Coronavirus Super Thread ( merged )

[OBE]

27 minutes ago, Ritchez said:

 

I think it is helpful. Those posters ignored the science, and likely still do. Their posts should be mocked at every opportunity.

 

Even a month back it was known with absolute certainty that this is much worse than the flu. There was no excuse for posting such dangerous nonsense.

 

Of course no one should take medical advice from an internet forum, but their posts simply highlighted the ignorance and downright stupidity of some people in our society.

 

If anyone is still in doubt, I recommend they watch the below video:

 

 

 

Correct!

[lost in leith]

My understanding is that she has admitted committing an offence which carries a fixed rate penalty.  Surely a penalty has to be imposed and paid to show that the law applies to everyone - only £30 if she pays straight away. 

 

That would only be a small step towards restoring her credibility.  However, the credibility of the new restrictions will be severely damaged if she can be seen to have 'got away with it'.  

[DETTY29]

18 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

The powers are devolved. So England could do that while Scotland continues to allow exercise. 

Which is even more galling that our CMO decided to take the action she did.

[Spellczech]

11 minutes ago, lost in leith said:

My understanding is that she has admitted committing an offence which carries a fixed rate penalty.  Surely a penalty has to be imposed and paid to show that the law applies to everyone - only £30 if she pays straight away. 

 

That would only be a small step towards restoring her credibility.  However, the credibility of the new restrictions will be severely damaged if she can be seen to have 'got away with it'.  

Mind-bogglingly stupid thing for her to do. Credibility shot. Makes you wonder how someone so stupid can get the job...

Edited April 5, 2020 by Spellczech

[Spellczech]

1 hour ago, Tambo_The_Jambo said:

I think you will find he is equally qualified in the virus field 

Not how I read that - reads that he did 10 years of work on viruses in the 1970s and since then has worked with bacteria...I studied law at Uni in the 90s but I would not say I am a lawyer...

[Mikey1874]

2 minutes ago, DETTY29 said:

Which is even more galling that our CMO decided to take the action she did.

 

Sturgeon will be doing update around 2pm.

 

She'll have to tackle it head on. I see Jason Leitch is getting a backlash for defending her earlier. 

 

The value Calderwood offers greatly exceeds her mistake. They should hold their hands up but use it positively to give it as an example of how we can tighten up travel. 

 

Loads of people are still doing this sort of thing. So use it to say '"really really think first before you do anything". 

 

Agree it's not good though. 

[milky_26]

10 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

Mind-bogglingly stupid thing for her to do. Credibility shot. Makes you wonder how someone so stupid can get the job...

exhibit A donald trump

[The Mighty Thor]

46 minutes ago, DETTY29 said:

Hancock threatening a stay indoors policy if people don't change their ways due to 3000 folk in a park in London yesterday.

 

Time for 2km home radius and Scotland's CMO to resign. 

 

Of course in London it is very feasible that thousands of people could be 2km from a park.

Hancock and the other talking heads that have done the 5pm presser have been vague with conflicting messages day after day from the supposed lockdown.

The farce with construction sites, the mixed message of stay at home but driving about to take the dug a walk is ok. 

Shambolic. 

No consistency and add to that the absolutely staggering levels of selfishness and utter stupidity of the majority of the population and they end up with thousands in a park.  

No different up here. I walked to Belhaven bay from my house yesterday and the road and car park was jammed with the cars of utter welts going surfing. Literally 2 dozen of them in the water. Selfish arseholes on so many levels, who were probably out clapping the NHS on Thursday night. *****. Every man jack of them. 

[Cade]

Far fewer people milling around the streets and in the local supermarket today than last time I ventured out.

Wider range of stock available on the shelves too, but some specific things remain scarce.

 

Not sure if that means everybody is paying more attention to the lockdown or whether it means they've all fecked off on day trips.

 

CMO made a massive error of judgement and despite her open and public apology I still think she'll end up resigning the role in the very near future.

Just too much flak surrounding her and she's undermined everything that's been said over the last week or two.

