Jump to content

Coronavirus


Henry

Recommended Posts


8 hours ago, Sooper-hanz said:

 

Ok, I get you, but the reasoning being given for this is that pubs, cafes etc are a controlled environment whereas the home is not. 

Apologies if it comes across as 'scoffing' but the reasoning has been explained countless times yet folk still come away with this argument. 

a) I've not been in many pubs/restaurants of late, but the few times I've been in I can see immediately that guidance is not being followed.  Either multiple households at one table or people moving about to speak to other tables etc.  This may change with stricter penalties and more inspections going forward, but it still depends in trust of the information you get from customers.  Instead of trusting a household of people you would invite over, you are trusting the actions of the people running the establishment you are in, plus everyone that happens to be in it.

b) Arguments that these controlled environments are better ventilated etc than home seems to be put forward as universal argument when that is clearly not the case.  I've been in plenty establishments where ventilation is at a premium.

c) My garden is not a controlled environment.  I am trusted to have people in my garden as long as I want.  The risk is lower outdoors, but is a non-socially distanced catch up outdoors safer than a socially distanced catch up indoors?

d) The only outbreak of note that we have had locally (up here) has been in the "controlled" environment.  There has been no issue with household to household within the local area.  Yet, we are being told that we can still do the thing that caused the outbreak locally is allowed to continue, but something else that hasn't been an issue isn't allowed.

e) If it is that controlled an environment, what makes it become uncontrolled after 10pm? 

f) Why were we allowed to meet indoors before we could go to a restaurant/bar indoors during the gradual easing of the original lockdown? 

g) To parliament yesterday, Nicola Sturgeon basically said that she would shut pubs and hospitality if she had the ability to continue schemes like the Job Retention Scheme.  The main reason they are remaining open is to protect jobs.

To me, it seems like they are risks with all interactions, and the main reason that we are allowed to meet people in an indoor environment with lots of other people rather than an indoor environment where there are just two households is because of the economy.  I understand this reasoning from a national policy perspective, but trying to dress it up as scientifically backed is just nonsense.  Then when you add in that we are now moving from a regional approach to a more national approach just leaves a sour taste in the mouth.  Why in areas of low prevalence are we having as strict rules with areas with high prevalence?  Why was this not the case in the Aberdeen lockdown?  Why is there no 5 mile travel limit in the areas where stronger measures were required before?

I'm losing confidence in the Scottish government making good decisions around this.  The less confidence I have, the less likely I am to abide by rules they set.  

  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
9 hours ago, Ohjimmyjimmy said:

Sure, there’s no doubt that the illusion of choice will probably result in greater compliance - that’s deliberate from her.

In fairness, I think BoJo came across better than his last effort “go out but, don’t go out” bollocks.

I think the FM missed the opportunity to take a decisively different approach from Westminster by having stricter but more regional lockdowns depending on the local circumstances.

.

She did have a stricter local lockdown, but only in Aberdeen not her beloved centre belt or has that been forgotten. As I said before this country is being run by the worst set of politicians in my lifetime, Boris or Sturgeon both hopeless and some of the idiots in there cabinets begger belief for example Hancock and Freeman

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

We're not far off being a year into this and we're still flapping about opening and shutting places, changing rules every couple of days and quoting wildly unreliable statistics. Both governments are trying to achieve the impossible and the public know it. Crazy chat about the army and stopping people visiting relatives is only making things worse. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
  • Site Sponsor
10 minutes ago, Foster14 said:

a) I've not been in many pubs/restaurants of late, but the few times I've been in I can see immediately that guidance is not being followed.  Either multiple households at one table or people moving about to speak to other tables etc.  This may change with stricter penalties and more inspections going forward, but it still depends in trust of the information you get from customers.  Instead of trusting a household of people you would invite over, you are trusting the actions of the people running the establishment you are in, plus everyone that happens to be in it.

b) Arguments that these controlled environments are better ventilated etc than home seems to be put forward as universal argument when that is clearly not the case.  I've been in plenty establishments where ventilation is at a premium.

