Coronavirus Super Thread ( merged )

[CJGJ]

Why has Glasgow not been shut down in the way Aberdeen had to ?

 

You can talk all you want about the differences but it boils down to an outbreak no matter how it started

[redjambo]

2 minutes ago, CJGJ said:

Why has Glasgow not been shut down in the way Aberdeen had to ?

 

You can talk all you want about the differences but it boils down to an outbreak no matter how it started

 

It has been widely explained and discussed. The Aberdeen outbreak was mainly due to transmission in pubs, the Glasgow outbreak is mainly due to transmission by folk meeting up in homes (indoor parties etc.). Horses for courses, as it should be.

[CJGJ]

1 minute ago, redjambo said:

 

It has been widely explained and discussed. The Aberdeen outbreak was mainly due to transmission in pubs, the Glasgow outbreak is mainly due to transmission by folk meeting up in homes (indoor parties etc.). Horses for courses, as it should be.

so you can go ahead and meet at the pub but not at home...perfect sense that

[Shanks]

1 minute ago, CJGJ said:

so you can go ahead and meet at the pub but not at home...perfect sense that

Correct it does make sense.  The spike in transmissions are due to people meeting in houses, not pubs. 

[TheOak88]

2 minutes ago, CJGJ said:

so you can go ahead and meet at the pub but not at home...perfect sense that

 

Apparently pubs are following the rules, and as such there have not been outbreaks in pubs, so no need to shut them.  

[redjambo]

Just now, CJGJ said:

so you can go ahead and meet at the pub but not at home...perfect sense that

 

Yes it does make perfect sense. Social distancing is more regulated and verifiable in pubs. You don't get local council officials popping in at random to your house party to check that you're properly social distancing and that you have hand sanitiser readily available.

 

[Jambo 4 Ever]

8 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Yes it does make perfect sense. Social distancing is more regulated and verifiable in pubs. You don't get local council officials popping in at random to your house party to check that you're properly social distancing and that you have hand sanitiser readily available.

 

This 

[redjambo]

2 minutes ago, jonesy said:

I think we all are, to be honest, Brian. I think we are hardwired to associate the message with the messenger, especially in public life.

 

Typical of you to say that.

[Nucky Thompson]

3 hours ago, Natural Orders said:

Another 156 cases

1 death 

You forgot 5 fewer in hospital and 1 less in ICU

[The Internet]

27 minutes ago, Nucky Thompson said:

You forgot 5 fewer in hospital and 1 less in ICU

 

I think the 1 less in ICU might somehow be linked to the 1 death. 

[ri Alban]

7 hours ago, Governor Tarkin said:

 

It's whit ye staun oan wi yir fit. 

Baith the left yin an the right yin.

 

 

Richt! 

[Enzo Chiefo]

23 minutes ago, Nucky Thompson said:

You forgot 5 fewer in hospital and 1 less in ICU

Hospital numbers have barely changed for weeks and are lower than in July. Again, a lot will be in hospital with rather than because of Covid.  Despite the hundreds of new cases over the last few weeks and the opening up of pubs, restaurants etc, the mutated version of the virus, Covid 20 if you like, is not the threat to public health that Covid 19 was back in March/April. Politicians must be beginning to realise that, surely

[ri Alban]

19 hours ago, jack D and coke said:

But they can all leave their houses and meet up in the pub instead? 🤷🏽‍♂️😂
She’s doing my ****ing nut in. 

Pubs etc... Are regulated with everything in place(Well they should) Hooses not so much. 

[ri Alban]

18 hours ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

She should really count to 10 and phone Boris, before making these wrong headed decisions. 

She should ask him what it feels like to be on a ventilator. You know, seeing he fecking caught the thing, the fat filthy scummy tory useless *****. 

[Enzo Chiefo]

4 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

She should ask him what it feels like to be on a ventilator. You know, seeing he fecking caught the thing, the fat filthy scummy tory useless *****. 

What a hate filled, bitter post. 

[The Internet]

Just now, Enzo Chiefo said:

What a hate filled, bitter post. 

 

amazing. 

