Jump to content

Coronavirus


Henry

Recommended Posts


13 minutes ago, manboobs109 said:

Nope. Protect the vulnerable was my mantra.

Even though they l were pretty clear that wouldn't work, for heaps of reasons. 
 

What do you class as vulnerable? What you suggested then, was that they basically lock away the frail, and let everyone else try gain herd immunity. 
 

It wouldn't have worked and wouldn't lead to many deaths. The problem for me, was that they lifted lockdowns too soon. Just allowing it to peak and trough. Kicking the can further down the line each time, making it even worse.  

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

Even though they l were pretty clear that wouldn't work, for heaps of reasons. 
 

What do you class as vulnerable? What you suggested then, was that they basically lock away the frail, and let everyone else try gain herd immunity. 
 

It wouldn't have worked and wouldn't lead to many deaths. The problem for me, was that they lifted lockdowns too soon. Just allowing it to peak and trough. Kicking the can further down the line each time, making it even worse.  

50% of deaths in hospital caught it in hospital. About 50% of the deaths were in care homes. If time and money were spent on these problems instead of paying perfectly healthy people thousands of pounds to stay at home we might have had better outcomes.

I've never understood the reasoning that it's easier to stop everyone getting it rather than just the people we know are vulnerable.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, manboobs109 said:

50% of deaths in hospital caught it in hospital. About 50% of the deaths were in care homes. If time and money were spent on these problems instead of paying perfectly healthy people thousands of pounds to stay at home we might have had better outcomes.

I've never understood the reasoning that it's easier to stop everyone getting it rather than just the people we know are vulnerable.

Because you're then counting on folk to avoid their vulnerable relatives, friends etc etc. 
 

How to you propose to shield a great deal of the population from everyone else? 

What about those who have underlying health conditions they aren't aware of? Who aren't obviously "vulnerable" but might get very ill if they catch it? 
 

 

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, manboobs109 said:

50% of deaths in hospital caught it in hospital. About 50% of the deaths were in care homes. If time and money were spent on these problems instead of paying perfectly healthy people thousands of pounds to stay at home we might have had better outcomes.

I've never understood the reasoning that it's easier to stop everyone getting it rather than just the people we know are vulnerable.

The more I read your posts on this the more I think you're just jealous you couldn't get furlough.

You'd have loved sitting on your arse all day and getting paid for it you workshy cunt.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

Because you're then counting on folk to avoid their vulnerable relatives, friends etc etc. 
 

How to you propose to shield a great deal of the population from everyone else? 

What about those who have underlying health conditions they aren't aware of? Who aren't obviously "vulnerable" but might get very ill if they catch it? 
 

 

Having to do that anyway

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

Because you're then counting on folk to avoid their vulnerable relatives, friends etc etc. 
 

How to you propose to shield a great deal of the population from everyone else? 

What about those who have underlying health conditions they aren't aware of? Who aren't obviously "vulnerable" but might get very ill if they catch it? 
 

 

Did people not avoid their vulnerable relatives? Did I imagine all that chat?

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, Don Fonte said:

The more I read your posts on this the more I think you're just jealous you couldn't get furlough.

You'd have loved sitting on your arse all day and getting paid for it you workshy cunt.

I got my grants and that. Get another one start of next month. It was a load of toss from the start, everyone sees it now but POTY saw it from the very beginning.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Sooper-hanz said:

I didn't have try to avoid my elderly relatives as they were very insistent themselves that they wished no visitors. Most older folk were like that imo. 

Yip and they were correct to do so. Ones who were lonely and would've loved a perfectly healthy loved one in to visit should not have been barred by law though. It was cruel and unnecessary.

Link to comment

My local (like many others) has been taking down patrons names and contact details on paper-based forms as soon as they enter the establishment.

I asked a bar staff member if the forms were then submitted to Test and Protect Scotland at the end of each day via either scanning and emailing, taking photographs of the forms then emailing, or by the trusty facsimile machine, just in case any of the patrons test positive for Coronavirus thereafter. 

I was told no and that they hold onto the forms for 3 weeks then they get destroyed. A bit odd and pointless I thought. 

An older lad I know who I was in the company of recently has tested positive for the virus and is in intensive care at ARI. However, I have received no phone call from Test and Protect, nor had my Test and Protect app ping. 

I had a PCR test last week and have tested negative. 

What's the fucking point of taking down your details  or installing the app if you are then not contacted by Test and Protect Scotland if you've been in close proximity of someone who has tested positive??

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Matt Armstrong's Dog said:

My local (like many others) has been taking down patrons names and contact details on paper-based forms as soon as they enter the establishment.