c) My garden is not a controlled environment.  I am trusted to have people in my garden as long as I want.  The risk is lower outdoors, but is a non-socially distanced catch up outdoors safer than a socially distanced catch up indoors?

d) The only outbreak of note that we have had locally (up here) has been in the "controlled" environment.  There has been no issue with household to household within the local area.  Yet, we are being told that we can still do the thing that caused the outbreak locally is allowed to continue, but something else that hasn't been an issue isn't allowed.

e) If it is that controlled an environment, what makes it become uncontrolled after 10pm? 

f) Why were we allowed to meet indoors before we could go to a restaurant/bar indoors during the gradual easing of the original lockdown? 

g) To parliament yesterday, Nicola Sturgeon basically said that she would shut pubs and hospitality if she had the ability to continue schemes like the Job Retention Scheme.  The main reason they are remaining open is to protect jobs.

To me, it seems like they are risks with all interactions, and the main reason that we are allowed to meet people in an indoor environment with lots of other people rather than an indoor environment where there are just two households is because of the economy.  I understand this reasoning from a national policy perspective, but trying to dress it up as scientifically backed is just nonsense.  Then when you add in that we are now moving from a regional approach to a more national approach just leaves a sour taste in the mouth.  Why in areas of low prevalence are we having as strict rules with areas with high prevalence?  Why was this not the case in the Aberdeen lockdown?  Why is there no 5 mile travel limit in the areas where stronger measures were required before?

I'm losing confidence in the Scottish government making good decisions around this.  The less confidence I have, the less likely I am to abide by rules they set.  

+1

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Foster14 said:

a) I've not been in many pubs/restaurants of late, but the few times I've been in I can see immediately that guidance is not being followed.  Either multiple households at one table or people moving about to speak to other tables etc.  This may change with stricter penalties and more inspections going forward, but it still depends in trust of the information you get from customers.  Instead of trusting a household of people you would invite over, you are trusting the actions of the people running the establishment you are in, plus everyone that happens to be in it.

b) Arguments that these controlled environments are better ventilated etc than home seems to be put forward as universal argument when that is clearly not the case.  I've been in plenty establishments where ventilation is at a premium.

c) My garden is not a controlled environment.  I am trusted to have people in my garden as long as I want.  The risk is lower outdoors, but is a non-socially distanced catch up outdoors safer than a socially distanced catch up indoors?

d) The only outbreak of note that we have had locally (up here) has been in the "controlled" environment.  There has been no issue with household to household within the local area.  Yet, we are being told that we can still do the thing that caused the outbreak locally is allowed to continue, but something else that hasn't been an issue isn't allowed.

e) If it is that controlled an environment, what makes it become uncontrolled after 10pm? 

f) Why were we allowed to meet indoors before we could go to a restaurant/bar indoors during the gradual easing of the original lockdown? 

g) To parliament yesterday, Nicola Sturgeon basically said that she would shut pubs and hospitality if she had the ability to continue schemes like the Job Retention Scheme.  The main reason they are remaining open is to protect jobs.

To me, it seems like they are risks with all interactions, and the main reason that we are allowed to meet people in an indoor environment with lots of other people rather than an indoor environment where there are just two households is because of the economy.  I understand this reasoning from a national policy perspective, but trying to dress it up as scientifically backed is just nonsense.  Then when you add in that we are now moving from a regional approach to a more national approach just leaves a sour taste in the mouth.  Why in areas of low prevalence are we having as strict rules with areas with high prevalence?  Why was this not the case in the Aberdeen lockdown?  Why is there no 5 mile travel limit in the areas where stronger measures were required before?

I'm losing confidence in the Scottish government making good decisions around this.  The less confidence I have, the less likely I am to abide by rules they set.  

Suspect there's evidence that people make more of a cunt of it and social distancing goes out the window after 10pm with more drink down them.

 

Nothing other than that is feasible and it makes no sense to close pubs at 10pm if that isn't the case.

 

 

 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, The Boofon said:

Suspect there's evidence that people make more of a cunt of it and social distancing goes out the window after 10pm with more drink down them.

 

Nothing other than that is feasible and it makes no sense to close pubs at 10pm if that isn't the case.

