Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[effeffsee_the2nd]

[Distant Doonhamer]

7,561 new cases of COVID-19 reported* (12602 yesterday)

38,423 new tests for COVID-19 that reported results*

23.2% of these were positive  (25.1% yesterday)

3 new reported death(s) of people who have tested positive (noting that Register Offices are now generally closed at weekends).  

55 people were in intensive care yesterday with recently confirmed COVID-19 (48 yesterday)

1,382 people were in hospital yesterday with recently confirmed COVID-19 (1362 yesterday)

4,391,558 people have received their first dose of a COVID-19 vaccination, 4,045,667 have received their second dose, and 3,101,096 have received a third dose or booster.

* There continues to be large volumes of tests being processed by labs; this has impacted turnaround times resulting in delays between specimen’s beings taken and results being received and reported. PHS are continuing to monitor the situation.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

52 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

I find this a fairly disingenuous take on things. People, particularly elderly people, were going to die of covid regardless of what interventions were taken, and in most cases politicians were choosing between two or more options where every single one of those options was going to lead to some risk of deaths somewhere. It's a bit like the "trolley dilemma" where you're asked whether you'd pull a lever to direct a train towards a person on the tracks in order to save the lives of five on board. Difficult decisions were needed, and I think it's unhelpful to blame politicians anywhere in the world for sometimes making the wrong ones. Obviously there should be an enquiry, but it has to take into account the potential risks associated with other decisions too.

Aside from that, there have been under 10,000 deaths in Scotland across the entire pandemic, of which somewhere in the region of 2800 occurred in care homes. I therefore think it is wildly inaccurate to suggest that any decision made on returning patients to care homes at the start of that was responsible for "thousands" of them.

I dont agree at all re the decision to put people into care homes without testing. You can apply the trolley car dilemma etc if you want, but quite simply I find it inexcusable.

Its perfectly acceptable to blame politicians for their mistakes and I agree it has to be measured against the alternatives but I think the care homes decision was absolutely ghastly. Doctors essentially briefed that people in care homes shouldn’t be sent into hospital, pushing people who could be treated towards palliative pathways is disgraceful. 
 

I think the realisation that such a horrific mistake was made has resulted in the uber cautious approach we have seen since this time. 

[Todd_is_God]

That Tsunami was a bit shite

[D.V.T.]

 
Genuinely thank god the Tories are running the government and not woke gimps like this 

She’s also playing a gig on 25th January. I thought she’d want to “protect the NHS”

[Todd_is_God]

1 minute ago, D.V.T. said:

She’s also playing a gig on 25th January. I thought she’d want to “protect the NHS”

 

 

It normally takes these people a bit longer to trip themselves up, but here we are.

Replies turned off now, of course - the true mark of a "moonhowler"

[Squalor Vic]

57 minutes ago, Donathan said:

 

Genuinely thank god the Tories are running the government and not woke gimps like this 

It's fuckin frightening that 'temporarily locking down the public' is now just a normal control measure for folk. 

 

[Derry Alli]

15 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

Replies turned off now

Wid tho. 

[Empty It]

When do these "temporary powers" allowing the government to cripple businesses for little reason get rescinded?

My guess is never.

[ddfg]

18 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

The ‘arguments’ on here are not worth deconstructing.  They are the mewlings of a tiny, tiny minority of the people of Scotland.  They are also inconsistent.

 

Still waiting on your definition of a moonhowler from last night, a few ^^^ didn't really make much sense. 

Something other than a gif, some smart comment or keyboard graphics would be nice. 

For what its worth my opinion is that the current restictions are neither necessary nor proportionate and that they have been deeply flawed and of little value throughout other than being a vehicle for Nicola Sturgeon to try and appear more "caring". In my humble opinion her opinion poll ratings should not have been the litmus test for closing whole sectors of society. Time after time the SG has taken the easy option and gone for the same soft targets. 

[Glennie]

9 minutes ago, Squalor Vic said:

It's fuckin frightening that 'temporarily locking down the public' is now just a normal control measure for folk. 

same as if 'the science says' then anything goes

its a cult

[DeeTillEhDeh]

I dont agree at all re the decision to put people into care homes without testing. You can apply the trolley car dilemma etc if you want, but quite simply I find it inexcusable.
Its perfectly acceptable to blame politicians for their mistakes and I agree it has to be measured against the alternatives but I think the care homes decision was absolutely ghastly. Doctors essentially briefed that people in care homes shouldn’t be sent into hospital, pushing people who could be treated towards palliative pathways is disgraceful. 
 
