Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[WhiteRoseKillie]

7 minutes ago, virginton said:

I've already stated that any degree of absolute poverty in the UK is unacceptable, you dimwit.

There is nothing to suggest that people struggling to feed their 'starving kids' is the causal factor for the wholesale flouting of self-isolation requirements across every segment of UK society though.

Going on a foreign holiday is a lifestyle choice that the comfortable majority (64% in 2019) of people in the UK make every year. If you can afford the cost of a family holiday over the course of a year then you can quite clearly afford the cost of sitting in your house for ten days during a pandemic. Which means that the comfortable majority of the UK have no fundamental poverty-based argument for failing to comply with by far the most important restriction in tackling the pandemic, while frothing about people breaching their precious 'two metre!!!!111!!!' bubble walking down the street. Which is why we are where we are right now.

Thanks for playing anyway.

Addressing the bolded bit, as at least the words appear in a coherent order: Nobody, as far as I know, has ever claimed that there is one factor - any one factor - driving the low compliance over self-isolation. Nobody with the slightest empathy has ever denied that economic hardship is a factor. Yet you appear to have picked this hill to die on.

Scared to quote my entire post, I take it, as besides being a reasoned argument when not cherry-picked, it pointed out a piece of gross misquoting on your part. As does this pathetic little brainfart. Off you scurry, little fella, and find where the two-metre guidance formed ANY part of my point. Or accept that, like the Morton team who used to do more than most to fill the RP treatment room back in the day, playing the man is much your style than playing the ball.

 

[welshbairn]

32 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

https://twitter.com/steven_swinford/status/1353623137016033283?s=21

P.S. More encouraging here at 2.22 in.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000rmhf

[Distant Doonhamer]

6 minutes ago, superbigal said:

Todays summary     No Neighbourhoods in Scotland now above 1000 cases per 100K

Now accessed the other home nations for the cases per 100K latest and will document their daily progress.   These are a little behind the Scottish cases.  England 453.6 to 437.8,   Wales 279.1 to 262.6, Northern Ireland 335.0 to 322.4,  all 3 dropping and now roughly in line with Scotland's drop rate.

For interest Portugal 725, Spain 502, Czech 500 are the big hitters.  These will hopefully update by tomorrow as out of date.

Scotland peaked at 301.9 for figures 29th Dec to 4th Jan    

From 15th to 21st January we were down to  183.3

Todays figure for 16th Jan to 22nd Jan is 177.3     Another great single Day drop of 3.27%. Infections have dropped every day (now 18 days in a row) since the aforementioned peak.  Total drop is now 41.27%

There are now only 10 Councils with cases over 200 per 100K which is excellent progress for those that have got there. The single day progress particularly stands out in all Ayrshire councils. 

Not a single council in the East or North is above the Scottish Average. 

Click cases by neighbourhood to see the spread on the geographical map. 

https://public.tableau.com/profile/phs.covid.19#!/vizhome/COVID-19DailyDashboard_15960160643010/Overview

North Lanarkshire  297.6 to 284.1   Hopefully some prolonged movement at last.

Glasgow City  276.1 to 266.6   

Renfrewshire  260.7 to 252.4

South Lanarkshire   233.7 to 234.6  

East Dunbartonshire   239.3 to 231.0 

East Ayrshire  243.4 to 228.7  Another big drop 2 days in a row.

Clackmannanshire 238.6 to 223.1

Inverclyde  217.2 to 221.1

North Ayrshire 233.0 to 219.7  Good day again.

West Dunbartonshire  222.6 to 219.3  

Falkirk   203.2 to 197.7

Dumfries & Galloway 206.2 to 184.1 

South Ayrshire  197.1 to 178.5  10% Reduction great day  

Dundee City 182.2 to 176.8  

East Renfrewshire  164.3 to 167.5 

Aberdeen City   164.0 to 154.4   Another excellent day for a big city.

Angus  155.8 to 151.5 

Perth & Kinross   147.4 to 138.9

Moray   125.2 to 138.8  The inhabitants of Buckie do seem to be hindering this areas progress.

Scottish  Borders    133.3 to 138.5   2 Daily rises in a row. Nothing obvious.

West Lothian  135.4 to 136.5   2 Daily rises in a row. Nothing obvious.

Stirling    134.8 to 134.8

Midlothian    116.8 to 129.8   Bonnyrigg culprit this time around.  What taking Dundee to extra time probably caused

Fife     128.2 to 117.8    Hurtling downwards. Large areas of North & East Fife Covid free.  Only Ballingry & lochore hotspots.

Aberdeenshire    117.5 to 112.2

City Of Edinburgh   110.3 to 111.3  

Western Isles   108.5 to 104.8   Barra and South Uist reacted and dropping like a stone. Be down to feck all in a few days.

East Lothian  103.7 to 97.1   Hits the sub 100 milestone. 

Highlands  81.8 to 79.7   

Shetland Islands  74.2 to 65.4

Argyll & Bute    64.1 to 60.6  

Orkney Island  44.9 to 35.9  

This sustained improvement is great to see.

