Coronavirus Super Thread ( merged )

[Boris]

20 minutes ago, Dazo said:

Absolutely but a huge amount of the adult population will be vaccinated by he end of April.

 

Will it?  Genuine question btw!  Thought they were saying that the 40-49 yr olds were scheduled to be vaccinated by end of July?

 

20 minutes ago, Dazo said:

 

We will be way past the stage of protecting the vulnerable and the NHS by that stage. The rates will go up but hospitalisations and deaths won’t shoot up like before.

 

But it's also protecting the less vulnerable, and also to avoid mutation of the virus?

 

20 minutes ago, Dazo said:

 

The whole point of the vaccination is getting to a point we’re we live with this like we do many other illnesses not hide behind our sofas. I struggle to see the logic of making the levels stricter at a time we have never been better equipped to deal with it. 

 

Yes, totally agree that is the point of the vaccination programme, but if you ease off totally before the programme is done, isn't there the chance this will undermine the good work done previously?  I'm only going by what I've heard medical folk on the radio saying and I'm certainly not an expert in that field!

 

Looking at the figures, although r rate is down, and positive test, hospitalisations etc are down too, the virus is still quite prevalent?  So that needs to go down too, if I've understood what is being said.

[The Real Maroonblood]

9 hours ago, The Frenchman Returns said:

thanks @DETTY29 and @redjambo

 

I probably need to step away from this thread for a wee while, one year on its taking its toll, in particular to my family. I have been working in the office every day for the whole year but am only now beginning to realise the effect its had on those close to me, who work in hospitality. I had buried myself in my work and apart from being exhausted myself hadn't fully understood the impact on those close to me.

 

If any of them are reading this and they might be, I'm sorry.

Sorry to hear that.

Things will hopefully get better for you and the family.

[Dazo]

15 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Will it?  Genuine question btw!  Thought they were saying that the 40-49 yr olds were scheduled to be vaccinated by end of July?

 

 

But it's also protecting the less vulnerable, and also to avoid mutation of the virus?

 

 

Yes, totally agree that is the point of the vaccination programme, but if you ease off totally before the programme is done, isn't there the chance this will undermine the good work done previously?  I'm only going by what I've heard medical folk on the radio saying and I'm certainly not an expert in that field!

 

Looking at the figures, although r rate is down, and positive test, hospitalisations etc are down too, the virus is still quite prevalent?  So that needs to go down too, if I've understood what is being said.

Over 40’s done by the end of March was the last I heard, by the end of April we really should be at a stage where we are at the end of worrying about who we are protecting. Regarding the rest of your points, the virus isn’t going away. It will spread and mutate but surely the vaccine gets us in a place we’re we can live with it or genuinely what’s the ****ing point. 

Edited March 2, 2021 by Dazo

[Boris]

8 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

the whole of adult population to be offered first jab by end of July. The majority over 18’s will be done by then and the most high risk all taken care off and second jabbed. 
 

obviously some people will still suffer from Covid irrespective of vaccine. 

Ah, good to hear!

 

Yes, agree that covid not going away and vaccine will not end suffering, but hopefully will lessen the effects.

[Boris]

1 minute ago, Dazo said:

Over 40’s done by the end of March was the last I heard, by the end of April we really should be at a stage where awe are at the end of worrying about who we are protecting. Regarding the rest of your points, the virus isn’t going away. It will spread and mutate but surely the vaccine gets us in a place we’re we can live with it or genuinely what’s the ****ing point. 

 

Good to hear!  As someone approaching my 50th... 🙂

 

Yes, the virus isn't going away, but if it is flatten and less prevalent, doesn't this make mutation less likely? I don't know!  

 

I guess what I'm meaning is that yes it will be around, but if it is less prevalent then that must be better.  Once you get to that level, aided by vaccination, prevalence should not increase that much?

 

I'm maybe just being ultra cautious.  Since this thing started we have seen a lot of mistakes from government(s) so now seems like a good time to get it right.

