Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[The Master]

3 minutes ago, Left Back said:

your example above completely changes the meaning of two statements, it doesn’t nuance them.

In the same way that adding "and if we start to see evidence of a substantial increase in serious illness as a result" completely changes the meaning of the sentence the media have run with, and doesn't nuance it.

I'm glad you now understand.

[vikingTON]

I see that imposing face masks "to keep everyone safe!!!111!!!" is working out well, what with our case rates being so much lower than reckless and unsafe Tory England. 

Get their shan token gesture obligation launched into the sun as well. 

[The Moonster]

8 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said:

I find the "if not know when" and "there must be an end point" arguments reductive. Often deliberately so. As if "learning to live with the virus" just means licking railings and pretending it doesn't matter or exist anymore. Learning to live with it means, in my opinion, accepting that reaching a level of infections/hospitalisations and deaths will require us to accept some restrictions on our way of life. Either imposed by legislation from government, by business to protect their staff and customers or because washing our hands, wearing a mask and keeping a distance from folk is the considerate thing to do.

Why did I get two vaccines if we're just going to impose restrictions every time the cases go up?

[vikingTON]

8 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said:

Smaller numbers of cases getting seriously ill thanks to the vaccine is good news but if the case numbers are very high then the smaller percentages will play out as large and unmanageable numbers of patients and an unacceptable numbers of deaths. As if the numbers weren't already unacceptable enough.

I find the "if not know when" and "there must be an end point" arguments reductive. Often deliberately so. As if "learning to live with the virus" just means licking railings and pretending it doesn't matter or exist anymore. Learning to live with it means, in my opinion, accepting that reaching a level of infections/hospitalisations and deaths will require us to accept some restrictions on our way of life. Either imposed by legislation from government, by business to protect their staff and customers or because washing our hands, wearing a mask and keeping a distance from folk is the considerate thing to do.

Get yourself to f**k. There's literally no evidence that your 'considerate gestures' are having any effect whatsoever. There should be no legal fucking obligation to do them then. 

[TheScarf]

2 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

Why did I get two vaccines if we're just going to impose restrictions every time the cases go up?

That's my stance too.  What's the point of getting the vaccine if there will still be restrictions when NS shits herself every time 2 people are admitted to an ICU with Covid.

[Billy Jean King]

Why did I get two vaccines if we're just going to impose restrictions every time the cases go up?

When did we do that. Today was a new record high in the case level, I must have missed the restrictions being reintroduced. Can you tell us that missed that what restrictions were announced today ?

[Left Back]

10 minutes ago, The Master said:

In the same way that adding "and if we start to see evidence of a substantial increase in serious illness as a result" completely changes the meaning of the sentence the media have run with, and doesn't nuance it.

I'm glad you now understand.

Sigh.

if you take a covid test it does not mean you have covid.  That was the example you used.  

Saying if cases rise we may have to introduce restrictions is not a blatant lie as you put it.  Other things may have to happen but it doesn’t change the statement that restrictions may have to be introduced.

[Suspect Device]

5 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

Why did I get two vaccines if we're just going to impose restrictions every time the cases go up?

 

 

 

 

[williemillersmoustache]

3 minutes ago, virginton said:

Get yourself to f**k. There's literally no evidence that your 'considerate gestures' are having any effect whatsoever. There should be no legal fucking obligation to do them then. 

@Snafu Helen

[Left Back]

6 minutes ago, Snafu said:

Your tolerance to bullshit is obviously lower than mine.

Its the media.  Anyone taking a media headline at face value needs their head examined.

[scottsdad]

14 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said:

I see @scottsdadargument about moving to common sense and individual responsibility and I'd love that to work. But that would require a unity of purpose and togetherness which just isn't there. Folk are doing, and will do out of spite, boredom, ignorance and a dislike of SG, whatever the f**k they like, and I fear this will lead to (further) disaster. If we wanted to do that, the Team5 Million thing, then we needed to have one government and one voice leading us. As it is we have one we elect who may have made errors but is trying and another which quite simply has never been arsed, other than when they realised how much money was up for grabs.

