn the spread of the disease so I’m not sure why you say it’s lunacy for politicians to think that they could?

No they didn’t. I don’t know if older people are a wee bit out of whack or what but I was one of the very few people I know who followed the rules for a period of time. When all the pubs closed last year, the football stopped, people were off work. There were parties around people’s houses every day. Even my gran must’ve only followed them for about 3 weeks. You’re absolutely deluded yourself if you think the majority of people stopped living their lives and going about their business because of what Sturgeon was saying on the TV? How much of the population do you think followed these rules and what kind of impact do you think it made? 
 

There was an outpost in the Arctic recently that had a massive Covid outbreak. To get in to it you had to take several PCR tests and be fully vaccinated. How many cruise ships with a similar story? Look at countries around the world having massive outbreaks with such high uptake in vaccinations, plus passports and restrictions. Not just countries, colleges, sports leagues etc all these different settings with all these restrictions in place achieving absolutely f**k all. 
 

I don’t understand how you could still have that mindset, that the restrictions or rules achieved anything. 
 

Exact same thing on a smaller scale just happened this last month!!!! Grounds closed, so what did everyone do. Went away to their mates house to watch it or to a pub  

 

Just like how everything but supermarkets closed during lockdown. Supermarkets as busy as they’ve ever been. Fucking stowed out. But atleast the office you worked in was closed and you couldn’t go and catch it there. Ffs surely it only takes a tiny bit of common sense to see past it?

[oneteaminglasgow]

I dunno, I think some of the restrictions probably made the pandemic not as bad as it would have been if we’d done f**k all.

I don’t necessarily agree with every set of restrictions mind.

[vikingTON]

3 hours ago, stevoraith said:

So all vulnerable people are in controlled settings like care-homes or hospitals?
What about people on immunosuppressants etc that live and work among us?

Ironically, the government ARE doing “as much as [they] possibly can to protect the elderly and people who are vulnerable” as you put it.
That’s why restrictions are in place.
We can argue that they’ve gone too far, and I don’t think anyone could put forward a case for restricting crowds to a blanket 500 as being the correct decision, but they’re working almost blind here so to err on the side of caution is probably the most sensible thing to do.

In what way is a ban on gatherings of 1000 people at a Scottish football match protecting clinically vulnerable people from Covid? What degree of protection does this confer? Why is the onus on the whole of society to sit in the house because of a glorified cold that nearly everyone has had access to three fucking vaccine doses for already?

Quote

As someone else said, it’s very easy to come out and criticise decisions made by others. But the general public were neither in possession of all the facts which led to the decisions being made, nor do we know how things would have played out if different decisions were made.

Well no we do know how things would have played out - because there is another jurisdiction south of the border that looked at the same data and imposed no such utterly token gesture restrictions, that just so happen to crush individual businesses and impact people's wellbeing and freedom of choice at the same time. 

That comparison demonstrates that the restrictions were a complete waste of time, which is why even the SG has now started its drawn-out, mewling climbdown. 

Edited January 14, 2022 by vikingTON

[1320Lichtie]

7 minutes ago, virginton said:

In what way is a ban on gatherings of 1000 people at a Scottish football match protecting clinically vulnerable people from Covid? What degree of protection does this confer? Why is the onus on the whole of society to sit in the house because of a glorified cold that nearly everyone has had access to three fucking vaccine doses for already?

Well no we do know how things would have played out - because there is another jurisdiction south of the border that looked at the same data and imposed no such utterly token gesture restrictions, that just so happen to crush individual businesses and impact people's wellbeing and freedom of choice at the same time. 

That comparison demonstrates that the restrictions were a complete waste of time, which is why even the SG has now started its drawn-out, mewling climbdown. 

I think and I understand it too, that people have made a whole lot of sacrifices and had a hard time throughout this last 20 month or whatever it is now, I think people just really want to believe that their sacrifices meant something.

But now I think it’s all slowly starting to come out in the wash. This period in time will be looked back on in 5-10 years time as being a massive failure and an experiment that went well OTT. The damage that this period in time has caused will far outweigh any supposed benefit. 