 

[manaliveits105]

Merkel and Macron change their minds on Astra Zeneca - wonder how many lives their dithering has cost - apparently take up rates have been low in both countries .

 

[Dazo]

7 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Good to hear!  As someone approaching my 50th... 🙂

 

Yes, the virus isn't going away, but if it is flatten and less prevalent, doesn't this make mutation less likely? I don't know!  

 

I guess what I'm meaning is that yes it will be around, but if it is less prevalent then that must be better.  Once you get to that level, aided by vaccination, prevalence should not increase that much?

 

I'm maybe just being ultra cautious.  Since this thing started we have seen a lot of mistakes from government(s) so now seems like a good time to get it right.

 

All fair enough Boris I just think the vaccine is doing what it is supposed to. Let’s get our life back. 

[Governor Tarkin]

14 minutes ago, Dazo said:

Over 40’s done by the end of March was the last I heard.

 

I'm going to miss my slot. 

 

 

 

[Boris]

1 minute ago, Dazo said:

All fair enough Boris I just think the vaccine is doing what it is supposed to. Let’s get our life back. 

 

Yes, I don't disagree!  But I guess my thinking is let's give the vaccine the best possible chance, and if that means another month or two then so be it.

[Boris]

1 minute ago, Governor Tarkin said:

 

I'm going to miss my slot. 

 

 

 

Sadly, a condition a lot of over 40's suffer from...or maybe it's just me.

 

[Victorian]

15 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Recent history would suggest that when England open things up a fortnight ahead of Scotland, it doesn't work out too well for them. Seeing what happens down there first is a fairly prudent strategy.

 

 

 

This guy gets it.

 

Westminster and Holyrood governments see the same data,  modelling and SAGE advice.  Neither government has a monopoly on being right or wrong.  Quite rightly,  either government requires to make decisions with SAGE advice forming only a part of the calculation.  It is never the be all and end all.

 

If the SG are set on a course that fundamentally diverges from England's imminent move out of lockdown then it will be more than aware that it will be highly unpopular and the divergence wont be sustainable beyond a small number of weeks if England proceeds successfully.

 

The result is that Scotland moves out of lockdown fairly soon after England or the Westminster government is forced into reverse gear.

 

Keeping Scotland in another version of lockdown while England goes to the pub is not a vote winner.  The crucial question for me is what has the SG seen in the SAGE advice that would lead the SG to expose itself to such a clear divergence and criticism.

[redjambo]

2 hours ago, JamesM48 said:

Nucky I really Can’t see people accepting this system . It’s like a gut punch bordering on abuse . Mind you who would have believed that we would have been in a lockdown effectively since last October 

 

I explained above why the new levels cut-offs aren't as dramatic as they look due to the nominal and effective cut-offs that were in place before. For example , beforehand a council area would only effectively move down from 4 to 3 when its 7-day case rate moved down below 150, not the nominal 300, due to the fact that all the other indicators needed to be in good order too. I guess that the SG decided that this was too complicated to explain but they should have at least tried, imo, because the reductions on the face of it do look dramatic.

 

Tdlr: it's not going to make that much of a difference, it's just a cautious tightening of the cut-offs combined with an alignment with the WHO levels. The situation before was a bit ridiculous because the nominal cut-off points were a useless guide to when a council would change tiers because of the existence of the other indicators, and we ended up just having to look at where a council was in the "league table" of  7-day case rates to see whether a council looked to be in the right tier or not.

[connlach]

11 hours ago, redjambo said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-56237471

 

Covid in Scotland: Tighter rules will be used to decide on levels

This is not good.  Any time we get hope they change the rules to keep us all in check.  It is hard not to think this is an attempt to keep as many places locked down as possible especially beyond England so furlough can be brought up again and if we were independent this wouldnt have happened.  If the guidance is so clear from WHO then I assume all other countries are doing the same?  

[Zico]

19 minutes ago, manaliveits105 said:

Merkel and Macron change their minds on Astra Zeneca - wonder how many lives their dithering has cost - apparently take up rates have been low in both countries .