[Beni]

40 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Fair point about the FM. I'm usually quite supportive of her, but she's showing weakness here.

 

I quickly went from disbelief to anger, but having calmed down I think Nicola sturgeon's antenna are usually pretty good on this sort of thing. The government had to either support or sack her, time will tell if supporting her was correct, but getting people to respect the rules can only be done by consensus, and the CMO's actions will make that a harder sell.

[reaths17]

keeping down the spread is stopping an explosion of cases that would overwhelm the health service but somewhere along the line they've gotta start releasing the lockdown so some form of herd immunity can form despite not knowing how long immunity lasts or copes with mutations of the virus.

no country in the world can keep their economies locked down forever and keep multiplying its borrowing to pay everyone/keep people alive/isolated, somewhere the bubble has to burst.

 

600,000 die every year in the UK, 8% are attributed to flu they reckon corona virus will be about 12% this will soon be acceptable to our rulers once they are sure the services can cope, unless they come up with a viable treatment, i dont see this lockdown lasting the "many months/a year etc, they've never shown any great concern for the many serfs of the world before and they will of course reserve the best treatment for themselves

[Shanks said no]

Iran's President Hassan Rouhani said on Sunday that "low-risk" economic activities would resume in the hard-hit country from 11 April.

 

Mr Rouhani did not specify what type of activities would be affected.

 

Schools, universities, as well as religious and social centres will remain closed and travel between cities forbidden until at least 18 April.

[Mikey1874]

Just now, The Frenchman Returns said:

Iran's President Hassan Rouhani said on Sunday that "low-risk" economic activities would resume in the hard-hit country from 11 April.

 

Mr Rouhani did not specify what type of activities would be affected.

 

Schools, universities, as well as religious and social centres will remain closed and travel between cities forbidden until at least 18 April.

 

We don't know what Iran have been doing as no reliable sources. 

 

But if they have done a lot of testing and tracing alongside lockdown it could be credible. 

 

They were slow to respond initially. 

[flogel41]

58 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Agree with all of that. I think the distinction between dying "of Coronovirus" and "with Coronovirus" is important. We won't know for a long time if ever the true numbers Coronavirus kills … one measure will be the number of deaths during the epidemic vs the underlying "normal" rates of death. The numbers are I suspect so far too small to show up against normal variability in rates of death over periods of time. 

Another point is that epidemiologists advice and numbers of deaths are not the only factors in Government and political decisions. The Swedes are explicitly saying they are having regard to the impact on the economy. This will outrage some ("money over lives") but the impact of the epidemic and the reaction to it will have major potentially enormous long term impacts. Long term mass unemployment and collapse of worldwide GDPs will have long term impact particularly among poorer people and countries which could dwarf the short term impact of Coronavirus.

Let's judge the Swedes in a decade or so.

 

The office of national statistics has started publishing data on deaths where covid is mentioned in death certificate. They already publish data on deaths related to respiratory disorders. It does only cover England and Wales. They tend to be a couple of weeks behind though due to time it takes to register deaths.  So as you say we won't know for a long time. 

 

it is likely that, given half the reported deaths are in over 80s and the majority in over 60s ( in the uk) there will be a significant overlap between covid deaths and underlying mortality rates.

 

I read one paper that suggested possibly 66% of deaths would be accounted for by 'normal' mortality rates. However like everything else about this it's based on limited data and therefore is probably little more than speculation.

 

like you say, economic numbers will probably be those that drive decisions in the end.

Edited April 5, 2020 by flogel41
Spelling error

[Jambof3tornado]

23 minutes ago, reaths17 said:

keeping down the spread is stopping an explosion of cases that would overwhelm the health service but somewhere along the line they've gotta start releasing the lockdown so some form of herd immunity can form despite not knowing how long immunity lasts or copes with mutations of the virus.

no country in the world can keep their economies locked down forever and keep multiplying its borrowing to pay everyone/keep people alive/isolated, somewhere the bubble has to burst.