[Back to 2005]

13 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

Hospital numbers have barely changed for weeks and are lower than in July. Again, a lot will be in hospital with rather than because of Covid.  Despite the hundreds of new cases over the last few weeks and the opening up of pubs, restaurants etc, the mutated version of the virus, Covid 20 if you like, is not the threat to public health that Covid 19 was back in March/April. Politicians must be beginning to realise that, surely

Not when there is a referendum on the cards. You cant put a price on a daily party political broadcast or possibly 2 like yesterday. 

Whole thing is now a very unfunny joke the way they are messing up peoples lives and livelihoods. 

Let's hope the Scottish people waken up to this but I suspect most of them wont. 

[Francis Albert]

2 hours ago, redjambo said:

 

Yes it does make perfect sense. Social distancing is more regulated and verifiable in pubs. You don't get local council officials popping in at random to your house party to check that you're properly social distancing and that you have hand sanitiser readily available.

 

Or have no more than 8 people from three households. It is only a matter of time. If a law can't be enforced it is pointless.

[Back to 2005]

8 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Or have no more than 8 people from three households. It is only a matter of time. If a law can't be enforced it is pointless.

Having watched the party broadcast today it appears that it isnt law at all. Merely a guidance. 

A question was asked on this by some MSP that I didn't recognise. 

[Enzo Chiefo]

Just now, Brian Dundas said:

This is a remarkable breakthrough you have made there, you should send all the data and physical evidence you have to the SG immediately, I'm sure they will be delighted

Not a breakthrough Brian. Evidence based. The hospital numbers have barely moved despite the hundreds of increased cases and the ending of lockdown. Most people, myself included, now reach our own conclusions and make judgements based on the facts. Back in March, we relied,, quite rightly,  on politicians and scientists to tell us what was happening.  Now, that is not as necessary.

[Enzo Chiefo]

7 minutes ago, Back to 2005 said:

Not when there is a referendum on the cards. You cant put a price on a daily party political broadcast or possibly 2 like yesterday. 

Whole thing is now a very unfunny joke the way they are messing up peoples lives and livelihoods. 

Let's hope the Scottish people waken up to this but I suspect most of them wont. 

I lost all hope of the Scottish people waking up to this, a few years ago, but there will come a tipping point. 

[redjambo]

17 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Or have no more than 8 people from three households. It is only a matter of time. If a law can't be enforced it is pointless.

 

Someone reports a house party at an address. The police pop round, do a quick head count. If there appear to be more than 8 people, or they appear to come from more than 3 households (do they all look the same age, for example), and there is no "previous" from that address, the guests are asked kindly to stop the party and disperse. If they refuse or this isn't the first time that address has been involved, arrests are made. So, that's the 3/8 situation. Now, it's even simpler in the three NHS areas in question, the police determine if anyone doesn't belong to the household where the party/do/gathering is taking place. That's all my conjecture, of course, but I don't think the real approach will be far off.

 

The police can't or won't do any more than that. Unless a copper on the beat (aye, right) happens by an indoor event, it will be up to others to report such an event and the police to decide if they have the resources to sort it out.

 

If you can think of a better way of policing it, I'm all ears.

Edited September 2, 2020 by redjambo

[Enzo Chiefo]

Just now, Brian Dundas said:

But you don't have access to all the evidence, you can't make conclusions on the facts. You can make judgements, but it's not really that easy to break the rules anyway, businesses are running with regulations in place, the only thing you can control is you personal interactions with other individuals, if you are going around shaking hands etc then ask Boris how that went for him.........

I'm adhering to all the rules, wearing masks etc. I used hand gel well before all this, when doing the taxis so there is no change there for me. I'm not being critical of the current measures, apart from the nonsensical international travel restrictions, but the point I'm making is that we won't be carrying on for months on end, testing, daily updates etc, quarantines etc. Eventually,  assuming current trends continue , politicians will have to acknowledge that it is not the threat to public health they thought it was, and move on, allowing us to treat Covid like we do flu,  respiratory illnesses and other viruses that you can pick up.

[Back to 2005]

14 minutes ago, Brian Dundas said:

That was made clear at the announcement yesterday, if you and that MSP had been paying attention.

I can only go on the way it was reported as I didn't see it. This is actually an issue as covid is not being reportedly accurately amongst the MSM who prefer to use scare tactics so the hard of thinking dont want to leave the house.