 

 

 

There is the possibility that there is a school of thought that reduced hours might reduce the risk.

To me though, even if there is evidence that the above is the case, have the following been considered:

  • People change their habits, so that the level of drunkeness they previously achieved 10pm onwards is now 7pm onwards?
  • That as these establishments close early with people starting to get towards that level of drunkeness, they end up going to house parties, or mates for drinks or suchlike?

As I said in my last post, I can understand why some of the decisions are being made, I just don't like that they are being dressed up as being led by science primarily when I don't believe they are.  I believe they are being led by economic pressures.  And that is a shitter when we are far more likely to have household visits with most people we see rather than restaurant/bar visits.  

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Foster14 said:

There is the possibility that there is a school of thought that reduced hours might reduce the risk.

To me though, even if there is evidence that the above is the case, have the following been considered:

  • People change their habits, so that the level of drunkeness they previously achieved 10pm onwards is now 7pm onwards?
  • That as these establishments close early with people starting to get towards that level of drunkeness, they end up going to house parties, or mates for drinks or suchlike?

As I said in my last post, I can understand why some of the decisions are being made, I just don't like that they are being dressed up as being led by science primarily when I don't believe they are.  I believe they are being led by economic pressures.  And that is a shitter when we are far more likely to have household visits with most people we see rather than restaurant/bar visits.  

Agree on both points.

 

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, Foster14 said:

a) I've not been in many pubs/restaurants of late, but the few times I've been in I can see immediately that guidance is not being followed.  Either multiple households at one table or people moving about to speak to other tables etc.  This may change with stricter penalties and more inspections going forward, but it still depends in trust of the information you get from customers.  Instead of trusting a household of people you would invite over, you are trusting the actions of the people running the establishment you are in, plus everyone that happens to be in it.

b) Arguments that these controlled environments are better ventilated etc than home seems to be put forward as universal argument when that is clearly not the case.  I've been in plenty establishments where ventilation is at a premium.

c) My garden is not a controlled environment.  I am trusted to have people in my garden as long as I want.  The risk is lower outdoors, but is a non-socially distanced catch up outdoors safer than a socially distanced catch up indoors?

d) The only outbreak of note that we have had locally (up here) has been in the "controlled" environment.  There has been no issue with household to household within the local area.  Yet, we are being told that we can still do the thing that caused the outbreak locally is allowed to continue, but something else that hasn't been an issue isn't allowed.

e) If it is that controlled an environment, what makes it become uncontrolled after 10pm? 

f) Why were we allowed to meet indoors before we could go to a restaurant/bar indoors during the gradual easing of the original lockdown? 

g) To parliament yesterday, Nicola Sturgeon basically said that she would shut pubs and hospitality if she had the ability to continue schemes like the Job Retention Scheme.  The main reason they are remaining open is to protect jobs.

To me, it seems like they are risks with all interactions, and the main reason that we are allowed to meet people in an indoor environment with lots of other people rather than an indoor environment where there are just two households is because of the economy.  I understand this reasoning from a national policy perspective, but trying to dress it up as scientifically backed is just nonsense.  Then when you add in that we are now moving from a regional approach to a more national approach just leaves a sour taste in the mouth.  Why in areas of low prevalence are we having as strict rules with areas with high prevalence?  Why was this not the case in the Aberdeen lockdown?  Why is there no 5 mile travel limit in the areas where stronger measures were required before?

I'm losing confidence in the Scottish government making good decisions around this.  The less confidence I have, the less likely I am to abide by rules they set.  

Fantastic post. 
 

 

Link to comment

If only they could back up their scienctific reasoning behind these decisons with some actual factual evidence, I might be able to buy into it. Making a baseless statement that hosehold transmission is a significant contributor to cases is all well and good but how significant? Most of the outbreaks we hear about are from workplaces where theres a high concentration of people. Multiple people being infected at once will spread it far quicker than two households.

I've been in the odd pub and restaurant recently, most gave the illusion of following rules and im sure to begin with they were being enforced but very quickly relaxed. These face shields they wear are next to useless.