 

600,000 die every year in the UK, 8% are attributed to flu they reckon corona virus will be about 12% this will soon be acceptable to our rulers once they are sure the services can cope, unless they come up with a viable treatment, i dont see this lockdown lasting the "many months/a year etc, they've never shown any great concern for the many serfs of the world before and they will of course reserve the best treatment for themselves

Somewhere along the line?? We've hardly been on lockdown for long and have yet to see the benefits of it in the numbers in icu, in fact they continue to grow daily.

 

Lets wait for a plateau before we even worry about loosening of any guidelines.

[Mikey1874]

4 minutes ago, Jambof3tornado said:

Somewhere along the line?? We've hardly been on lockdown for long and have yet to see the benefits of it in the numbers in icu, in fact they continue to grow daily.

 

Lets wait for a plateau before we even worry about loosening of any guidelines.

 

Cases in hospital now and deaths are people catching virus before the lockdown.

[Cade]

Naples, yesterday

[AlphonseCapone]

Catherine made an "error of judgement"? Sorry but given I live a 2 minute walk from my nearest supermarket and I spend a good amount of time before deciding if I should go for more supplies today, tomorrow or try hold off for an extra day then I can't take seriously a person that's driven from one council to another with her entire family and stayed the night.

 

Needs to go, and quickly. 

[Cade]

The lockdown has to remain in place or even be made tighter until the figures show a constant downward trend, which will be lagged by the two-to-three week incubation period.

Hospitals are only barely coping as it is and we're not even at the top of the curve yet.

We must buy time so that the NHS is able to cope with collapsing under the weight of cases.

Just stay in.

How hard can it be?

For a nation that's been banging on about "blitz spirit" for the last few years, it's laughable that it's incapable of lasting more than a week of lockdown.

 

Edited April 5, 2020 by Cade

[Taffin]

Does driving to another home really create much risk? Surely your chance of passing on/catching the virus are much, much greater going to the shops. Getting in your car at one property and getting out of your car at the other doesn't increase bring you into contact with anyone that you wouldn't have anyway.

 

That's an actual question as I appreciate I'm likely missing something.

[Felix Lighter]

Hi folks.

I've just started a petition on change.org, please have a deek and sign and share if you agree.

 

 https://www.change.org/p/camelot-lottery-funding-for-the-nhs

 

thanks.

Edited April 5, 2020 by Felix Lighter
ps mods I hope this is not breaking any rules,apologies if so.

[Beni]

[reaths17]

13 minutes ago, Jambof3tornado said:

Somewhere along the line?? We've hardly been on lockdown for long and have yet to see the benefits of it in the numbers in icu, in fact they continue to grow daily.

 

Lets wait for a plateau before we even worry about loosening of any guidelines.

i get all that, big buisness wont care about that, when money isn't coming in and theres no profit being made the big guns will start pressuring the big buisness lead party into doing something about it. also we as a country cant just keep on racking up debt, there will come a point when we the people are expendable, if it wasn't for our inadequate health service and this being an explosion of cases things would just be going along as normal

[Mikey1874]

3 minutes ago, Taffin said:

Does driving to another home really create much risk? Surely your chance of passing on/catching the virus are much, much greater going to the shops. Getting in your car at one property and getting out of your car at the other doesn't increase bring you into contact with anyone that you wouldn't have anyway.

 

That's an actual question as I appreciate I'm likely missing something.

 

It's a fair point.

 

Just the Government and Police said 2 weeks ago NOT to go to your holiday home. 

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Taffin said:

Does driving to another home really create much risk? Surely your chance of passing on/catching the virus are much, much greater going to the shops. Getting in your car at one property and getting out of your car at the other doesn't increase bring you into contact with anyone that you wouldn't have anyway.

 

That's an actual question as I appreciate I'm likely missing something.

 

Virtually zero risk.    But the crux is that it is travelling around for no specific,  essential purpose.    It opens a serious risk of people self-justifying doing similar or much riskier non-essential things.    It's not just a notional thing.    People will do this.

[Jambo in Bathgate]

See  Michael Stewart the all knowledgeable is defending her now. She broke her own rules. Nobody was to travel to holiday homes or caravans. In this crisis if you are making the rules you have to abide by them.