 

The EU have made a continent-sized ***** of vaccination. 

Edited March 2, 2021 by Zico

[JudyJudyJudy]

6 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

I explained above why the new levels cut-offs aren't as dramatic as they look due to the nominal and effective cut-offs that were in place before. For example , beforehand a council area would only effectively move down from 4 to 3 when its 7-day case rate moved down below 150, not the nominal 300, due to the fact that all the other indicators needed to be in good order too. I guess that the SG decided that this was too complicated to explain but they should have at least tried, imo, because the reductions on the face of it do look dramatic.

 

Tdlr: it's not going to make that much of a difference, it's just a cautious tightening of the cut-offs combined with an alignment with the WHO levels. The situation before was a bit ridiculous because the nominal cut-off points were a useless guide to when a council would change tiers because of the existence of the other indicators, and we ended up just having to look at where a council was in the "league table" of  7-day case rates to see whether a council looked to be in the right tier or not.

Cheers for that more in-depth explaination . However would this not mean that areas would go up and down tiers weekly due to the  7 day case rates if they go up or down significantly ? Surely this is more chaotic and damaging to people and businesses ? Unless they just review every 3 weeks ? 

[milky_26]

4 minutes ago, Zico said:

The EU have made a continent-sized ***** of vaccination. 

yep, just look at the number of EU countries who are now doing U-turns about not giving the AZ vaccine to over 65s. i saw something that france has administered something like 50k of the AZ but had over 3M delivered. 

 

Also look at hungary using the russian and chinese vaccines and now poland are in discussions with china about buying from them. it looks like they are looking at how things are going in hungary and using that to help progress their vaccine program.

 

one other thing i read yesterday that in i think czechia they now have the highest rate per head of population of infections, if they could have got their vaccine program running earlier that might not have happened

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 minute ago, jonesy said:

 

It's a little bit of social tinkering, a handful of politicking and a dash of fear.

 

Et voila! 2021's special is tempête de merde. Takeaway only.

The hospital / icu / deaths will determine stats will determine the levels no matter what the SG says or should 

[Dennis Reynolds]

Yup, Europe not looking to smart now.

 

After all the moaning they did and threats on export bans to now sitting on vast stocks going unused.

[redjambo]

3 minutes ago, JamesM48 said:

Cheers for that more in-depth explaination . However would this not mean that areas would go up and down tiers weekly due to the  7 day case rates if they go up or down significantly ? Surely this is more chaotic and damaging to people and businesses ? Unless they just review every 3 weeks ? 

 

Now that's a great question, and a difficult one. It's a huge balance to be had between mobility of the tiers, and stability for people and businesses. In my personal opinion, they should only move a council down a tier (in the direction of 0) when the situation has been stable for x number of weeks (2 or 3?) whereas they should move them up when the worsened data has been showing for less than that (1 week?). It sounds really unfair, but experience has shown us that once an area gets worse, it doesn't recover quickly, and it's better to nip it in the bud sooner than later.

 

The only exception to that brings jonesy's point into play about clusters. The outbreak at Faslane in Argyll was a great example of a localised cluster that didn't leak out too quickly into the general community (it had only about a week of very elevated case rates due to the outbreak, if I remember correctly). However, that may have been a bit of an exception due to the nature of the situation there. In that type of case, an area could perhaps be temporarily moved up a tier but then moved back down more quickly than it normally would.

 

In general though, it's one of the areas where the SG is necessarily stuck between a rock and a hard place. You have to be able to react quickly to worsening situations to prevent increased viral transmissions, but you need to try and ensure stability. Which would people prefer? If stability is important then the decision-making has to err on the side of caution when moving areas down a level.

[Taffin]

20 minutes ago, JamesM48 said:

Cheers for that more in-depth explaination . However would this not mean that areas would go up and down tiers weekly due to the  7 day case rates if they go up or down significantly ? Surely this is more chaotic and damaging to people and businesses ? Unless they just review every 3 weeks ? 