Most families would tend to make themselves aware if one was showing symptoms and probably not get together on that basis. Most would do it as a matter of course, especailly with elderly relatives.

Its driven purely to try and keep the hospitality sector ticking over, it wont prevent further spread and will more than likely be the source of future outbreaks. Meanwhile, the rest of the population have to just put up with no/minimal social interaction for god knows how long now and thats that.

 

Link to comment

Fits gan on in African backwater countries? I know they can't record their stats like us (even though ours are lies), but surely this killer disease would be wiping hundreds of thousands out in countries with poor healthcare systems. Surely the workforce would just be vanishing. Is there evidence of this?

the rhetoric on the bbc this morning is absolutely scandalous. FEAR, THIS WILL GET WORSE etc. It's absolutely appalling what's happening to good honest people who can see right through this charade 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
59 minutes ago, Foster14 said:

a) I've not been in many pubs/restaurants of late, but the few times I've been in I can see immediately that guidance is not being followed.  Either multiple households at one table or people moving about to speak to other tables etc.  This may change with stricter penalties and more inspections going forward, but it still depends in trust of the information you get from customers.  Instead of trusting a household of people you would invite over, you are trusting the actions of the people running the establishment you are in, plus everyone that happens to be in it.

b) Arguments that these controlled environments are better ventilated etc than home seems to be put forward as universal argument when that is clearly not the case.  I've been in plenty establishments where ventilation is at a premium.

c) My garden is not a controlled environment.  I am trusted to have people in my garden as long as I want.  The risk is lower outdoors, but is a non-socially distanced catch up outdoors safer than a socially distanced catch up indoors?

d) The only outbreak of note that we have had locally (up here) has been in the "controlled" environment.  There has been no issue with household to household within the local area.  Yet, we are being told that we can still do the thing that caused the outbreak locally is allowed to continue, but something else that hasn't been an issue isn't allowed.

e) If it is that controlled an environment, what makes it become uncontrolled after 10pm? 

f) Why were we allowed to meet indoors before we could go to a restaurant/bar indoors during the gradual easing of the original lockdown? 

g) To parliament yesterday, Nicola Sturgeon basically said that she would shut pubs and hospitality if she had the ability to continue schemes like the Job Retention Scheme.  The main reason they are remaining open is to protect jobs.

To me, it seems like they are risks with all interactions, and the main reason that we are allowed to meet people in an indoor environment with lots of other people rather than an indoor environment where there are just two households is because of the economy.  I understand this reasoning from a national policy perspective, but trying to dress it up as scientifically backed is just nonsense.  Then when you add in that we are now moving from a regional approach to a more national approach just leaves a sour taste in the mouth.  Why in areas of low prevalence are we having as strict rules with areas with high prevalence?  Why was this not the case in the Aberdeen lockdown?  Why is there no 5 mile travel limit in the areas where stronger measures were required before?

I'm losing confidence in the Scottish government making good decisions around this.  The less confidence I have, the less likely I am to abide by rules they set.  

Well said. 

Suggestions that we can't be responsible in our own homes when we have a visitor over are just insulting. 

Link to comment
Guest the shepherd
50 minutes ago, manboobs109 said:

We're not far off being a year into this and we're still flapping about opening and shutting places, changing rules every couple of days and quoting wildly unreliable statistics. Both governments are trying to achieve the impossible and the public know it. Crazy chat about the army and stopping people visiting relatives is only making things worse. 

Correct. It just shows how shallow and weak our despotic leaders are when they are reporting to such desperate, baseless rhetoric. 

Link to comment
Guest the shepherd
10 minutes ago, Poodler said:

Fits gan on in African backwater countries? I know they can't record their stats like us (even though ours are lies), but surely this killer disease would be wiping hundreds of thousands out in countries with poor healthcare systems. Surely the workforce would just be vanishing. Is there evidence of this?

the rhetoric on the bbc this morning is absolutely scandalous. FEAR, THIS WILL GET WORSE etc. It's absolutely appalling what's happening to good honest people who can see right through this charade 

I couldn't have said it better myself min. This has turned into one massive political circus and charade whereby the rule-abiding natives are getting well and truly shafted and humiliated. 