[Morgan]

13 minutes ago, Cade said:

Naples, yesterday

 Arseholes

[Taffin]

Just now, Mikey1874 said:

 

It's a fair point.

 

Just the Government and Police said 2 weeks ago NOT to go to your holiday home. 

 

Totally appreciate that about the hypocrisy, she shouldn't have done it.

 

1 minute ago, Victorian said:

 

Virtually zero risk.    But the crux is that it is travelling around for no specific,  essential purpose.    It opens a serious risk of people self-justifying doing similar or much riskier non-essential things.    It's not just a notional thing.    People will do this.

 

That's  a fair point, I hadn't thought about it that way. I'm definitely not advocating people do it (as we've been told not to do it) but if the risk of spreading the virus is low/non existent I don't see why you would ban harmless things based on whether other people may or may not then do other things that are harmful. We don't ban driving in case people speed, we ban speeding.

 

 

[AlphonseCapone]

16 minutes ago, Taffin said:

Does driving to another home really create much risk? Surely your chance of passing on/catching the virus are much, much greater going to the shops. Getting in your car at one property and getting out of your car at the other doesn't increase bring you into contact with anyone that you wouldn't have anyway.

 

That's an actual question as I appreciate I'm likely missing something.

 

It's not the point about the risk. The point is the Government are telling people not to drive to second homes or anywhere else, she is a major part of the face of the Government and she has broken that rule. It makes a farce of the Government telling people what to do. 

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Totally appreciate that about the hypocrisy, she shouldn't have done it.

 

 

That's  a fair point, I hadn't thought about it that way. I'm definitely not advocating people do it (as we've been told not to do it) but if the risk of spreading the virus is low/non existent I don't see why you would ban harmless things based on whether other people may or may not then do other things that are harmful. We don't ban driving in case people speed, we ban speeding.

 

 

 

The reason is that it can never be left ambiguous regarding what is essential and not.    People cannot be left to define their own idea of what is essential.    It would be pointless.

[Taffin]

1 minute ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

It's not the point about the risk. The point is the Government are telling people not to drive to second homes or anywhere else, she is a major part of the face of the Government and she has broken that rule. It makes a farce of the Government telling people what to do. 

 

Don't disagree, she's in the wrong no question.

 

I'm asking it in a more general point, why have they made that a rule? If you live with 3 people and you all drive to an empty other property, your exposure to someone else I the same as if you stayed at home.

 

I'm not arguing with the rule, if it's what works best I'm all for it. I just don't really understand it is all.

[leginten]

Calderwood has now been issued with a police warning. Her position is now completely untenable if it wasn’t already.

[joondalupjambo]

12 minutes ago, Taffin said:

Does driving to another home really create much risk? Surely your chance of passing on/catching the virus are much, much greater going to the shops. Getting in your car at one property and getting out of your car at the other doesn't increase bring you into contact with anyone that you wouldn't have anyway.

 

That's an actual question as I appreciate I'm likely missing something.

My take on it all is simply it is about risk. What happens if they were in a car accident and/or needed Breakdown and Towing or Ambulance and Police assistance?  These services would then need to get involved with several people then having to interact.  The Ambulance services especially might be hard pressed and need to be elsewhere in relation to Covid-19 activities.

 

Did she take all her own food for the evening meal and breakfast?   If not did they need to do an non essential shop enroute?  If she shopped on arrival there is only a deli and a bakers locally but going into those is again more exposure than needed had the family stayed at home.

 

I get your point though because on the face of it if everything goes simply and you have planned the food then you are driving between two places.

 

It was a huge error of judgement though and think she will be gone.  If not in the next few days within the next couple of months.

[Taffin]

Just now, Victorian said:

 

The reason is that it can never be left ambiguous regarding what is essential and not.    People cannot be left to define their own idea of what is essential.    It would be pointless.

 

But it is ambiguous as it stands anyway. Is it essential to go to the supermarket unless you're completely out of food and have been for a few days? No, but we're allowed to do it.  

