Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Diamonds are Forever]

5 hours ago, SJP79 said:

But the deaths and cases are low because of the lockdown, you need to be very careful of becoming complacent and seeing a surge in cases again. 

 

Where is your evidence for this?

It's just become taken as fact that extended lockdowns are effective, when there is very little evidence of this and plenty which contradicts it.

In terms of deaths per million of population Sweden, with no lockdown, have less deaths than UK, Spain and Italy. They are pretty level with Scotland, as of 2 days ago Sweden were 468 per million and we were 443. How does this back up the idea that lockdown is holding back cases? Sweden's curve has followed pretty much the same pattern as every other country who had lockdowns.

Also, virtually no country who has released lockdown have seen any significant rise in cases (arguably Iran but apparently that is due to increase in testing). Again, if lockdown is what is suppressing cases then surely when released we would see increases across the board? That's not happening.

There is also data coming out showing that some countries hit their peak and decline in cases before lockdown even happened - Norway being the most recent to say this. Yet again, this does not tie in with the 'cases are low because lockdown' idea.

I'm not trying to say that they shouldn't have been used or that they serve no purpose. Knowing what we knew at the time I think we had no choice. If done early enough I think there is some evidence they can be effective if you then can implement a track and trace system. But the question is whether they have any purpose 10 weeks after first being implemented, and months after the virus started becoming widespread. There is this unquestioned assumption among most people that these lockdowns still in place are having some benefit despite a lack of any evidence that this is the case. This really matters, as has been said numerous times already a huge number of people are going to be affected by this lockdown in very serious ways, far more than the number of people now being affected by Covid. I've yet to see any evidence that it is still justified.

 

Edited June 11, 2020 by Diamonds are Forever

[Todd_is_God]

12 minutes ago, Diamonds are Forever said:

It's just become taken as fact that extended lockdowns are effective, when there is very little evidence of this and plenty which contradicts it.

I've posted this before but I think it's a great example of how infections do not shoot up as restrictions are eased.

Germany first eased restrictions almost 7 weeks ago now, and has seen a continued decline since.

"The science" in Germany cannot be so different to "the science" here.

No idea why the SG cannot look to a success story and see what is working and, more importantly, why and then tailor that to here.

[welshbairn]

39 minutes ago, Diamonds are Forever said:

 

Where is your evidence for this?

It's just become taken as fact that extended lockdowns are effective, when there is very little evidence of this and plenty which contradicts it.

In terms of deaths per million of population Sweden, with no lockdown, have less deaths than UK, Spain and Italy. They are pretty level with Scotland, as of 2 days ago Sweden were 468 per million and we were 443. How does this back up the idea that lockdown is holding back cases? Sweden's curve has followed pretty much the same pattern as every other country who had lockdowns.

Also, virtually no country who has released lockdown have seen any significant rise in cases (arguably Iran but apparently that is due to increase in testing). Again, if lockdown is what is suppressing cases then surely when released we would see increases across the board? That's not happening.

There is also data coming out showing that some countries hit their peak and decline in cases before lockdown even happened - Norway being the most recent to say this. Yet again, this does not tie in with the 'cases are low because lockdown' idea.

I'm not trying to say that they shouldn't have been used or that they serve no purpose. Knowing what we knew at the time I think we had no choice. If done early enough I think there is some evidence they can be effective if you then can implement a track and trace system. But the question is whether they have any purpose 10 weeks after first being implemented, and months after the virus started becoming widespread. There is this unquestioned assumption among most people that these lockdowns still in place are having some benefit despite a lack of any evidence that this is the case. This really matters, as has been said numerous times already a huge number of people are going to be affected by this lockdown in very serious ways, far more than the number of people now being affected by Covid. I've yet to see any evidence that it is still justified.

 

What you say about Sweden doesn't explain this.

Quote

The country’s death rate per million from COVID-19 remains below Europe’s worst-affected nations, such as the U.K. and Spain, but is now 10 times that of neighboring Norway and eight times that of Finland.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/11/sweden-coronavirus-312838

[Mistermark 75]

Get aw these graphs tae f**k!!! 

[coprolite]

15 minutes ago, Mistermark 75 said:

Get aw these graphs tae f**k!!! 

Fan of tables are we? 

[peasy23]

Lot of truth in this tweet.

[vikingTON]

9 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

That really is a ridiculously pig ignorant view of what teachers have been doing.

Its fucking offensive - but then you know that.

Well no, 'what teachers have been doing' is around 50% of their ordinary workload by virtue of not actually being in a physical classroom, trying to control a bunch of screaming weans and marking all their home/course work at the end of the day. Despite the myth of hero teachers doing just as much work now as before, Zooming from online wonder lesson to the next, that nefarious, right wing, teacher-hating body known as, err, the Children's Commissioner confirms that this is in fact utter bollocks:

https://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/2020/06/11/the-numbers-behind-homeschooling-during-lockdown/

Quote

The most common amount of time to spend on schoolwork per day is 1 to 2 hours for young children and 2 to 3 hours for teenagers, a substantial reduction from the 5+ hours children would be spending at school per day.

Quote

Once again, the inconsistency in remote school experience is seen in the proportion of children who are having their work marked by teachers. Some are getting nothing marked, some are getting everything marked and some have no work that is expected to be assessed (even though they have some work to do).

If any other group of employees was doing so little work then it would have its wages cut accordingly. As state employees, the onus is on teachers to make up for those lost hours before the next exam cycle so that thousands of young adults aren't tossed into the scrapheap. And any hours required above that to get them up to standard should incur additional overtime pay. 

There's no credible argument against this whatsoever.