That plus hospital figures looking like at plateau (even on way down) with a concurrent decrease in ICU figures some definite good news.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Rob1885 said:

1 hour ago, WATTOO said:

Personally I believe the biggest problem is that everything is all half hearted as usual, if we're being serious about this virus and the restrictions then we should really be throwing the book at people for blatant and repeated breaches.
Fining a junkie or the son of a Billionaire £200 is really not going to do it (for differing reasons) and it's really no deterrent at all, we really need to start making an example of people and if that means jail time then so be it, otherwise arseholes from all social and economic groups will continue to take the piss and do as they please.

Hahahaha jail time very good. Have a lie down mate.

So what's the point in laws then ?

If people don't "fancy" doing something then they just don't do it as there's no deterrent, pretty soon we descend into complete lawlessness and I don't understand what people don't get about that ?

If you can give me your view as opposed to the pathetic response that you've given, then maybe we could have a debate ??

[WhiteRoseKillie]

16 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

The current programme of vaccinations is approved by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.  Here's the report detailing why they have taken this approach.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/prioritising-the-first-covid-19-vaccine-dose-jcvi-statement/optimising-the-covid-19-vaccination-programme-for-maximum-short-term-impact

 

Yet the manufacturers don't agree, as far as I know.

 

Even the JCVI don't seem too convinced - their own conclusion:

The committee supports a 2-dose vaccine schedule for the Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines. Given the data available, and evidence from the use of many other vaccines, JCVI advises a maximum interval between the first and second doses of 12 weeks for both vaccines. It can be assumed that protection from the first dose will wane in the medium term, and the second dose will still be required to provide more durable protection.

The committee advises initially prioritising delivery of the first vaccine dose as this is highly likely to have a greater public health impact in the short term and reduce the number of preventable deaths from COVID-19.

Notice in the first para the use of the term "maximum interval". Now, if we haven't vaccinated everybody, by the end of March, capacity will be needed to deliver first and second doses. I don't like the assumption that protection "will wane in the medium term" too much either, especially paired with the "greater public health impact in the short term". This stinks to me of political expediency rather than "following the science".

From the BMJ:

"In a joint statement Pfizer and BioNTech said, “The safety and efficacy of the vaccine has not been evaluated on different dosing schedules as the majority of trial participants received the second dose within the window specified in the study design . . . There is no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days.” So, nine weeks of decreasing protection before a second jag which may  or may not  do its job because, you know, these lads made and tested the vaccine and laid down the usage guidelines.

The European Medicines Agency has said that the gap between the first and second doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine should not exceed 42 days. “Any change to this would require a variation to the marketing authorisation as well as more clinical data to support such a change, otherwise it would be considered as ‘off-label use,’” the agency said. So, half of what our brave British chaps reckon will be OK, then. Thank Boris we don't have to listen to that negative Euro-claptrap, eh?

My bolding and italics - I'll take these voices over the propaganda machine that ensured William Shakespeare was at the top of the list for a jag, if you don't mind.

[renton]

Seems like everywhere was low on the Sunday. Supply issue? Reporting issue?

[LongTimeLurker]

1 hour ago, TheScarf said:

Is she at it here?

 

Tweeting about something she clearly doesn't understand.

 

Edited January 25, 2021 by LongTimeLurker

[Rob1885]

So what's the point in laws then ?
If people don't "fancy" doing something then they just don't do it as there's no deterrent, pretty soon we descend into complete lawlessness and I don't understand what people don't get about that ?
If you can give me your view as opposed to the pathetic response that you've given, then maybe we could have a debate ??

So, as it stands, many violent and sexual offences arent punished with jail time but you are advocating a stint in the pokey for those who break social distancing?

Very. Good.

[vikingTON]

45 minutes ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

 

what we call poverty in this country is simply not having the disposable income that the majority of people do, absolute poverty where your income is not enough to cover the most basic essentials , food, clothing, electricity /gas, communications , shelter & tax  ( the last 2 are most often waived by means of benefits and credit in cases where the persons situation warrents applying for help) is very rare in the uk, it does exist but it is not as widespread as people make out.

There are a number of factors why someone might slip through the cracks and fall from standard first world poverty to genuinely struggling to feed themselves and keep the lights on, the most common of which is when people with severe vulnerabilities are treated as tho they are any other person and just need to pull their socks up when they are in fact not capable of handling budgets and responsabilitys

On paper the uk welfare system should make absolute poverty non existant , but it needs to be properly managed

I agree, and the point here is that relative poverty is not a valid reason for breaking the single most important restriction right now. And it's certainly not one for those in the 60% of average wage bracket and above, who will be the vast majority of those evading self-isolation procedures because they don't want to rather than because they literally cannot afford to do so.

If there is any single behaviour that needs clamped down on (while also raising SSP for all causes of illness) then it is this. We are wasting everybody's time and a shit ton of resources elsewhere by not driving that compliance rate up to the 80-90s per cent like everything else. 

38 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

Addressing the bolded bit, as at least the words appear in a coherent order: Nobody, as far as I know, has ever claimed that there is one factor - any one factor - driving the low compliance over self-isolation. Nobody with the slightest empathy has ever denied that economic hardship is a factor. Yet you appear to have picked this hill to die on.