[Double Jack D]

I would also note the drop off in vaccine take up since Christmas time.

I'm fully jagged primarily because I believe it's the path to a future with no restrictions on my day to day life. To be back locked out of the football and other social settings despite being fully jagged puts doubt on the effectiveness of the vaccines and the motivation to queue up to get another.

I've no issue with logical, data led restrictions but the 500 capacity rule was an absolute nonsense right from the get go. In the  wider context, when faith in the decision makers is critical, it could ultimately do more harm than good.

 

[craigkillie]

The drop off in vaccine uptake is more likely just down to the most vulnerable all having had it, and loads of people being unable to get it due to a covid diagnosis in the last 28 days.

[JK_Queens]

Apologies for the god awful source, but confirmation that only where crowds > 10,000 will vaccine passports need checked. A relief for a lot of clubs. 
 

 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-10440237/Scottish-government-scraps-Covid-rule-ease-burden-SPFL-clubs.html?fbclid=IwAR0v_xzA2DdsKP_nozoDcNFaq7NYU5JmO1IxcDZDtY6TYQSLM6xA4XZTgtQ

[forameus]

They were checking them at Firhill on Saturday.  Just the one guy (at least on the gate I was using) and everything was moving pretty fast.  Although to be fair from what I overheard, a guy behind us just said "ahve no got one", and he went right in anyway.

[Guest Flash]

20 minutes ago, JK_Queens said:

Apologies for the god awful source, but confirmation that only where crowds > 10,000 will vaccine passports need checked. A relief for a lot of clubs. 
 

 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-10440237/Scottish-government-scraps-Covid-rule-ease-burden-SPFL-clubs.html?fbclid=IwAR0v_xzA2DdsKP_nozoDcNFaq7NYU5JmO1IxcDZDtY6TYQSLM6xA4XZTgtQ

I have no idea why so many clubs were doing checks (apparently on instructions from the JRG) when the legislation (and SG guidance) was never changed to require them for outdoor crowds of under 4,000 (not all seated) and 10,000 (seated). 
The article implies the email was from the SG but it could be the penny has finally dropped with the JRG and it came from them.

[Skyline Drifter]

3 hours ago, JK_Queens said:

Apologies for the god awful source, but confirmation that only where crowds > 10,000 will vaccine passports need checked. A relief for a lot of clubs. 
 

 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-10440237/Scottish-government-scraps-Covid-rule-ease-burden-SPFL-clubs.html?fbclid=IwAR0v_xzA2DdsKP_nozoDcNFaq7NYU5JmO1IxcDZDtY6TYQSLM6xA4XZTgtQ

10,000 only if all seated. 4,000 if you have terraces.

3 hours ago, forameus said:

They were checking them at Firhill on Saturday.  Just the one guy (at least on the gate I was using) and everything was moving pretty fast.  Although to be fair from what I overheard, a guy behind us just said "ahve no got one", and he went right in anyway.

As they were required to,........ until today.

2 hours ago, Flash said:

I have no idea why so many clubs were doing checks (apparently on instructions from the JRG) when the legislation (and SG guidance) was never changed to require them for outdoor crowds of under 4,000 (not all seated) and 10,000 (seated). 
The article implies the email was from the SG but it could be the penny has finally dropped with the JRG and it came from them.

The JRG issued refreshed guidance today as I understand it (though haven't yet seen it myself) confirming the 10,000 / 4,000 figures. It did come from the JRG, there's certainly been nothing directly to clubs from the Govt. The line of communication is always via the JRG.

And you do know why clubs were doing the checks, they were doing them because that's what the issued JRG guidance said they had to do. Whether or not the legislation said something less stringent is irrelevant. Clubs are required to follow the guidance issued by the national body.

