Crowd test events

[Squirrelhumper]

14 minutes ago, mitch14 said:

Difference is, I can choose not to drink, my vulnerable grandparents can choose not to drink and my high risk colleague can choose not to drink. With this virus, letting it go unchecked means it spreads to everyone.

 

NHS has been dead for months, I've mates and family who work in the NHS and July/August was dead - still didn't start other treatments again though. They were baffled why treatments were stopped - why not even use the SECC for these kind of treatments?

Of course you can choose not to drink - still doesn't stop it killing folk. That's my point. Governments are happy to make money off it, even though it kills folk every single year in the 1000s.

And of course high risk folk are at the risk of getting the virus and dying. As hard as it may sound, I'd say these folk shielding until there is a vaccine is a better idea than closing down the economy and seeing millions lose their jobs and years of recession.

It's a balancing act but I'd suggest (as hard as it is) that vulnerable folk should shield as much as possible until there is a vaccine and the rest of the population take care, follow the rules and try and keep the economy going until this s**t storm is over.

Another 4 or 5 months of places being shut down etc will kill 1000s of businesses stone dead and if folk thought a lockdown in the spring/summer was bad then they've seen nothing yet.

 

[DrewWylie]

1 hour ago, mitch14 said:

Difference is, I can choose not to drink, my vulnerable grandparents can choose not to drink and my high risk colleague can choose not to drink. With this virus, letting it go unchecked means it spreads to everyone. 

And your going to have even less access to essential medical care like cancer screening if the NHS is overwhelmed. 

There does have to be a balance, but the trouble is that winter is going to make it worse so we need to protect people. 

 

 

just like they did with the old people in the care homes ....... oh wait a minute 

[Beaker71]

5 minutes ago, DrewWylie said:

just like they did with the old people in the care homes ....... oh wait a minute 

Shouting your gob off again, before engaging the brain I see.

[Squirrelhumper]

Just now, Beaker71 said:

Shouting your gob off again, before engaging the brain I see.

The care home decision was wrong and cost lives.

Let's not pretend otherwise.

[Skora11]

2 hours ago, Squirrelhumper said:

It's getting to the point where I think (and I've been pretty supportive of the measures so far) that the long terms effects of these lockdown measures are going to have a bigger impact negatively on society than the virus ever will.

There are 7,500 alcohol deaths in the UK alone - we still sell alcohol everywhere. Are these deaths just seen as collateral damage as it makes the government money?

There were over 16,000 cancer deaths last year along in Scotland. Is the risk of COVID so high that we can keeping putting back cancer treatments? I know a couple of close friends and family who've found lumps/concerns and had the assessment via Zoom - how long can we go on doing that?

There are 1000s of folk each week losing their jobs and that's with furlough. We are looking at 10+% unemployment by end of the year.

I fully support WFH, face masks in public etc until their is a vaccine but something has to give and these measures will kill the economy stone dead.

I agree to an extent with many of the points. However, if all measures were taken away and things could carry on as normal then the chances are the hospitals would be overloaded with COVID patients which would then cause a knock on effect with all other procedures etc.

[Richaway]

1 hour ago, Skora11 said:

I agree to an extent with many of the points. However, if all measures were taken away and things could carry on as normal then the chances are the hospitals would be overloaded with COVID patients which would then cause a knock on effect with all other procedures etc.

Not sure how you can be sure hospitals would be overrun. Viruses tend to come in waves perhaps march was ours. Then again maybe we’ve got another coming. If that’s the case then we should be seriously investing in the NHS so we are ready to cope instead of chucking money away with some of the things that are happening or are planned to happen.

Covid 19 virus isn’t going to disappear and if it even gets close then chances are there will be another virus to worry about round the corner.

we can’t live life with a sole aim of protecting the NHS cause they way we are heading we will struggle to be able to pay for it.

 

 

 

 

[Skora11]

15 minutes ago, Richaway said:

Not sure how you can be sure hospitals would be overrun. Viruses tend to come in waves perhaps march was ours. Then again maybe we’ve got another coming. If that’s the case then we should be seriously investing in the NHS so we are ready to cope instead of chucking money away with some of the things that are happening or are planned to happen.