I asked a bar staff member if the forms were then submitted to Test and Protect Scotland at the end of each day via either scanning and emailing, taking photographs of the forms then emailing, or by the trusty facsimile machine, just in case any of the patrons test positive for Coronavirus thereafter. 

I was told no and that they hold onto the forms for 3 weeks then they get destroyed. A bit odd and pointless I thought. 

An older lad I know who I was in the company of recently has tested positive for the virus and is in intensive care at ARI. However, I have received no phone call from Test and Protect, nor had my Test and Protect app ping. 

I had a PCR test last week and have tested negative. 

What's the fucking point of taking down your details  or installing the app if you are then not contacted by Test and Protect Scotland if you've been in close proximity of someone who has tested positive??

Almost like Sturgeon makes things up.

  • Dildo 1
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Joe pike said:

Almost like Sturgeon makes things up.

Very true. 

Prior to my older mate contracting the virus, I was on dogwalking duties on behalf of my sister as she and the rest of her family, at different times, had each tested positive for the virus, therefore were all self-isolating, so naturally couldn't go out and walk their border collie. 

On one occasion after walking their dog, I nipped up by to see another mate of mine out in his backie (he has COPD (he smokes approx. 60 ticklers a day) therefore is more susceptible to catching the virus than others if believing our governments). He was less than impressed with me, after a week of festering after my visit, as he was "scared" of contracting the virus from the dog?

I therefore made the point of sending away for a PCR testing kit the following day to alleviate his "concerns", and ultimately tested negative.

Surely, after all of this, I should have been contacted by Test and Protect, unless I am missing something here, and the RSCPA should have impounded the poor dog for a number of days, if indeed my mate is correct and he could have caught the virus from the canine?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Matt Armstrong's Dog said:

Very true. 

Prior to my older mate contracting the virus, I was on dogwalking duties on behalf of my sister as she and the rest of her family, at different times, had each tested positive for the virus, therefore were all self-isolating, so naturally couldn't go out and walk their border collie. 

On one occasion after walking their dog, I nipped up by to see another mate of mine out in his backie (he has COPD (he smokes approx. 60 ticklers a day) therefore is more susceptible to catching the virus than others if believing our governments). He was less than impressed with me, after a week of festering after my visit, as he was "scared" of contracting the virus from the dog?

I therefore made the point of sending away for a PCR testing kit the following day to alleviate his "concerns", and ultimately tested negative.

Surely, after all of this, I should have been contacted by Test and Protect, unless I am missing something here, and the RSCPA should have impounded the poor dog for a number of days, if indeed my mate is correct and he could have caught the virus from the canine?

 

 

 

 

Have you been drinking?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment

It’s quite simple the bar keeps the sheets, if someone tests positive they contact test and protect who then contact the bar for the information.

 

Just because you have met someone doesn’t mean you are a close contact has to be a certain amount of time face you face etc.

 

Im not saying it’s a great system or it’s run well but that is the basic theory.

 

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Redforever86 said:

It’s quite simple the bar keeps the sheets, if someone tests positive they contact test and protect who then contact the bar for the information.

 

Just because you have met someone doesn’t mean you are a close contact has to be a certain amount of time face you face etc.

 

Im not saying it’s a great system or it’s run well but that is the basic theory.

 

That's fair enough and well explained min. 

Just was led to reasonably believe that the whole purpose of taking down your contact details was for Test and Protect to alert you to the fact you have been in close contact with someone who had tested positive in the last few days and to then advise accordingly on what you had to do thereafter.

My misinterpretation. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Redforever86 said:

It’s quite simple the bar keeps the sheets, if someone tests positive they contact test and protect who then contact the bar for the information.

 

Just because you have met someone doesn’t mean you are a close contact has to be a certain amount of time face you face etc.

 

Im not saying it’s a great system or it’s run well but that is the basic theory.

 

Well that is very well put but it doesn’t happen as I was out during the outbreak in Aberdeen and nobody contacted me despite being checked in and sitting with folk that had it (whom obviously none of us knew at the time had it)

Link to comment
2 hours ago, manboobs109 said:

Yip and they were correct to do so. Ones who were lonely and would've loved a perfectly healthy loved one in to visit should not have been barred by law though. It was cruel and unnecessary.

My 72 year old mum lives across the road from me on her own,  there was no chance I wasn't going to visit her for months on end.  She was happy for me to visit  (got me to sanitise my hands when I arrived,  initially),  indeed she's told me she would've struggled to get through lockdown without my visits. 

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, maryhilldon said:

My 72 year old mum lives across the road from me on her own,  there was no chance I wasn't going to visit her for months on end.  She was happy for me to visit  (got me to sanitise my hands when I arrived,  initially),  indeed she's told me she would've struggled to get through lockdown without my visits. 

christ. she was young when she had you!

 

?

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...