 

That's my issue with it too. Businesses need to know that not only are the allowed to reopen but when they do that it's makes commercial sense to do so. If they're just going to get forced to close again a few weeks later they'd be better off not reopening and instead using furlough for as long as it exists.

 

A lot of fingers were burnt when places tried to follow what they were told about making places covid secure before being forced to close again because they weren't essential enough on the arbitrary essential list someone dreamt up.

[Doogz]

30 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

 For example , beforehand a council area would only effectively move down from 4 to 3 when its 7-day case rate moved down below 150, not the nominal 300, due to the fact that all the other indicators needed to be in good order too. 

As far as I remember that's not what happened with the original (11?) regions put into tier 4: they were put into tier4 for a 3 week period which didn't appear to require any review of the data to bring them back down. Tier 4 was supposed to only ever be a short term tactic: but given the whole mainland is likely to be in tier 4 for 3-4 months it appears that approach has been abandoned.

Tbh the decision not to review the data for the original regions dropping back to 3 never made sense to me, however the continued tweaking of the rules/ moving the goal posts is not only confusing but completely disheartening for those still trying to follow the rules.

[Mikey1874]

Stay out of hospital 

 

 

[redjambo]

2 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

I’m of the view there should be no going back up the tiers. If after the summer we are going up and down tiers it would suggest the vaccine ain’t doing what it’s meant to. 
 

This has to be the final unlocking or the vaccine plan won’t have worked. This is a very different scenario from the summer. 

 

How do you react to outbreaks like the one we've had in Falkirk for the last few weeks then, or the ones we had in East Ayrshire and West Lothian. Just throw up your hands and let them spread through the community?

 

The vaccines were designed to minimise severe symptoms to those who catch the virus, they weren't designed to minimise transmissibility, although they do affect it to some extent as a fortunate side-effect. Also, the vaccination effort is not complete - only a third of folk have received the jab, and that is only the first dose. Giving up on an focussed approach to suppress the virus now would be very much an "I'm alright, Jack, so stuff you" approach to all those who have not yet received the vaccine, or their second dose.

[Mikey1874]

Will Edinburgh tier still be determined by West Lothian figures?

[redjambo]

4 minutes ago, Doogz said:

As far as I remember that's not what happened with the original (11?) regions put into tier 4: they were put into tier4 for a 3 week period which didn't appear to require any review of the data to bring them back down. Tier 4 was supposed to only ever be a short term tactic: but given the whole mainland is likely to be in tier 4 for 3-4 months it appears that approach has been abandoned.

Tbh the decision not to review the data for the original regions dropping back to 3 never made sense to me, however the continued tweaking of the rules/ moving the goal posts is not only confusing but completely disheartening for those still trying to follow the rules.

 

I completely agree with the bit in bold, Doogz. Tier 4 wasn't used as it should have been back then. In my opinion it was one of the mistakes that the SG has made during the pandemic.

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

18 minutes ago, LMc said:

Yup, Europe not looking to smart now.

 

After all the moaning they did and threats on export bans to now sitting on vast stocks going unused.

 

It's a bit ironic isn't it?

 

The EU moan and groan and threaten this that and the next thing about not getting the supplies of the AZ/Oxford vaccine which they had ordered, then through the blatant political bias against the British developed AZ/Oxford vaccine or in Macron's case the bordering on conspiracy theory scaremongering of the AZ/Oxford vaccine, that the EU now have hundreds of thousands probably millions of doses of the AZ/Oxford vaccine sitting on the shelves unused.

 

I just hope EU citizens hold their leaders to account for the utter clusterfest they have made and have got themselves into by politicising a vaccine.

[Ray Gin]

7 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

Stay out of hospital 

 

 

 

This is why just opening everything back up and sending cancer patients into hospitals riddled with covid wouldn't have been a good idea.

 

 

[Victorian]

6 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

I’m of the view there should be no going back up the tiers. If after the summer we are going up and down tiers it would suggest the vaccine ain’t doing what it’s meant to. 
 

This has to be the final unlocking or the vaccine plan won’t have worked. This is a very different scenario from the summer. 