Link to comment
Guest the shepherd
1 hour ago, Foster14 said:

a) I've not been in many pubs/restaurants of late, but the few times I've been in I can see immediately that guidance is not being followed.  Either multiple households at one table or people moving about to speak to other tables etc.  This may change with stricter penalties and more inspections going forward, but it still depends in trust of the information you get from customers.  Instead of trusting a household of people you would invite over, you are trusting the actions of the people running the establishment you are in, plus everyone that happens to be in it.

b) Arguments that these controlled environments are better ventilated etc than home seems to be put forward as universal argument when that is clearly not the case.  I've been in plenty establishments where ventilation is at a premium.

c) My garden is not a controlled environment.  I am trusted to have people in my garden as long as I want.  The risk is lower outdoors, but is a non-socially distanced catch up outdoors safer than a socially distanced catch up indoors?

d) The only outbreak of note that we have had locally (up here) has been in the "controlled" environment.  There has been no issue with household to household within the local area.  Yet, we are being told that we can still do the thing that caused the outbreak locally is allowed to continue, but something else that hasn't been an issue isn't allowed.

e) If it is that controlled an environment, what makes it become uncontrolled after 10pm? 

f) Why were we allowed to meet indoors before we could go to a restaurant/bar indoors during the gradual easing of the original lockdown? 

g) To parliament yesterday, Nicola Sturgeon basically said that she would shut pubs and hospitality if she had the ability to continue schemes like the Job Retention Scheme.  The main reason they are remaining open is to protect jobs.

To me, it seems like they are risks with all interactions, and the main reason that we are allowed to meet people in an indoor environment with lots of other people rather than an indoor environment where there are just two households is because of the economy.  I understand this reasoning from a national policy perspective, but trying to dress it up as scientifically backed is just nonsense.  Then when you add in that we are now moving from a regional approach to a more national approach just leaves a sour taste in the mouth.  Why in areas of low prevalence are we having as strict rules with areas with high prevalence?  Why was this not the case in the Aberdeen lockdown?  Why is there no 5 mile travel limit in the areas where stronger measures were required before?

I'm losing confidence in the Scottish government making good decisions around this.  The less confidence I have, the less likely I am to abide by rules they set.  

Contender for post of the year.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

Sturgeon gets a really hard time on here, for reasons I don't understand. There is only so much they can do, influenced by the same "science" as SAGE spout and unlike BlowJob, she is at least trying to be open and IS being accountable, not being afraid to face the heat. The way in which she does it drew compliments and praise from Piers Morgan this morning (yeah we know he's a dick but even total penises like him don't get it wrong all the time) and I don't know what more she can do given the national political situation, which is the biggest poison adversely affecting our country.

Now thats a good post 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Foster14 said:

a) I've not been in many pubs/restaurants of late, but the few times I've been in I can see immediately that guidance is not being followed.  Either multiple households at one table or people moving about to speak to other tables etc.  This may change with stricter penalties and more inspections going forward, but it still depends in trust of the information you get from customers.  Instead of trusting a household of people you would invite over, you are trusting the actions of the people running the establishment you are in, plus everyone that happens to be in it.

b) Arguments that these controlled environments are better ventilated etc than home seems to be put forward as universal argument when that is clearly not the case.  I've been in plenty establishments where ventilation is at a premium.

c) My garden is not a controlled environment.  I am trusted to have people in my garden as long as I want.  The risk is lower outdoors, but is a non-socially distanced catch up outdoors safer than a socially distanced catch up indoors?

d) The only outbreak of note that we have had locally (up here) has been in the "controlled" environment.  There has been no issue with household to household within the local area.  Yet, we are being told that we can still do the thing that caused the outbreak locally is allowed to continue, but something else that hasn't been an issue isn't allowed.

e) If it is that controlled an environment, what makes it become uncontrolled after 10pm? 

f) Why were we allowed to meet indoors before we could go to a restaurant/bar indoors during the gradual easing of the original lockdown? 

g) To parliament yesterday, Nicola Sturgeon basically said that she would shut pubs and hospitality if she had the ability to continue schemes like the Job Retention Scheme.  The main reason they are remaining open is to protect jobs.