Scared to quote my entire post, I take it, as besides being a reasoned argument when not cherry-picked, it pointed out a piece of gross misquoting on your part. As does this pathetic little brainfart. Off you scurry, little fella, and find where the two-metre guidance formed ANY part of my point. Or accept that, like the Morton team who used to do more than most to fill the RP treatment room back in the day, playing the man is much your style than playing the ball.

 

Where to even begin with this Catherine wheel of utter fail. 

Spoiler

 

[No_Problemo]

26 minutes ago, WATTOO said:

So what's the point in laws then ?

If people don't "fancy" doing something then they just don't do it as there's no deterrent, pretty soon we descend into complete lawlessness and I don't understand what people don't get about that ?

If you can give me your view as opposed to the pathetic response that you've given, then maybe we could have a debate ??

What complete lawlessness are you talking about?! 

Jails are already overcrowded. Completely unnecessarily jailing people further adds to this. 

Jailing people, causing them to lose their home, income etc, simply adds to a cycle that increases the chances of someone returning there. Utterly pointless. 

[Dons_1988]

One of my neighbours have both their parents round to their house regularly to help with childcare. Also they park like inconsiderate c***s.

I would be in favour of jail time.

Edited January 25, 2021 by Dons_1988

[Left Back]

Anyone know if a Covid fine shows up on criminal record checks?  If so that would be a deterrent for those that need such things for their jobs.

[Todd_is_God]

2 hours ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

Again, why is this funny?

It's not funny.

It's laughably bad.

[No_Problemo]

Just now, Left Back said:

Anyone know if a Covid fine shows up on criminal record checks?  If so that would be a deterrent for those that need such things for their jobs.

It’s a fixed penalty notice, so it wouldn’t. 

Not that we should be criminalising people either. Again, achieves nothing, other than being destructive to more people’s lives. 
 

The vast majority of people are following the guidelines, we don’t need more punitive actions. Likes of Johnson blaming the public leads to this, when in reality the issue is theirs and all about trying to pass blame. 

[Scosha]

On 13/01/2021 at 12:27, Scosha said:

I would gladly get up at 2am for a jag if it meant everyone getting back to normal more quickly. This constant 'oh we might do this' approach to everything from the SG is pathetic. We know you'll end up doing it at some point, just do it now ffs. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-55798793

 

[Le Tout P'ti FC]

Borders up 11% since Friday, from 124.7 up to 138.5. Three successive days of increases now, which seems to be driven by Hawick, Eyemouth, Jedburgh and Melrose. Or almost all of the populated bits of the area!

My locality (rural) is at 129.5 now, was at 48.6 just a few days back. Although given the small denominator, that's only showing an increase from 3 to 8 cases.

A little bit concerning given the decreases seen elsewhere.

[ICTChris]

37 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

Yet the manufacturers don't agree, as far as I know.

Notice in the first para the use of the term "maximum interval". Now, if we haven't vaccinated everybody, by the end of March, capacity will be needed to deliver first and second doses. I don't like the assumption that protection "will wane in the medium term" too much either, especially paired with the "greater public health impact in the short term". This stinks to me of political expediency rather than "following the science".

From the BMJ:

"In a joint statement Pfizer and BioNTech said, “The safety and efficacy of the vaccine has not been evaluated on different dosing schedules as the majority of trial participants received the second dose within the window specified in the study design . . . There is no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days.” So, nine weeks of decreasing protection before a second jag which may  or may not  do its job because, you know, these lads made and tested the vaccine and laid down the usage guidelines.

The European Medicines Agency has said that the gap between the first and second doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine should not exceed 42 days. “Any change to this would require a variation to the marketing authorisation as well as more clinical data to support such a change, otherwise it would be considered as ‘off-label use,’” the agency said. So, half of what our brave British chaps reckon will be OK, then. Thank Boris we don't have to listen to that negative Euro-claptrap, eh?

My bolding and italics - I'll take these voices over the propaganda machine that ensured William Shakespeare was at the top of the list for a jag, if you don't mind.

There's a balance of risks going on with this.  The risk of the protection waning from the first dose by pushing the booster out has been judged to be less than the protection given by giving the protection of the first dose to as many people as possible.  Given that we know for certain the protection given by the first dose and that vaccine specialists have broad understandings of the mechanism of the booster dose then it seems like an understanable decision.  The iniital results from Israel, who are using the Pfizer vaccine in their rollout, show solid levels of protection from the first jab.  Obviously though this is rapidly evolving and dependant on further data.

Also, I'm fairly certain that the JCVI didn't decide that the guy called William Shakespeare got one of the first doses.  

[realmadrid]

It would seem the dutch don't like a curfew .

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55796126

 

[Steven W]

4 minutes ago, realmadrid said:

It would seem the dutch don't like a curfew .

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55796126

 

Matter of time til we see similar scenes

[EH75]

18 minutes ago, Steven W said:

Matter of time til we see similar scenes

People were saying that months ago. UK public are shitebags. When was the last time there was large scale public unrest in this country?