 

Yep.  

[Stone1992]

1 hour ago, kila said:

I think the longer the virus is in a host the higher chance of mutation. Some research suggested the higher your BMI the higher the chance of being a super soaker because it’ll take longer to fight the virus off. Which also gives more chance of mutation.

 

Because they are going through the age groups, there could be many in their 20s and 30s who’s BMI falls into that category. The more we wait until as many have been vaccinated the less chance these potential super spreaders and mutators have of catching it. 

 

If your BMI is high enough regardless of age you should be getting your vaccine around about now as your in the same priority group as the over 50s so hopefully that helps with what you mentioned here.

 

Only problem i see if they wont have an updated BMI for everyone. For example last time i was at the doctors and was weighed was when my BMI was very high so i will get my vaccine in this group. I have lost weight since which mean if i was to have been weighed at the doctors recently i might not be included so am sure there will be instances the other way as well.   

[DETTY29]

18 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

I’m of the view there should be no going back up the tiers. If after the summer we are going up and down tiers it would suggest the vaccine ain’t doing what it’s meant to. 
 

This has to be the final unlocking or the vaccine plan won’t have worked. This is a very different scenario from the summer. 

It would seem difficult this time to put areas up a tier or two, at any point.

 

So you then have to start off super cautiously.

 

 

Edited March 2, 2021 by DETTY29

[Mikey1874]

8 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

This is why just opening everything back up and sending cancer patients into hospitals riddled with covid wouldn't have been a good idea.

 

 

 

It's one of the reasons, yes. 

 

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

14 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

Stay out of hospital 

 

 

 

In years gone by, there was a very good reason why there were dedicated 'fever' hospitals, so as to keep the infected well away from the rest of the general hospital patients.

 

Maybe it's something which needs to looked at.

[Mikey1874]

12 minutes ago, jonesy said:

Has been a staple of the approach in Japan since the get go.

 

No excuse for picking up Covid in hospitals. Infection control was meant to be much improved.

 

But it's another reason for the UK lockdown approach. Another reason deaths would have been off the scale and impossible to defend. And more knock affects more than the affects of lockdown.

 

And another example of deflection from politicians. Nicola Sturgeon just brushed this off when questioned earlier in pandemic. 

Edited March 2, 2021 by Mikey1874

[Fxxx the SPFL]

32 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Now that's a great question, and a difficult one. It's a huge balance to be had between mobility of the tiers, and stability for people and businesses. In my personal opinion, they should only move a council down a tier (in the direction of 0) when the situation has been stable for x number of weeks (2 or 3?) whereas they should move them up when the worsened data has been showing for less than that (1 week?). It sounds really unfair, but experience has shown us that once an area gets worse, it doesn't recover quickly, and it's better to nip it in the bud sooner than later.

 

The only exception to that brings jonesy's point into play about clusters. The outbreak at Faslane in Argyll was a great example of a localised cluster that didn't leak out too quickly into the general community (it had only about a week of very elevated case rates due to the outbreak, if I remember correctly). However, that may have been a bit of an exception due to the nature of the situation there. In that type of case, an area could perhaps be temporarily moved up a tier but then moved back down more quickly than it normally would.

 

In general though, it's one of the areas where the SG is necessarily stuck between a rock and a hard place. You have to be able to react quickly to worsening situations to prevent increased viral transmissions, but you need to try and ensure stability. Which would people prefer? If stability is important then the decision-making has to err on the side of caution when moving areas down a level.

agree but if cases rise but hospital admissions don't then that would suggest that the vaccine is doing it's job.  This has to be the last lockdown and we just have to get on with living with this virus as we do with the flu which kills as well. i'm sure someone posted somewhere that only 0.04% of the population had died of Covid !! (suspected Covid) That leaves 99.96% alive but suffering immensely

[Ray Gin]

17 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

No excuse for picking up Covid in hospitals. Infection control was meant to be much improved.

 

But it's another reason for the UK lockdown approach. Another reason deaths would have been off the scale and impossible to defend. And more knock affects more than the affects of lockdown.