Covid 19 virus isn’t going to disappear and if it even gets close then chances are there will be another virus to worry about round the corner.

we can’t live life with a sole aim of protecting the NHS cause they way we are heading we will struggle to be able to pay for it.

 

 

 

 

They were getting to breaking point before lockdown. Hence why lockdown was introduced.

If we returned to normal there would very likely be the same outcome again. Factor into that people coming down with other illnesses over the Christmas period and the health service wouldn’t be able to cope! 

If the UK government were quicker to act. Especially on people flying into the country, then we could have contained the virus much quicker and had a much smaller impact on the economy. You would think with being an island it would have been easier, but apparently not. Hopefully lessons have been learned if another virus was to come around after we have got a vaccine for Covid-19.

[Squirrelhumper]

Sweden the country that never had a lockdown at all is now on the list of countries safe to visit. 

Figure that out. 

[Lions13]

6 minutes ago, Squirrelhumper said:

Sweden the country that never had a lockdown at all is now on the list of countries safe to visit. 

Figure that out. 

Reasonable point, butSweden has twice the population of Scotland, and has had more than 3 times the amount of deaths.

[Stuart]

5 hours ago, mitch14 said:

Difference is, I can choose not to drink, my vulnerable grandparents can choose not to drink and my high risk colleague can choose not to drink. With this virus, letting it go unchecked means it spreads to everyone. 

And your going to have even less access to essential medical care like cancer screening if the NHS is overwhelmed. 

There does have to be a balance, but the trouble is that winter is going to make it worse so we need to protect people. 

 

 

NHS certainly wasn’t overwhelmed, there not going to have a vaccine up and running in the near future so do we have to face another lockdown which is going to ruin families. Think it’s time to face up to the long term effect, and before anyone points out about the dangers of the virus I know first hand.

[superfan]

1 hour ago, Richaway said:

Not sure how you can be sure hospitals would be overrun. Viruses tend to come in waves perhaps march was ours. Then again maybe we’ve got another coming. If that’s the case then we should be seriously investing in the NHS so we are ready to cope instead of chucking money away with some of the things that are happening or are planned to happen.

Covid 19 virus isn’t going to disappear and if it even gets close then chances are there will be another virus to worry about round the corner.

we can’t live life with a sole aim of protecting the NHS cause they way we are heading we will struggle to be able to pay for it.

 

 

 

 

You know that in some parts of your posts I can sometimes think you may be correct. But when I look in the real world I come to the conclusion that In the land of stupid you clearly are the king.

[Richaway]

50 minutes ago, superfan said:

You know that in some parts of your posts I can sometimes think you may be correct. But when I look in the real world I come to the conclusion that In the land of stupid you clearly are the king.

Let’s see who’s stupid in a few months time......

[Beaker71]

4 hours ago, Squirrelhumper said:

The care home decision was wrong and cost lives.

Let's not pretend otherwise.

Far too simplistic a statement, circumstances and knowledge made the decision at the time seem sensible.
 

Hindsight and lack of consideration of the former make the decision appear to be wrong.

lets Make sure we look at the decision in the round and not let loudmouth arseholes just shoot their gobs off 

[Stuart]

11 minutes ago, Beaker71 said:

Far too simplistic a statement, circumstances and knowledge made the decision at the time seem sensible.
 

Hindsight and lack of consideration of the former make the decision appear to be wrong.

lets Make sure we look at the decision in the round and not let loudmouth arseholes just shoot their gobs off 

Pot and kettle 

[DrewWylie]

also just watching lens v psg here 5000 fans in yet we get 300 and not aloud to shout out , how the f will they know if everyone has one of those stupid masks on 

[Stuart]

3 minutes ago, DrewWylie said:

also just watching lens v psg here 5000 fans in yet we get 300 and not aloud to shout out , how the f will they know if everyone has one of those stupid masks on 

Get 300 in Tesco tomorrow morning, fecking joke

[Mogwai]

Whenever  this debate rears up, I'm always struck by folk willing to talk about the most vulnerable people in our society in terms of survival of the fittest i.e. they should stay indoors for their own safety and let the rest of us get on with it - that kind of thing.