[Francis Albert]

2 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Someone reports a house party at an address. The police pop round, do a quick head count. If there appear to be more than 8 people, or they appear to come from more than 3 households (do they all look the same age, for example), and there is no "recent" from that address, the guests are asked kindly to stop the party and disperse. If they refuse or this isn't the first time that address has been involved, arrests are made. So, that's the 3/8 situation. Now, it's even simpler in the three NHS areas in question, the police determine if anyone doesn't belong to the household where the party/do/gathering is taking place. That's all my conjecture, of course, but I don't think the real approach will be far off.

 

The police can't or won't do any more than that. Unless a copper on the beat (aye, right) happens by an indoor event, it will be up to others to report such an event and the police to decide if they have the resources to sort it out.

 

If you can think of a better way of policing it, I'm all ears.

So it is an arrestable offence to have more than 8 people from more than 3 households in your house? Policed by neighbours snooping. And police responding (aye, right as you say). 

Is it guidance or the law? And if as it is the law is unenforcable what does it add to guidance?

[Back to 2005]

20 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

I lost all hope of the Scottish people waking up to this, a few years ago, but there will come a tipping point. 

You would like to think so. 

[Robbofan99]

5 hours ago, Nucky Thompson said:

94% of people who died from covid in the US had underlying health conditions with each on average having 2.6 conditions.

 

Hes a zany health nut/ guru  in the USA. He usually posts humorous videos about meditation self help etc .  His analysis on the deaths in the USA is spot on.  

[redjambo]

5 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

So it is an arrestable offence to have more than 8 people from more than 3 households in your house? Policed by neighbours snooping. And police responding (aye, right as you say). 

Is it guidance or the law? And if as it is the law is unenforcable what does it add to guidance?

 

So reporting an infraction of the law is "snooping" to you? A fine member of society you are. I suppose you would prefer drones or surveillance cameras or something like that.

 

Anyway, it appears that the law is now that police can break up indoor gatherings of more than 15 people - it changed a few days ago. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53935543

 

And I imagine that if someone is violent or otherwise breaks the law during the breaking up of those gatherings, then arrests can be made.

[Robbofan99]

22 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Someone reports a house party at an address. The police pop round, do a quick head count. If there appear to be more than 8 people, or they appear to come from more than 3 households (do they all look the same age, for example), and there is no "previous" from that address, the guests are asked kindly to stop the party and disperse. If they refuse or this isn't the first time that address has been involved, arrests are made. So, that's the 3/8 situation. Now, it's even simpler in the three NHS areas in question, the police determine if anyone doesn't belong to the household where the party/do/gathering is taking place. That's all my conjecture, of course, but I don't think the real approach will be far off.

 

The police can't or won't do any more than that. Unless a copper on the beat (aye, right) happens by an indoor event, it will be up to others to report such an event and the police to decide if they have the resources to sort it out.

 

If you can think of a better way of policing it, I'm all ears.

Its pathetic. People need to wake up to this pile of absolute garbage about the "risks!. She is on another planet now. Power crazy.  They cant and wont police this new policy. People will just tell them to GTF. Quite right. There is no sense in this policy when people can be in the company of literally 100s in a pub. All complete strangers. That's an indoor place as well as house. 

[redjambo]

Just now, Robbofan99 said:

Its pathetic. People need to wake up to this pile of absolute garbage about the "risks!. She is on another planet now. Power crazy.  They cant and wont police this new policy. People will just tell them to GTF. Quite right. There is no sense in this policy when people can be in the company of literally 100s in a pub. All complete strangers. That's an indoor place as well as house. 

 

It has been explained that pubs and other such public venues are much more controllable as regards social distancing and anti-coronavirus measures than are indoor gatherings in folks' houses.

 

But don't let that prevent you from ranting on... 

[Ray Gin]

4 minutes ago, Robbofan99 said:

Its pathetic. People need to wake up to this pile of absolute garbage about the "risks!. She is on another planet now. Power crazy.  They cant and wont police this new policy. People will just tell them to GTF. Quite right. There is no sense in this policy when people can be in the company of literally 100s in a pub. All complete strangers. That's an indoor place as well as house. 