 

And another example of deflection from politicians. Nicola Sturgeon just brushed this off when questioned earlier in pandemic. 

 

It wasn't any better in English or Welsh hospitals despite Tory-boy Ross trying to paint it as a failure exclusive to the SNP rather than a problem facing hospitals across the UK.

 

https://www.hsj.co.uk/coronavirus/over-450-people-a-day-caught-covid-in-hospitals-during-january/7029404.article

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/01/14/exclusive-almost-many-caught-covid-hospital-last-month-previous/

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-55429093

 

 

 

 

[AlphonseCapone]

This WHO guidance they are referring to was written before we knew how about effectiveness of vaccines or any wide spread roll out, no? 

 

The original ambition was not to overwhelm the NHS. Hospitalisations and deaths are falling, studies in Scotland, England and Israel are showing utterly remarkable results beyond what anyone could have dreamed of really, so why is the tier criteria focused on case rates? The Scottish Government either have lost sight of their original aims or are pursuing zero covid. 

 

Tier 0 was originally said to be as close to normal life without a vaccine. Yet now with vaccine roll out going very well and results looking promising, had the government's approach been to reassess the tiers with an ultimate ambition to get life back to normal? No, it's to change the rules of the game. 

 

All the while the economy, physical and mental health, and the potential future of kids are ruined. 

 

I consider myself fairly rational but the SG have completely lost me with this. 

[Enzo Chiefo]

2 hours ago, Ray Gin said:

 

The Kent variant is more deadly.

 

"Deadly" is probably not the right word but death rates, in general,  are down by 30% because of improved treatments. 

[Enzo Chiefo]

2 hours ago, Ray Gin said:

 

The Kent variant is more deadly.

 

"Deadly" is probably not the right word but death rates, in general,  are down by 30% because of improved treatments. 

[Enzo Chiefo]

2 hours ago, Ray Gin said:

 

The Kent variant is more deadly.

 

"Deadly" is probably not the right word but death rates, in general,  are down by 30% because of improved treatments. 

[Enzo Chiefo]

2 hours ago, Ray Gin said:

 

The Kent variant is more deadly.

 

"Deadly" is probably not the right word but death rates, in general,  are down by 30% because of improved treatments. 

[Enzo Chiefo]

2 hours ago, Ray Gin said:

 

The Kent variant is more deadly.

 

"Deadly" is probably not the right word but death rates, in general,  are down by 30% because of improved treatments. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

54 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Now that's a great question, and a difficult one. It's a huge balance to be had between mobility of the tiers, and stability for people and businesses. In my personal opinion, they should only move a council down a tier (in the direction of 0) when the situation has been stable for x number of weeks (2 or 3?) whereas they should move them up when the worsened data has been showing for less than that (1 week?). It sounds really unfair, but experience has shown us that once an area gets worse, it doesn't recover quickly, and it's better to nip it in the bud sooner than later.

 

The only exception to that brings jonesy's point into play about clusters. The outbreak at Faslane in Argyll was a great example of a localised cluster that didn't leak out too quickly into the general community (it had only about a week of very elevated case rates due to the outbreak, if I remember correctly). However, that may have been a bit of an exception due to the nature of the situation there. In that type of case, an area could perhaps be temporarily moved up a tier but then moved back down more quickly than it normally would.

 

In general though, it's one of the areas where the SG is necessarily stuck between a rock and a hard place. You have to be able to react quickly to worsening situations to prevent increased viral transmissions, but you need to try and ensure stability. Which would people prefer? If stability is important then the decision-making has to err on the side of caution when moving areas down a level.

Good points but stability is important so moving up and down tiers would be chaotic and damaging but I can understand the reasons for it . Surely the whole point of the vaccines was to reduce death and serious illness . It seems To be doing this and therefore this will only continue so the SG needs to review the levels or even scrap this new system before it even starts ? People quite rightly will feel what the hell is the point . I’m willing to wait until late April as we will know by then how well the vaccinations have worked but any longer periods of time with punitive tiers will demoralise and anger the majority of the population . 