 

What about if your second home had a larder of long shelf life food, is it safer to drive and use a supermarket to buy that stuff or drive to an empty house to collect it?

 

I feel like we're being very strict about something that really isn't risky whilst not being very strict about other things. One supermarket I've been to has an excellent process in place and another one was chaos. Surely they'd be better placed saying to that supermarket 'get your act together or your closed' rather than people avoiding contact with others in their own cars.

[Taffin]

7 minutes ago, joondalupjambo said:

My take on it all is simply it is about risk. What happens if they were in a car accident and/or needed Breakdown and Towing or Ambulance and Police assistance?  These services would then need to get involved with several people then having to interact.  The Ambulance services especially might be hard pressed and need to be elsewhere in relation to Covid-19 activities.

 

Did she take all her own food for the evening meal and breakfast?   If not did they need to do an non essential shop enroute?  If she shopped on arrival there is only a deli and a bakers locally but going into those is again more exposure than needed had the family stayed at home.

 

I get your point though because on the face of it if everything goes simply and you have planned the food then you are driving between two places.

 

It was a huge error of judgement though and think she will be gone.  If not in the next few days within the next couple of months.

 

 

Can't argue with that. You're right and I don't think we should be doing it I just didn't really get it but that makes a lot of sense.

[redjambo]

5 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Don't disagree, she's in the wrong no question.

 

I'm asking it in a more general point, why have they made that a rule? If you live with 3 people and you all drive to an empty other property, your exposure to someone else I the same as if you stayed at home.

 

I'm not arguing with the rule, if it's what works best I'm all for it. I just don't really understand it is all.

 

It's not just exposure that's the issue here. More cars on the road will lead to more accidents and breakdowns (the sort that happen in their thousands every day anyway), putting a strain on the emergency services who are already under pressure. It will also mean that folk will have to fill up on petrol and may have to go to the garage with problems that have arisen with the car, both meaning more social contact. There are probably other factors that I've missed out as well. None of that happens if we stay at home.

[AlphonseCapone]

6 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Don't disagree, she's in the wrong no question.

 

I'm asking it in a more general point, why have they made that a rule? If you live with 3 people and you all drive to an empty other property, your exposure to someone else I the same as if you stayed at home.

 

I'm not arguing with the rule, if it's what works best I'm all for it. I just don't really understand it is all.

 

I think there's a few reasons for it; if you have an accident then that's NHS and emergency services resources to help you, if it seems like there are certain instances where it's ok to drive here or there then the message gets diluted slightly. They are also likely making plans based on the population of different health boards, rather than populations changing if people are going to different places. I think they've opted for, don't go anywhere unless it's absolutely necessary as it's clear messaging. 

 

I think Catherine was actually spotted out on the beach with her family and dog. 

[Boris]

Is she doing a good job as CMO? If so and if she is fired or resigns, will the next CMO be as good?

 

Not trying to condone what she has done, but believe her in that she was just checking her property was secure (2nd homes is another matter!) and that it wasn't a "head to the hills" isolate move.

 

Anyway, all highly embarrassing for her.

[reaths17]

7 minutes ago, joondalupjambo said:

My take on it all is simply it is about risk. What happens if they were in a car accident and/or needed Breakdown and Towing or Ambulance and Police assistance?  These services would then need to get involved with several people then having to interact.  The Ambulance services especially might be hard pressed and need to be elsewhere in relation to Covid-19 activities.

 

Did she take all her own food for the evening meal and breakfast?   If not did they need to do an non essential shop enroute?  If she shopped on arrival there is only a deli and a bakers locally but going into those is again more exposure than needed had the family stayed at home.

 

I get your point though because on the face of it if everything goes simply and you have planned the food then you are driving between two places.

 

It was a huge error of judgement though and think she will be gone.  If not in the next few days within the next couple of months.

was it ?