 

Moan, moan, power trip, nippy, blah

 

[The Real Maroonblood]

45 minutes ago, Brian Dundas said:

This is a remarkable breakthrough you have made there, you should send all the data and physical evidence you have to the SG immediately, I'm sure they will be delighted

[Francis Albert]

6 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

So reporting an infraction of the law is "snooping" to you? A fine member of society you are. I suppose you would prefer drones or surveillance cameras or something like that.

 

Anyway, it appears that the law is now that police can break up indoor gatherings of more than 15 people - it changed a few days ago. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53935543

 

And I imagine that if someone is violent or otherwise breaks the law during the breaking up of those gatherings, then arrests can be made.

Thanks. So it is not more than 8 from.3 households and not more than 15 from 2 households. I hope everyone is clear about this.

And yes reporting breaches of rules that make absolutely no sense is snooping. 

[Fxxx the SPFL]

32 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

I'm adhering to all the rules, wearing masks etc. I used hand gel well before all this, when doing the taxis so there is no change there for me. I'm not being critical of the current measures, apart from the nonsensical international travel restrictions, but the point I'm making is that we won't be carrying on for months on end, testing, daily updates etc, quarantines etc. Eventually,  assuming current trends continue , politicians will have to acknowledge that it is not the threat to public health they thought it was, and move on, allowing us to treat Covid like we do flu,  respiratory illnesses and other viruses that you can pick up.

i agree with your comments i am doing the same,  my daughter is a Haematologist based in one of Scotland's hospitals and involved in the blood analysis/testing she and colleagues are of the opinion that the virus is definitely not as virulent as it was in March although still very contagious they are only seeing a minimal increase in hospital admissions. I'm 63 now and don't want to catch it but if i do i hopefully will only show mild symptoms if any.

Edited September 2, 2020 by Fxxx the SPFL

[Nucky Thompson]

10 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

So reporting an infraction of the law is "snooping" to you? A fine member of society you are.  

That's how they operated in East Germany after WW2. The Stasi relied on good citizens reporting their neighbours 

[JudyJudyJudy]

5 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Thanks. So it is not more than 8 from.3 households and not more than 15 from 2 households. I hope everyone is clear about this.

And yes reporting breaches of rules that make absolutely no sense is snooping. 

Its as clear as mud. Thanks .  

[Francis Albert]

3 minutes ago, Brian Dundas said:

Enforcement and compliance are always tricky issues, I think that most officials have been both amazed and impressed with the levels of compliance so far. 

 

One of the issues is that some people are just too stupid to be able to comply. I saw a man in a shopping centre today, remove his mask while walking along next to his wife (I can't be sure it was his wife TBF), then sneeze into his hands and put his mask back on, without breaking stride. 

You see absurd breaches of guidance on wearing masks all the time. I doubt one in ten use then in accordance with the rules/guidance. And I suspect that is an exaggeration. I wonder how many of the mask fanatics use disposable masks just once or wash washable ones after one use? 

[JudyJudyJudy]

7 minutes ago, Brian Dundas said:

Enforcement and compliance are always tricky issues, I think that most officials have been both amazed and impressed with the levels of compliance so far. 

 

One of the issues is that some people are just too stupid to be able to comply. I saw a man in a shopping centre today, remove his mask while walking along next to his wife (I can't be sure it was his wife TBF), then sneeze into his hands and put his mask back on, without breaking stride. 

Ive noticed a few people coughing while wearing  their mask on but still not covering their mouth !! 

[Jambo 4 Ever]

9 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Thanks. So it is not more than 8 from.3 households and not more than 15 from 2 households. I hope everyone is clear about this.

And yes reporting breaches of rules that make absolutely no sense is snooping. 

Not snooping at all

 

our civic duty to report them too

[JudyJudyJudy]

4 minutes ago, Nucky Thompson said:

That's how they operated in East Germany after WW2. The Stasi relied on good citizens reporting their neighbours 

Yes and it was mainly for minor issues.  The stasi had to investigate the most trivial issues. But that's what happens when you want people to comply with restrictions , you end up with people " shopping" on others due to long standing jealousies / petty issues etc.  

[redjambo]

8 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Thanks. So it is not more than 8 from.3 households and not more than 15 from 2 households. I hope everyone is clear about this.