51 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

That's my issue with it too. Businesses need to know that not only are the allowed to reopen but when they do that it's makes commercial sense to do so. If they're just going to get forced to close again a few weeks later they'd be better off not reopening and instead using furlough for as long as it exists.

 

A lot of fingers were burnt when places tried to follow what they were told about making places covid secure before being forced to close again because they weren't essential enough on the arbitrary essential list someone dreamt up.

So true . A lot of businesses tried so hard to ensure their businesses we’re covid safe and then had to close . Closing them every other week is cruel . This can’t happen again to them . 

43 minutes ago, Doogz said:

As far as I remember that's not what happened with the original (11?) regions put into tier 4: they were put into tier4 for a 3 week period which didn't appear to require any review of the data to bring them back down. Tier 4 was supposed to only ever be a short term tactic: but given the whole mainland is likely to be in tier 4 for 3-4 months it appears that approach has been abandoned.

Tbh the decision not to review the data for the original regions dropping back to 3 never made sense to me, however the continued tweaking of the rules/ moving the goal posts is not only confusing but completely disheartening for those still trying to follow the rules.

👍

41 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

Stay out of hospital 

 

 

This doesn’t surprise me at all . When I was in hospital in January for an op there was a patient opposite me allowed to roam about freely without a mask on ! Incredibly . 

17 minutes ago, **** the SPFL said:

agree but if cases rise but hospital admissions don't then that would suggest that the vaccine is doing it's job.  This has to be the last lockdown and we just have to get on with living with this virus as we do with the flu which kills as well. i'm sure someone posted somewhere that only 0.04% of the population had died of Covid !! (suspected Covid) That leaves 99.96% alive but suffering immensely

What is the flu ? It’s disappeared 

[Fxxx the SPFL]

4 minutes ago, JamesM48 said:

Good points but stability is important so moving up and down tiers would be chaotic and damaging but I can understand the reasons for it . Surely the whole point of the vaccines was to reduce death and serious illness . It seems To be doing this and therefore this will only continue so the SG needs to review the levels or even scrap this new system before it even starts ? People quite rightly will feel what the hell is the point . I’m willing to wait until late April as we will know by then how well the vaccinations have worked but any longer periods of time with punitive tiers will demoralise and anger the majority of the population . 

So true . A lot of businesses tried so hard to ensure their businesses we’re covid safe and then had to close . Closing them every other week is cruel . This can’t happen again to them . 

👍

This doesn’t surprise me at all . When I was in hospital in January for an op there was a patient opposite me allowed to roam about freely without a mask on ! Incredibly . 

What is the flu ? It’s disappeared 

yep the wife said that the other day no flu deaths apparently.

[Fxxx the SPFL]

13 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

This WHO guidance they are referring to was written before we knew how about effectiveness of vaccines or any wide spread roll out, no? 

 

The original ambition was not to overwhelm the NHS. Hospitalisations and deaths are falling, studies in Scotland, England and Israel are showing utterly remarkable results beyond what anyone could have dreamed of really, so why is the tier criteria focused on case rates? The Scottish Government either have lost sight of their original aims or are pursuing zero covid. 

 

Tier 0 was originally said to be as close to normal life without a vaccine. Yet now with vaccine roll out going very well and results looking promising, had the government's approach been to reassess the tiers with an ultimate ambition to get life back to normal? No, it's to change the rules of the game. 

 

All the while the economy, physical and mental health, and the potential future of kids are ruined. 

 

I consider myself fairly rational but the SG have completely lost me with this. 

nail on the head couldn't have put it better myself and they are my employers

[Marvin]

My mate has been taken into hospital following an adverse reaction to the vaccine and is expected to stay in for s few days.

[JudyJudyJudy]

8 minutes ago, Brian Dundas said:

This is the first sensible post on this thread for days!