 

or did she know exactly what she was doing and exactly what she told everybody else not to and just not give a ****, i'm a government official and tv personality i dont care

[Taffin]

3 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

It's not just exposure that's the issue here. More cars on the road will lead to more accidents and breakdowns (the sort that happen in their thousands every day anyway), putting a strain on the emergency services who are already under pressure. It will also mean that folk will have to fill up on petrol and may have to go to the garage with problems that have arisen with the car, both meaning more social contact. There are probably other factors that I've missed out as well. None of that happens if we stay at home.

 

Yeh it's a very valid point. I was looking at it from a too 'no problems will arise' viewpoint ie nothing went wrong on the journey.

Edited April 5, 2020 by Taffin

[redjambo]

1 minute ago, Boris said:

Is she doing a good job as CMO? If so and if she is fired or resigns, will the next CMO be as good?

 

Not trying to condone what she has done, but believe her in that she was just checking her property was secure (2nd homes is another matter!) and that it wasn't a "head to the hills" isolate move.

 

Anyway, all highly embarrassing for her.

 

You don't need the whole family to come along with you and to stay overnight for that.

[Boris]

1 minute ago, redjambo said:

 

You don't need the whole family to come along with you and to stay overnight for that.

Fair point.

Edited April 5, 2020 by Boris

[redjambo]

2 minutes ago, reaths17 said:

was it ?

 

or did she know exactly what she was doing and exactly what she told everybody else not to and just not give a ****, i'm a government official and tv personality i dont care

 

That is completely in the realms of speculation. We simply have no idea.

[Taffin]

 

Thanks for all the responses folks and sorry for derailing the thread about a specific topic. Hadn't considered the increased risk of if something goes wrong on what is otherwise a non-essential journey. 👍

[ri Alban]

21 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Totally appreciate that about the hypocrisy, she shouldn't have done it.

 

 

That's  a fair point, I hadn't thought about it that way. I'm definitely not advocating people do it (as we've been told not to do it) but if the risk of spreading the virus is low/non existent I don't see why you would ban harmless things based on whether other people may or may not then do other things that are harmful. We don't ban driving in case people speed, we ban speeding.

 

 

What if you break down?

[redjambo]

Just now, Taffin said:

 

Thanks for all the responses folks and sorry for derailing the thread about a specific topic. Hadn't considered the increased risk of if something goes wrong on what is otherwise a non-essential journey. 👍

 

It is very worthwhile discussing the issue. In no way did you derail the thread.

[reaths17]

5 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

That is completely in the realms of speculation. We simply have no idea.

its pure speculation that she just forgot everything she's been told, everything she told us and merrily just packed up her family for a wee weekend at the holiday home. oblivious to this whole world pandemic thats dominating all conversation worldwide

 

there also has to be some thought into who hired her for the position, not a very clever appointment

Edited April 5, 2020 by reaths17

[BlackJAC?]

She needs removed from her public role. I don't like the internet mentality of everyone should be sacked over an error of judgement as it affects entire families etc.  But what is the point preaching to the masses, some of which flout the rules themselves or will do so at the first sign of summer and then do something idiotic as those idiots you're aiming your advice at. Why the hell should people follow the advice from the likes of those?

 

People are already complaining about freedoms being taken away, yet those laying down that smack are enjoying those very same freedoms many of us have had taken away from us. She needs put in another role and out of the public eye.

Edited April 5, 2020 by BlackJAC?

[Cade]

It's 100% on topic to discuss WHY driving around is against the rules.

People need to understand why things are forbidden.

[joondalupjambo]

2 minutes ago, reaths17 said:

was it ?

 

or did she know exactly what she was doing and exactly what she told everybody else not to and just not give a ****, i'm a government official and tv personality i dont care

Yeah you might be right, I guess I am trying to be kind and give her the benefit of the doubt.  To be fair again her husband could have egged her on, maybe who knows.

I live 10 minutes from Earlsferry and my experience over the years is that many, many of the folk live there live in another world.  Do you know that they do not shop, they go for provisions😃😃 The mere mortals like me go shopping.

When I sit in the pub along there some of the stuff you over hear beggars belief,  very well off holiday community so again you might be correct and they just do not care.