Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Wee Bully]

I’m not against it, I just think the vulnerable/elderly should be shielded and allow everyone else to go to work etc. So many people are on the cusp of losing their jobs (if they haven’t already) and the untold damage mentally will go along with that. I lost my job due to covid and it was a grim time. These stop/start “lockdowns” will probably end up doing more harm than good 

Basically throwing the “vulnerable” into the bin. F*** their mental health if it saves yours.

Selfish c***.

[mizfit]

Honestly. I’m not A fan of the new restriction on hospitality outside of the 5 areas with the most cases, but if you can’t go 16 days without a pub after going 4 months you need to take a look at yourself.

Also, if your going to call Sturgeon “Nazi Nic”, you’d probably find a reason to rage If all restrictions are lifted.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

I know this won’t be a popular opinion but surely the rising number of cases show that masks are pretty futile 

They are futile while you have so many either not wearing them for some bullshit drama queen excuse or just blatantly choosing not to.

[vikingTON]

24 minutes ago, Gaz said:

There are millions of elderly people up and down the country who provide childcare, and without that a lot of people wouldn't be able to go to work.

So I guess we'll just continue to blow up entire sectors of the economy instead until nobody has a job to go to at all. And in what way is it sustainable to have the elderly still providing childcare to those emerging from full-capacity schools in the middle of a pandemic?

It's time for a fundamental rethink here. Old and vulnerable groups should be punted into shielding to reduce - not eliminate - their contacts and therefore risk of serious illness. Practices like keeping schools open full-time should be binned and the onus should be on those raising children to make the necessary adjustments. These measures would undoubtedly cause major problems for certain groups of people and would be politically toxic but what we're doing now by trying to dish out a fair degree of inconvenience to everyone is both i) utterly failing to deal with the problem and ii) will make these restrictions last longer for everyone. The job of a political leader is to demonstrate that to their public instead of being led by focus groups to make piss-poor but fair decisions.

Not to mention the reality that the restrictions actually disproportionately impact groups who are not even at any significant risk from the virus in the first place, so good luck maintaining compliance from them.

Edited October 7, 2020 by vikingTON

[vikingTON]

7 minutes ago, mizfit said:

Honestly. I’m not A fan of the new restriction on hospitality outside of the 5 areas with the most cases, but if you can’t go 16 days without a pub after going 4 months you need to take a look at yourself.

Also, if your going to call Sturgeon “Nazi Nic”, you’d probably find a reason to rage If all restrictions are lifted.

Do you genuinely think that these measures are going to be lifted after 16 days? How many of England's local lockdowns have been in place for months on end?

This isn't a local cluster in an otherwise very low case scenario like the Aberdeen case: you are not getting this widespread community transmission rooted out of the most populous area of the country by shutting the pubs for a fortnight. This will be maintained in some form or other until at least this side of Christmas IMO.

Edited October 7, 2020 by vikingTON

[eez-eh]

The health board thing is shite. The rate in South Ayrshire is half of what it is in North Ayrshire and East Ayrshire (which in themselves aren’t much if any worse than other areas which have bizarrely been deemed lower risk, e.g. Fife).

Someone in Ballantrae can’t go out for a drink because cases are moderately high in Largs. Makes perfect sense.

[Miguel Sanchez]

Need to get the kids an education!

There won't be any jobs or functioning economies for them to go into afterwards, but they need to learn for it!

[NotThePars]

39 minutes ago, Miguel Sanchez said:

Need to get the kids an education!

There won't be any jobs or functioning economies for them to go into afterwards, but they need to learn for it!

The positive and sustained destinations being the Job Centre applying for the same position at ASDA that 6000 other people have also applied for 6 times in the past month

[welshbairn]

1 hour ago, virginton said:

So I guess we'll just continue to blow up entire sectors of the economy instead until nobody has a job to go to at all. And in what way is it sustainable to have the elderly still providing childcare to those emerging from full-capacity schools in the middle of a pandemic?

It's time for a fundamental rethink here. Old and vulnerable groups should be punted into shielding to reduce - not eliminate - their contacts and therefore risk of serious illness. Practices like keeping schools open full-time should be binned and the onus should be on those raising children to make the necessary adjustments. These measures would undoubtedly cause major problems for certain groups of people and would be politically toxic but what we're doing now by trying to dish out a fair degree of inconvenience to everyone is both i) utterly failing to deal with the problem and ii) will make these restrictions last longer for everyone. The job of a political leader is to demonstrate that to their public instead of being led by focus groups to make piss-poor but fair decisions.