 

The tiers system is going to be completely redundant in 8 weeks time when it is going to be introduced. There is a very good chance we will be in the situation where the whole of Scotland will be looking comfortably at being tier 1, deaths will be down to 1 or 2 a week, cases a handful a week. Imagine the pressure then to release everyone into tier one all at the same time!!

 

Far better approach would actually be to follow Boris's road map and do it bit by bit and monitor for a set period between each restriction lifting. 

What took you so long ? 👍

26 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

This WHO guidance they are referring to was written before we knew how about effectiveness of vaccines or any wide spread roll out, no? 

 

The original ambition was not to overwhelm the NHS. Hospitalisations and deaths are falling, studies in Scotland, England and Israel are showing utterly remarkable results beyond what anyone could have dreamed of really, so why is the tier criteria focused on case rates? The Scottish Government either have lost sight of their original aims or are pursuing zero covid. 

 

Tier 0 was originally said to be as close to normal life without a vaccine. Yet now with vaccine roll out going very well and results looking promising, had the government's approach been to reassess the tiers with an ultimate ambition to get life back to normal? No, it's to change the rules of the game. 

 

All the while the economy, physical and mental health, and the potential future of kids are ruined. 

 

I consider myself fairly rational but the SG have completely lost me with this. 

Great posting 

25 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

"Deadly" is probably not the right word but death rates, in general,  are down by 30% because of improved treatments. 

Aye but “ deadly “ is a really powerful word ! Scares the living delights out of people . 

[Governor Tarkin]

6 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

bevvy early doors 

 

 

Now there's an idea. 

[Enzo Chiefo]

1 minute ago, JamesM48 said:

What took you so long ? 👍

Great posting 

Aye but “ deadly “ is a really powerful word ! Scares the living delights out of people . 

Yes,  exactly James. Similar to headlines about, for example,  bacon rolls increasing your risk of cancer by 25%, but from miniscule to miniscule x 1.25. Nothing about the approach to Covid has been contextualised.  Reading out daily stats as a percentage of the population may have given a more realistic indication of the Covid threat . But the idea was to terrorise the population which will probably mean that when we open up again in the next few weeks,  some will need to be prised out of their house with a crow bar

[Jambo-Jimbo]

42 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

No excuse for picking up Covid in hospitals. Infection control was meant to be much improved.

 

But it's another reason for the UK lockdown approach. Another reason deaths would have been off the scale and impossible to defend. And more knock affects more than the affects of lockdown.

 

And another example of deflection from politicians. Nicola Sturgeon just brushed this off when questioned earlier in pandemic. 

 

You'd had thought so, but remember I posted about new admissions not being routinely tested and allowed to mix with other patients, the result was a mass outbreak at the Borders General back in Nov/Dec, officially 22 patients picked up covid in hospital in that outbreak, unofficially, perhaps many more than was reported.

 

At the start of this back in March/April last year, on occasion staff were being moved between normal 'clean' wards to 'covid' wards and then back again to 'clean' wards, all within the same 12 hr shift. 

In fairness they were all kitted out in PPE, but the risk of cross contamination was still there, fortunately I think they learned that the risk wasn't worth it, and there is very little if any moving of staff between wards in the same shift now.

[Dazo]

2 hours ago, redjambo said:

 

I explained above why the new levels cut-offs aren't as dramatic as they look due to the nominal and effective cut-offs that were in place before. For example , beforehand a council area would only effectively move down from 4 to 3 when its 7-day case rate moved down below 150, not the nominal 300, due to the fact that all the other indicators needed to be in good order too. I guess that the SG decided that this was too complicated to explain but they should have at least tried, imo, because the reductions on the face of it do look dramatic.

 

Tdlr: it's not going to make that much of a difference, it's just a cautious tightening of the cut-offs combined with an alignment with the WHO levels. The situation before was a bit ridiculous because the nominal cut-off points were a useless guide to when a council would change tiers because of the existence of the other indicators, and we ended up just having to look at where a council was in the "league table" of  7-day case rates to see whether a council looked to be in the right tier or not.

if the picture attached is correct I’d say the changes are pretty significant.