 

If these laws/rules became guidance, then I reckon the vast majority of people who currently wear masks, distance and rinse their hands under a cold tap once a week would continue to do so. The "dislike of the SG" element would vanish. In actual, practical terms such a move would have no impact on the virus response, but would show that the SG treat adults like adults. Keeping things as mandatory is infantalising.

[Bairnardo]

Its so disappointing (regardless of whether u want to whine about its use) when someone gets the use of Helen, or Lovejoy, so wrong.

Stop getting The Simpsons wrong!

[The Moonster]

2 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:

When did we do that. Today was a new record high in the case level, I must have missed the restrictions being reintroduced. Can you tell us that missed that what restrictions were announced today ?

I was replying to williemillersmoustache who was saying "living with the virus" means when cases/hospitalisations go up it means we need to accept restrictions on our life. I wasn't commenting on anything that had happened in real life. I fully expect that NS will not impose restrictions again and what she is saying today is simply to keep people going for a vaccine. 

[djchapsticks]

22 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said:

 

I find the "if not know when" and "there must be an end point" arguments reductive. Often deliberately so. As if "learning to live with the virus" just means licking railings and pretending it doesn't matter or exist anymore. Learning to live with it means, in my opinion, accepting that reaching a level of infections/hospitalisations and deaths will require us to accept some restrictions on our way of life. Either imposed by legislation from government, by business to protect their staff and customers or because washing our hands, wearing a mask and keeping a distance from folk is the considerate thing to do.

 

So instead of licking railings, you prefer the taste of boot leather.

Gotcha!

[scottsdad]

5 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

Its so disappointing (regardless of whether u want to whine about its use) when someone gets the use of Helen, or Lovejoy, so wrong.

Stop getting The Simpsons wrong!

People have been getting The Simpsons wrong for decades

Spoiler

 

[The Master]

13 minutes ago, Left Back said:

Sigh.

if you take a covid test it does not mean you have covid.  That was the example you used.  

In the same way that an increase in cases will not lead to a reintroduction of restrictions. Well done.

13 minutes ago, Left Back said:

Saying if cases rise we may have to introduce restrictions is not a blatant lie as you put it.  Other things may have to happen but it doesn’t change the statement that restrictions may have to be introduced.

It is a blatant lie because the potential reintroduction of restrictions is entirely dependent on an increase in serious illness.

An increase in cases alone will not lead to a reintroduction of restrictions. 

[Detournement]

1 hour ago, WATTOO said:

I was out in Glasgow last night on the randan for the first time in about 16 months and was totally shocked at how quiet / deserted the town was (Yes, granted it was a Monday).

Lauders was closed completely due to "staffing shortages" and some of the larger well known pubs completely deserted or just closed.

Crazy times indeed.

The Lauders regulars are unlikely to have survived the pandemic!

[Michael W]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-58318695

My oh my, if it isn't the consequence of our increasingly ridiculous border policies to discourage people from going abroad. 

[Dawson Park Boy]

31 minutes ago, virginton said:

I see that imposing face masks "to keep everyone safe!!!111!!!" is working out well, what with our case rates being so much lower than reckless and unsafe Tory England. 

Get their shan token gesture obligation launched into the sun as well. 

You’ve made the point exactly.

Wife and I reckon we’ve done all we can do and just want to get back to normality.

We've no objections to people wearing masks and doing what they feel is necessary for themselves but likewise, neither of us has worn a mask now for a good few weeks and have received absolutely no rebuke anywhere we’ve gone - restaurants, shops, football (me), gym, trains, crematorium to name a few.

This is now an endemic disease and should be treated accordingly like any other.

The game’s up!!

[vikingTON]

32 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said:

@Snafu Helen

^^^ idiot found