Edited June 12, 2020 by vikingTON

[DeeTillEhDeh]

If any other group of employees was doing so little work then they'd have their wages cut accordingly. As state employees the onus is on teachers to make up for those lost hours before the next exam cycle so that thousands of young adults aren't tossed into the scrapheap. And any hours required above that to get them up to standard should incur additional overtime pay. 

There's no credible argument against this whatsoever.

Doing little or no work?

 

You really don't have a fucking clue.

 

Are you genuinely saying that myself and other colleagues are doing, little or no work?

[Eednud]

From July Australian states can allow crowds of up to 10,000 at sporting venues. This is based 25% of 40,000 max capacity. What happens for larger venues like Adelaide Oval, MCG, Suncorp, SCG, Perth Stadium yet to be determined. Limits for bars, restaurants and lot of other things will also increase but still basis 1 person per 4 sq mtr.

[Guest SJP79]

7 hours ago, Diamonds are Forever said:

 

Where is your evidence for this?

It's just become taken as fact that extended lockdowns are effective, when there is very little evidence of this and plenty which contradicts it.

In terms of deaths per million of population Sweden, with no lockdown, have less deaths than UK, Spain and Italy. They are pretty level with Scotland, as of 2 days ago Sweden were 468 per million and we were 443. How does this back up the idea that lockdown is holding back cases? Sweden's curve has followed pretty much the same pattern as every other country who had lockdowns.

Also, virtually no country who has released lockdown have seen any significant rise in cases (arguably Iran but apparently that is due to increase in testing). Again, if lockdown is what is suppressing cases then surely when released we would see increases across the board? That's not happening.

There is also data coming out showing that some countries hit their peak and decline in cases before lockdown even happened - Norway being the most recent to say this. Yet again, this does not tie in with the 'cases are low because lockdown' idea.

I'm not trying to say that they shouldn't have been used or that they serve no purpose. Knowing what we knew at the time I think we had no choice. If done early enough I think there is some evidence they can be effective if you then can implement a track and trace system. But the question is whether they have any purpose 10 weeks after first being implemented, and months after the virus started becoming widespread. There is this unquestioned assumption among most people that these lockdowns still in place are having some benefit despite a lack of any evidence that this is the case. This really matters, as has been said numerous times already a huge number of people are going to be affected by this lockdown in very serious ways, far more than the number of people now being affected by Covid. I've yet to see any evidence that it is still justified.

 

The evidence is in the statistics, it worked the curve was flattened and is now decreasing. 

[Marshmallo]

No group gets canonised on here more than teachers.

[vikingTON]

8 hours ago, MixuFruit said:

I flippantly posted that school kids will be fine with a break in their education and VT greenied it to illustrate how genuinely felt his recent material is.

Combined with him alluding to having taught in some capacity at some point I think there's a wee bit of missing back story here to explain the animosity to the teaching profession

Can school students afford a break in their education right now as a result of a pandemic? Yes, undoubtedly. 

Do they also need to make up for this lost teacher instruction time later on to achieve a credible set of qualifications? Yes, undoubtedly. So teachers will clearly have to work more in the future to make up for their slacking off period now.

It's really not a mutually exclusive stance at all champ. Better luck next time.

Edited June 12, 2020 by vikingTON

[Genuine Hibs Fan]

I think the key thing we're forgetting here is that school exams are piss easy. 

[vikingTON]

15 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Doing little or no work?

 

You really don't have a fucking clue.

 

Are you genuinely saying that myself and other colleagues are doing, little or no work?

I think you'll find that the independent and expert-led study of the Children's Commissioner blows all your self-aggrandising anecdotes out of the water in the evidence stakes. Setting a mere two hours of daily work that you don't even bother to mark is not your contracted workload. 

[Marshmallo]

21 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Doing little or no work?

 

You really don't have a fucking clue.

 

Are you genuinely saying that myself and other colleagues are doing, little or no work?

No one on earth has it harder than you

[Genuine Hibs Fan]

1 minute ago, MixuFruit said:

Totally. You spend all this time on highers at school then go to uni and do the equivalent of 4 of them in each semester of 1st year.

Or don't go to uni and likely learn far more employability skills in 6 months. Problem is it doesn't feel like that at the time. And because the qualifications are the only educational focus I remember at school (left 9 years ago right enough so likely different now) puts a lot of pressure on kids whose bodies are only interested in shagging

[vikingTON]

13 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

They'll probably just throw darts at a board to figure out grades and do wee updates on the fly to make the following bits of coursework make sense tbh

Which all future employers will take into account when filing the class of 20/21's CVs in the bin like a bunch of burst bookies' slips.

Teaching: the true caring profession.

Edited June 12, 2020 by vikingTON

[Aufc]

Or don't go to uni and likely learn far more employability skills in 6 months. Problem is it doesn't feel like that at the time. And because the qualifications are the only educational focus I remember at school (left 9 years ago right enough so likely different now) puts a lot of pressure on kids whose bodies are only interested in shagging

Sadly a lot of jobs requires a degree

[Aufc]

Doing little or no work? 
You really don't have a fucking clue.
 
Are you genuinely saying that myself and other colleagues are doing, little or no work?

Are you genuinely trying to that teachers are doing lots of work? You will then get 8 weeks of holidays in a few weeks so i dont really see how you can complain

[Genuine Hibs Fan]

12 minutes ago, Aufc said:

 

Sadly a lot of jobs requires a degree

 

Aye that's the rub isn't it. Just pointing out that it's not that difficult, albeit with the massive caveats re quality of teacher etc. The pressure put on 16 year olds to have a clear idea what they'll finish doing in 6 years time, and potentially beyond or forever, is what's actually difficult

Edited June 12, 2020 by Genuine Hibs Fan