And yes reporting breaches of rules that make absolutely no sense is snooping. 

 

The law includes a margin so that the police will only break up the gathering if it meets the stricter criteria. So, 8 from 3 is the guidance, more than 15 from 2 is where the police can step in.

 

As stated in the article I linked to: "In recognition that we intend these new legal powers to be a last resort only and for use in the most blatant breaches of the guidance, we have decided to set a higher threshold for their use."

 

It's not rocket science.

[Brighton Jambo]

My wife has a work event tomorrow in a colleagues garden.  It will be more than three households but won’t be going into the house.  Looking at the guidance we think it’s fine but does anyone know for definite?

 

thanks 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, redjambo said:

 

The law includes a margin so that the police will only break up the gathering if it meets the stricter criteria. So, 8 from 3 is the guidance, more than 15 from 2 is where the police can step in.

 

As stated in the article I linked to: "In recognition that we intend these new legal powers to be a last resort only and for use in the most blatant breaches of the guidance, we have decided to set a higher threshold for their use."

 

It's not rocket science.

Technical question - how do these things get made the law so quickly?  

[Nucky Thompson]

4 minutes ago, Natural Orders said:

Not snooping at all

 

our civic duty to report them too

I would wager that your phone's red hot

[redjambo]

9 minutes ago, Nucky Thompson said:

That's how they operated in East Germany after WW2. The Stasi relied on good citizens reporting their neighbours 

 

Stasi schamsi. If you think that calling the police during an epidemic because someone a few doors down is having a party, folk have been streaming in and out, and you're worried about the Coronavirus impact of the party, is the same as calling the secret police on your neighbours in a Communist state then frankly you're an idiot.

[Ray Gin]

7 minutes ago, Brighton Jambo said:

My wife has a work event tomorrow in a colleagues garden.  It will be more than three households but won’t be going into the house.  Looking at the guidance we think it’s fine but does anyone know for definite?

 

thanks 

 

 

5 households, with up to 15 people, outdoors in Scotland. 

 

England:

• socialise outdoors in a group of more than six people from different households; gatherings larger than six should only take place if everyone is from exclusively from two households or support bubbles

Edited September 2, 2020 by Ray Gin

[Brighton Jambo]

1 minute ago, Ray Gin said:

 

 

5 households outdoors. 

Thank you

[Francis Albert]

10 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

The law includes a margin so that the police will only break up the gathering if it meets the stricter criteria. So, 8 from 3 is the guidance, more than 15 from 2 is where the police can step in.

 

As stated in the article I linked to: "In recognition that we intend these new legal powers to be a last resort only and for use in the most blatant breaches of the guidance, we have decided to set a higher threshold for their use."

 

It's not rocket science.

Well no it certainly isn't rocket science!

Is there any basis for thinking 8 from 3 households is safer than 15 from 2? It seems counter-intuitive to me. If one person with the virus can pass it on to anyone present then 8 from 3 will infect three households. 15 from 2 will infect two.households. 

The only advantage of 15 from 2 I can see is that it will be more apparent to the shoppers. I typed snoopers but shoppers works too.

Edited September 2, 2020 by Francis Albert

[Ray Gin]

1 minute ago, Brighton Jambo said:

Thank you

 

Just now, Francis Albert said:

Well no it certainly isn't rocket science!

Is there any basis for thinking 8 from 3 households is safer than 15 from 2? It seems counter-intuitive to me. If one person with the virus can pass it on to anyone present then 8 from 3 will infect three households. 15 from 2 will infect two.households. 

The only advantage of 15 from 2 I can see is that it will be more apparent to the shoppers.

 

7 more people to try and stay socially distanced. 

[Nucky Thompson]

1 minute ago, redjambo said:

 

Stasi schamsi. If you think that calling the police during an epidemic because someone a few doors down is having a party, folk have been streaming in and out, and you're worried about the Coronavirus impact of the party, is the same as calling the secret police on your neighbours in a Communist state then frankly you're an idiot.

At the start of lockdown people were calling the police because their neighbours were leaving the house more than once a day 

 

Do you call the police if someone is playing loud music because you suspect them of having a party? 

 

Relying on people snooping is very state like imo