Yet the same folk seem completely unwilling to invoke survival of the fittest when it comes to businesses.

 

 

[Angelo's Ashes]

3 hours ago, Squirrelhumper said:

Sweden the country that never had a lockdown at all is now on the list of countries safe to visit. 

Figure that out. 

 

3 hours ago, Stuart said:

NHS certainly wasn’t overwhelmed, there not going to have a vaccine up and running in the near future so do we have to face another lockdown which is going to ruin families. Think it’s time to face up to the long term effect, and before anyone points out about the dangers of the virus I know first hand.

The problem is that the "learning to live with it" approach seems to have a greater economic impact overall. 

Suppression of the viral to low community transmission levels, followed by an effective contact tracing regime, is the gold standard approach. 

The problem (and what many countries are now discovering) is that public health infrastructure can't be developed in a few months. It takes several years. 

 

 

 

Edited September 10, 2020 by Angelo's Ashes

[theboyjohnston]

2nd St Mirren player tested positive 

[Angelo's Ashes]

Can the moderators explain why my posts on this subject have been removed?

[Angelo's Ashes]

Scotland missed the chance to suppress community spread to very low levels over the summer months. It is now inevitable that there will be surges of the virus, requiring lockdown measures of varying intensity, until a vaccine is developed or population immunity (thought to be around 60%) develops. 

In Melbourne, stage IV lockdown measures are still in place and will continue until November. Modelling showed that there was an 84% chance of further lockdowns being required by Christmas if restrictions were lifted now. 

Melbourne currently has only a fraction of Scotland's case numbers and these are falling twofold every 10-14 days. 

The Grattan Institute has predicted that an economic recovery (from a GDP drop of 7.4% for the last financial quarter) will be best achievable through aggressive suppression of the virus. 

[Angelo's Ashes]

10 hours ago, Squirrelhumper said:

NHS has been dead for months, I've mates and family who work in the NHS and July/August was dead - still didn't start other treatments again though. They were baffled why treatments were stopped - why not even use the SECC for these kind of treatments?

Of course you can choose not to drink - still doesn't stop it killing folk. That's my point. Governments are happy to make money off it, even though it kills folk every single year in the 1000s.

And of course high risk folk are at the risk of getting the virus and dying. As hard as it may sound, I'd say these folk shielding until there is a vaccine is a better idea than closing down the economy and seeing millions lose their jobs and years of recession.

It's a balancing act but I'd suggest (as hard as it is) that vulnerable folk should shield as much as possible until there is a vaccine and the rest of the population take care, follow the rules and try and keep the economy going until this s**t storm is over.

Another 4 or 5 months of places being shut down etc will kill 1000s of businesses stone dead and if folk thought a lockdown in the spring/summer was bad then they've seen nothing yet.

 

Shielding the elderly and vulnerable sounds great in theory but is much more complicated in practice. 

The deaths in nursing homes in OECD countries are testament to that. 

Where do cleaners and care workers for nursing homes come from? Stopping people from entering and leaving nursing homes is impossible without significant changes to our current methods of operation. 

[RAG]

12 minutes ago, Angelo's Ashes said:

It is now inevitable that there will be surges of the virus, requiring lockdown measures of varying intensity, until a vaccine is developed or population immunity (thought to be around 60%) develops. 

You'd need to be immune from Covid, after having had it, for the heard immunity hypothesis to be valid.  Heard immunity is as hypothetical as a vaccine at present.  

[Angelo's Ashes]

3 minutes ago, RAG said:

You'd need to be immune from Covid, after having had it, for the heard immunity hypothesis to be valid.  Heard immunity is as hypothetical as a vaccine at present.  

Agreed. 

[RAG]

Just now, Angelo's Ashes said:

Agreed. 

Only an estimated 6-7% of UK population have had it, any researchers interviewed on the Oxford trial I've seen have said it might give at best, a couple of years immunity.  IMO from what I've read, any vaccine will 'wear off' before we get anything near 60% being infected - which could take 7-8 -9 years, going on the 2020 outbreak.  Virus is also likely to mutate, like the (sometimes) coronavirus based, seasonal common cold, they can't give you a jab for - cos it's mutated since the jab was developed.  Best avoid.  Is bad.