[1320Lichtie]

The 28 tests I got are now just a massive waste of money. Like everything else the last 2 year

[Alibi]

On 14/01/2022 at 12:34, virginton said:

In what way is a ban on gatherings of 1000 people at a Scottish football match protecting clinically vulnerable people from Covid? What degree of protection does this confer? Why is the onus on the whole of society to sit in the house because of a glorified cold that nearly everyone has had access to three fucking vaccine doses for already?

Well no we do know how things would have played out - because there is another jurisdiction south of the border that looked at the same data and imposed no such utterly token gesture restrictions, that just so happen to crush individual businesses and impact people's wellbeing and freedom of choice at the same time. 

That comparison demonstrates that the restrictions were a complete waste of time, which is why even the SG has now started its drawn-out, mewling climbdown. 

f**k off with that shite.  Not many people die from a cold.

The 500 limit was a lazy piece of broad brush restriction that should never have been applied to clubs in the championship - I assume the reason behind it was to avoid people being crammed into stands at larger grounds, particularly all seated ones.  At the likes of Cappielow, a 2000 crowd spread out round the ground would provide spacing in excess of social distancing norms, whereas the loss of income from a 500 limit forced clubs to save money by cramming everyone into the old stand at a much closer spacing.  I doubt any officials even considered the lower divisions - they were solely interested in the top division.  The angle that they wanted to stop people travelling in buses was strange as people are allowed to travel on buses anyway, although before Xmas, I saw a video of Hibs fans travelling to Glasgow for the league cup final, and practically none of them were wearing masks - seems personal responsibility goes out the window in some situations.

 

[forameus]

13 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

As they were required to,........ until today.

I was more referring to the latter bit, that it'd be "a relief" to some clubs.  I didn't really see it causing that much bother when it was enforced.

[Guest Flash]

14 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

10,000 only if all seated. 4,000 if you have terraces.

As they were required to,........ until today.

The JRG issued refreshed guidance today as I understand it (though haven't yet seen it myself) confirming the 10,000 / 4,000 figures. It did come from the JRG, there's certainly been nothing directly to clubs from the Govt. The line of communication is always via the JRG.

And you do know why clubs were doing the checks, they were doing them because that's what the issued JRG guidance said they had to do. Whether or not the legislation said something less stringent is irrelevant. Clubs are required to follow the guidance issued by the national body.

I didn’t know for a fact that the JRG were making clubs do checks because I haven’t seen the instructions from the JRG to the clubs. That was why I said it was apparently on instructions from the JRG. I’m not going to claim something as a fact when I haven’t seen anything to back it up. It was made more confusing by the article which suggested the SG had issued the email to the clubs. For all I knew, it could have been an email from the SG telling clubs to ignore the guidance from their ruling body because it was wrong. It could have been in response to a club asking the SG for clarification because they didn’t understand why the JRG instructions were going further than the law. I don’t know the way things work.
I also didn’t understand why the clubs seemingly hadn’t questioned the JRG instructions when they were clearly at odds with the legal requirements. If the JRG had told clubs they weren’t allowed to have any fans, would the clubs have followed that to the letter without questioning it?
It just seemed a bizarre situation where the national body had apparently made up its own rules that went further than the law, seemingly without explaining why. And nobody seemed to question it. Thankfully it only went on for a couple of weeks.

[1320Lichtie]

3 hours ago, Alibi said:

f**k off with that shite.  Not many people die from a cold.

The 500 limit was a lazy piece of broad brush restriction that should never have been applied to clubs in the championship - I assume the reason behind it was to avoid people being crammed into stands at larger grounds, particularly all seated ones.  At the likes of Cappielow, a 2000 crowd spread out round the ground would provide spacing in excess of social distancing norms, whereas the loss of income from a 500 limit forced clubs to save money by cramming everyone into the old stand at a much closer spacing.  I doubt any officials even considered the lower divisions - they were solely interested in the top division.  The angle that they wanted to stop people travelling in buses was strange as people are allowed to travel on buses anyway, although before Xmas, I saw a video of Hibs fans travelling to Glasgow for the league cup final, and practically none of them were wearing masks - seems personal responsibility goes out the window in some situations.