Not to mention the reality that the restrictions actually disproportionately impact groups who are not even at any significant risk from the virus in the first place, so good luck maintaining compliance from them.

OMG they've closed the pubs! Lock up the over 50's and fat people, and close the schools! (Or make pupils go to school less often so they only share germs on certain days. Or something.)

[BraveheartGordon]

2 hours ago, Thereisalight.. said:

I’m not against it, I just think the vulnerable/elderly should be shielded and allow everyone else to go to work etc. So many people are on the cusp of losing their jobs (if they haven’t already) and the untold damage mentally will go along with that. I lost my job due to covid and it was a grim time. These stop/start “lockdowns” will probably end up doing more harm than good 

When we’re all elderly we’ll probably face a pandemic as well, I hope the young people of the day don’t share your attitude.

I lost my job too and it’s horrible. There’s nothing nice about this. But letting it run rampant through the population would make it a lot less nice.

Hang in there, I’m struggling too but global pandemics don’t last forever. Just need to keep going.

[pandarilla]

Basically throwing the “vulnerable” into the bin. F*** their mental health if it saves yours.

Selfish c***.

So let's throw everyone in the bin instead? I don't think you've thought this through.

I think it's clear that the damage is being felt disproportionately, as is always the case. Anyone with any kind of customer facing business is getting shafted, as are those who work in those sectors.

We're bringing in restrictions with very little evidence that they're having any great effect - but clear evidence that they're doing great economic and social damage.

I worry that sturgeon is (understandably) getting lost in the sheer vastness of this crisis. I'd hate to have to make the decisions her team are having to make but for me they've lost their way recently.

[The_Kincardine]

12 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

I worry that sturgeon is (understandably) getting lost in the sheer vastness of this crisis. I'd hate to have to make the decisions her team are having to make but for me they've lost their way recently.

Sturgeon had the option to close down Glasgow a fortnight ago but chose not to for political reasons.  She has made the rest of Scotland suffer for this idiocy.

Edited October 8, 2020 by The_Kincardine

[Steven W]

7 hours ago, Gaz said:

There are millions of elderly people up and down the country who provide childcare, and without that a lot of people wouldn't be able to go to work.

Then they could use a childminder?

[Aufc]

Basically throwing the “vulnerable” into the bin. F*** their mental health if it saves yours.

Selfish c***.

Or ensuring the vulnerable are kept safe and alive whilst ensuring the economy is not even more fucked which means the younger generation, who are at less risk of death or long term effects of the illness, are left paying for it for many years

[Melanius Mullarkey]

9 hours ago, Boghead ranter said:

A 2nd class return to Dottingham

Is that where Marshmallow lives?

Spoiler

That’s killer, not filler.

 

Edited October 8, 2020 by Melanius Mullarkey

[101]

17 hours ago, Have some faith in Magic said:

House parties, student parties will go through the roof. 

Many folk are sick fed up, people who were trying their best to abide by the restrictions will now just say f**k it. 

Anyone doing so should be refused treatment on the NHS. After 9 months giving up is utterly mental behaviour, yes it's difficult but needing to go to a party, that's odd.

Are folk concerned about the industry, that looks like it will be supported or are they concerned about not being able to drink for the next fortnight or whatever. If it's the former completely fair enough let's see how the financial assistance works out, I worry about satellite industry and more help for them should be offered. If it's the latter folk need to get a grip.

Hospitality has the second largest share as cause of exposure according to this it needed some action.

[hk blues]

1 hour ago, Steven W said:

Then they could use a childminder?

They don't comer cheap - for some working parents, their own parents may be the only viable option

[Jambomo]

The idea that you can just shield the vulnerable and let everyone else get on with life as before is unrealistic.

Once the disease is more wide-spread then the ability to keep it out of homes/care-homes etc becomes impossible.

Vulnerable people still need to have contact with others I.e to get food, go to places like the doctors, care workers etc so if we massively increase the chance of those people having the virus by it being wide-spread in the community, then we massively increase the opportunity for it to reach vulnerable people. 

It also ignores the harm that having the virus, even if you don’t die with it, can do to you. A lot of people who were never in the vulnerable category, have reported serious and quite wide-ranging ongoing health issues from it. 

[FFCinthearea]

17 minutes ago, hk blues said:

They don't comer cheap - for some working parents, their own parents may be the only viable option

They shouldn’t have had kids then if they can’t afford to keep them.

[Sergeant Wilson]

See. It's  the vulnies that are causing all this. Round them up and send them to Ascension Island. Or cast them adrift on disused ferries and cruise ships.