To me, it seems like they are risks with all interactions, and the main reason that we are allowed to meet people in an indoor environment with lots of other people rather than an indoor environment where there are just two households is because of the economy.  I understand this reasoning from a national policy perspective, but trying to dress it up as scientifically backed is just nonsense.  Then when you add in that we are now moving from a regional approach to a more national approach just leaves a sour taste in the mouth.  Why in areas of low prevalence are we having as strict rules with areas with high prevalence?  Why was this not the case in the Aberdeen lockdown?  Why is there no 5 mile travel limit in the areas where stronger measures were required before?

I'm losing confidence in the Scottish government making good decisions around this.  The less confidence I have, the less likely I am to abide by rules they set.  

I think the vast majority of folk will agree with the vast majority of that. I think your point g) nails it. Scotland cannot financially supporting businesses to enable them to close for a short spell. 

The contradiction is household visits is frustrating. We've only just reduced to 6 people from 2 households, that should've been given a chance. They clearly wanted to send as strong a message as possible though, given that those scenarios were being ripped the pish out of in some parts of the country. 

  • Downvote 4
Link to comment

I don't understand why they've not progressed with the pilot schemes to get fans back into football either. That's easily controlled with such a small percentage of numbers. The whole point of delaying the lowers leagues in Scotland is so they could get fans back in during October. That's now not going to happen and I presume things are only going to get stricter as we go through winter so unless that's something else we'll support it'll be a cheerio (great as a breakfast cereal) to a lot of the smaller clubs. Might be seen as non-essential but its the highlight of a lot of people's week, few pints and the football at the weekend. Could have been a nice little positive to all the doom and gloom. 

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

Sturgeon gets a really hard time on here, for reasons I don't understand. There is only so much they can do, influenced by the same "science" as SAGE spout and unlike BlowJob, she is at least trying to be open and IS being accountable, not being afraid to face the heat. The way in which she does it drew compliments and praise from Piers Morgan this morning (yeah we know he's a dick but even total penises like him don't get it wrong all the time) and I don't know what more she can do given the national political situation, which is the biggest poison adversely affecting our country.

Good post

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Poodler said:

Fits gan on in African backwater countries? 

Surely they are planning a grotesque charity single,to cheer us all up..

Dug up cunts like Geldof ,Bono,sting..

Set at Rokes Drift...dec/jan20/21

They cram the Welsh assembly ,into the valleys outbuildings, defiantly singing ,The men of Harlech/Harlem..

High on Pervitin and Viagra...

Boris and 4000 tribesmen..

Burst into DTKI?

Under the blazing African(april) Skies. 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Quagmire said:

I don't understand why they've not progressed with the pilot schemes to get fans back into football either. That's easily controlled with such a small percentage of numbers. The whole point of delaying the lowers leagues in Scotland is so they could get fans back in during October. That's now not going to happen and I presume things are only going to get stricter as we go through winter so unless that's something else we'll support it'll be a cheerio (great as a breakfast cereal) to a lot of the smaller clubs. Might be seen as non-essential but its the highlight of a lot of people's week, few pints and the football at the weekend. Could have been a nice little positive to all the doom and gloom. 

The likes of Montrose, even with only 2 proper sides to the park could easily host their usual 4-500 no problem. How the fuck they’re supposed to survive this is beyond me. There’s not even a gracious visit from sevco bestowing wealth on the city.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, rocket_scientist said:

Sturgeon gets a really hard time on here, for reasons I don't understand. There is only so much they can do, influenced by the same "science" as SAGE spout and unlike BlowJob, she is at least trying to be open and IS being accountable, not being afraid to face the heat. The way in which she does it drew compliments and praise from Piers Morgan this morning (yeah we know he's a dick but even total penises like him don't get it wrong all the time) and I don't know what more she can do given the national political situation, which is the biggest poison adversely affecting our country.

It's unusual a post on here can make you change your mind about something but this has.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...