I think the realisation that such a horrific mistake was made has resulted in the uber cautious approach we have seen since this time. 

Testing is a complete red herring as at that point we didn't have anything like a reliable LFD.

It was only in June 2020 that systematic evaluation of lateral flow testing was initiated at Oxford University as part of a collaboration with Public Health England. That study confirmed that only four out of 64 LFDs tested had desirable performance characteristics - it's those 4 LFDs that are now in use. There's also been concern since that the Innova LFD is not as reliable as first thought.

[TheScarf]

1 hour ago, Donathan said:

 

Genuinely thank god the Tories are running the government and not woke gimps like this 

Yeahhhhh I’m not wearing a mask every time I go into a shop or a pub for the rest of my life I’m afraid.

[Blue Brazil Forever]

1 hour ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

 

 

There clearly has been a political element all along - the need to differentiate from Westminster but also to highlight issues with funding. I think for the greater part of the pandemic she's gotten away with it because we were really only talking about subtle differences.

This latest set of restrictions and vaccine passports were quite different - and she has pissed off a lot of supporters who until that point were prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt.

I think there’s also the real issue that she is an instinctively cautious politician, conservative with a small 'c' as it were - I think there is part of her that is genuinely wary of lifting restrictions too early.

It really needs those in the SNP hierarchy to have a word in her ear if it does prove to be damaging.

As a final thought - there have been some saying she should go - but I am genuinely struggling to think of someone competent enough with enough experience to replace her.

The thought of Humza as FM is enough to put shivers down my spine.

 

I keep on saying. There is already a designated Deputy First Minister.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

I keep on saying. There is already a designated Deputy First Minister.

Bald speccie tubes need not apply.

[LongTimeLurker]

1 hour ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

I dont agree at all re the decision to put people into care homes without testing. You can apply the trolley car dilemma etc if you want, but quite simply I find it inexcusable....

The problem was that politicians believed the apocalyptic modelling predictions and thought they had to clear hospitals ASAP for an imminent catastrophic IFR = 2% scenario that never materialised. The more rational approach would have been to try to shield the elderly and immuno-compromised who were actually at high risk in the hope a vaccine or antiviral treatments would eventually emerge but keep the rest of society as functional possible and build up herd immunity among the younger age cohorts. Hindsight is 20:20 though and people who were at very little risk got it into their heads that COVID-19 was much more of a risk to them than it really was because of the initial over the top lockdown policies.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

The problem was that politicians believed the apocalyptic modelling predictions and thought they had to clear hospitals ASAP for an imminent catastrophic IFR = 2% scenario that never materialised. The more rational approach would have been to try to shield the elderly and immuno-compromised who were actually at high risk in the hope a vaccine or antiviral treatments would eventually emerge but keep the rest of society as functional possible and build up herd immunity among the younger age cohorts. Hindsight is 20:20 though and people who were at very little risk got it into their heads that COVID-19 was much more of a risk to them than it really was because of the initial over the top lockdown policies.

I think those initial videos from Italy scared the shit out of them.

[Todd_is_God]

3 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

Hindsight is 20:20 though

A lot of what you have said isn't hindsight, though. It was talked about on here as early as May 2020 but was dismissed by many as an unacceptable strategy because it was discriminatory and unfair.

Interestingly, a Venn Diagram of those who held those views then and those who support vaccine passports and a split society now would be a circle.

[throbber]

2 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

The ‘arguments’ on here are not worth deconstructing.  They are the mewlings of a tiny, tiny minority of the people of Scotland.  They are also inconsistent.

 

You have some nerve showing your face around here today mister. 

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

24 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

The problem was that politicians believed the apocalyptic modelling predictions and thought they had to clear hospitals ASAP for an imminent catastrophic IFR = 2% scenario that never materialised. The more rational approach would have been to try to shield the elderly and immuno-compromised who were actually at high risk in the hope a vaccine or antiviral treatments would eventually emerge but keep the rest of society as functional possible and build up herd immunity among the younger age cohorts. Hindsight is 20:20 though and people who were at very little risk got it into their heads that COVID-19 was much more of a risk to them than it really was because of the initial over the top lockdown policies.

I absolutely agree with you and dee. They shat themselves with the italy stuff and have done the same with every other variant. They should have put a protocol in place for the vulnerable after the initial infection period. The restrictions in place post vaccination of the most vulnerable was indicative of the overreach.