milky_26 Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 3 minutes ago, Morgan said: No, one (the existing one) is Natural Order (singular), the other was Natural Orders (plural). stop being pedantic Mogan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King prawn Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 1 minute ago, Morgan said: Jambo 4 is the ex Natural Orders. Natural Order is a different guy. Poor fella getting mixed up with Jambo in Hamilton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 7 minutes ago, Boy Daniel said: Psychopath more likely. Well yes. To put it another way this sort of tool would encourage those who are obsessed with avoiding the risk of Covid to flood the areas largely devoid of Covid. The law of unintended consequences Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruyff Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 Natural Order, change your name immediately Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 3 minutes ago, Cruyff said: Natural Order, change your name immediately You must be Cruyffs then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joondalupjambo Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Francis Albert said: Well yes. To put it another way this sort of tool would encourage those who are obsessed with avoiding the risk of Covid to flood the areas largely devoid of Covid. The law of unintended consequences The East Neuk has been flooded with west coasters for the last three weeks or so. Funnily enough it has coincided with the advice given on restricted travel in the locked down areas in the west of Scotland. I thought travel was only supposed to be done from these areas if essential? The East Neuk is low in terms of cases, well it was until the students returned to St Andrews I guess but places like Crail, Pittenweem, Largo etc are places viewed as "safer". Edited September 25, 2020 by joondalupjambo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 8 minutes ago, milky_26 said: stop being pedantic Mogan Sorry, Milk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 10 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said: Fair doos. My apologies. None needed, Alim. At first glance both names looked the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taffin Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 Just now, Brian Dundas said: The UK, all nations. Cheers 👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruyff Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 4 minutes ago, Morgan said: You must be Cruyffs then? There has only ever been one of me. 😁 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 1 minute ago, Cruyff said: There has only ever been one of me. 😁 Now it’s your Turn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 5 minutes ago, joondalupjambo said: The East Neuk has been flooded with west coasters for the last three weeks or so. Funnily enough it has coincided with the advice given on restricted travel in the locked down areas in the west of Scotland. I thought travel was only supposed to be done from these areas if essential? The East Neuk is low in terms of cases, well it was until the students returned to St Andrews I guess but places like Crail, Pittenweem, Largo etc are places viewed as "safer". Not for long from what you say The guidance should be to avoid places with low incidences of the virus especially if you come from a place with a significantly higher incidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 35 minutes ago, jonesy said: One of them is deffo a ‘member’ 😄😄 i saw what you did there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 1 hour ago, doctor jambo said: The 2 aged 84 and 88- Nicola wouldnt need to protect them in scotland, as they wouldnt have lasted that long why cant we get these details in Scotland? hmmm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 1 minute ago, Brian Dundas said: Because nobody died yesterday? Kidding... I've been moaning for a while about the lack of detail in age and pre-existing conditions data. I am very surprised that there were two people in their 80s with no underlying conditions I suspect they mean no known underlying conditions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack D and coke Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 7 minutes ago, Brian Dundas said: Taken from here https://www.travellingtabby.com/uk-coronavirus-tracker/ He does a UK and a Scottish one When you look at the numbers you just wonder what in the feck are we doing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartsmad1874 Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 5 hours ago, Jambo 4 Ever said: You should know by now that this isn’t the point In other words those stats don't quite suit my agenda 👍🏻 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milky_26 Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 43 minutes ago, Morgan said: Sorry, Milk. damn it i meant to say moran not mogan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enzo Chiefo Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 2 hours ago, jonesy said: Wouldn’t know, EC, I only have one measuring device and it’s a foot long. 🤣 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enzo Chiefo Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 52 minutes ago, Brian Dundas said: That’s outbreaks or incidents not cases or transmissions. Fair enough but how do they differentiate between them? Surely it's a bit of a stretch to claim that 5% of outbreaks account for 40% of cases?? But the point was the FM and Clinical Director both said that it wasn't possible to provide that figure, only 2 days ago? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 25 minutes ago, Brian Dundas said: Quite Being 82 is an underlying condition surely Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beni Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 (edited) As if the virus wasn't bad enough, here's a wee reminder of the dangers working from home can bring! https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/25/argentina-politician-breasts-online-debate Edited September 25, 2020 by fancy a brew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 1 minute ago, jonesy said: I think we're kind of stuck in an infinite look with this approach, don't you agree? If the numbers stay low, authorities can claim their approach worked. If numbers increase, they can state that this shows why the measures were necessary. Rinse and repeat any time (and there will be many more times), that there are small spikes on the charts. They dive under the covers every time they see the spider in the room. Exactly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 4 minutes ago, jonesy said: I think we're kind of stuck in an infinite look with this approach, don't you agree? If the numbers stay low, authorities can claim their approach worked. If numbers increase, they can state that this shows why the measures were necessary. Rinse and repeat any time (and there will be many more times), that there are small spikes on the charts. They dive under the covers every time they see the spider in the room. The one you've omitted is the most likely one. Virtually certain. That the numbers continue to rise until the effects of the measures kick in and begin to flatten the curve and eventually the numbers reduce. Then the authorities will say they were right to introduce the measures. They'll be right. If numbers stay low or are brought back down to low then that does not prove that the measures were not necessary. It also indicates the measures were necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoncurMacdonaldMercer Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 5 hours ago, King prawn said: I ended up at the hospital after getting a chest infection that I couldn’t get rid of when I was at University. Illnesses spread like wildfire in halls. that sounds like long-chest-infection i read on here that stuff like that was exclusive to covid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 6 minutes ago, jonesy said: I think we're kind of stuck in an infinite loop with this approach, don't you agree? If the numbers stay low, authorities can claim their approach worked. If numbers increase, they can state that this shows why the measures were necessary. Rinse and repeat any time (and there will be many more times), that there are small spikes on the charts. They dive under the covers every time they see the spider in the room. I think that is about right. The big risk for governments is to risk being wrong in underestimating the risk. There is not much downside in overestimating it at least in the short term ... on which politicians are usually focused. A week is a long time in politics and there is a fair chance others will.have to clear up.the mess ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack D and coke Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 14 minutes ago, jonesy said: I think we're kind of stuck in an infinite loop with this approach, don't you agree? If the numbers stay low, authorities can claim their approach worked. If numbers increase, they can state that this shows why the measures were necessary. Rinse and repeat any time (and there will be many more times), that there are small spikes on the charts. They dive under the covers every time they see the spider in the room. Yeah agreed mate. We’re backed up against a wall with this approach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 5 minutes ago, Victorian said: The one you've omitted is the most likely one. Virtually certain. That the numbers continue to rise until the effects of the measures kick in and begin to flatten the curve and eventually the numbers reduce. Then the authorities will say they were right to introduce the measures. They'll be right. If numbers stay low or are brought back down to low then that does not prove that the measures were not necessary. It also indicates the measures were necessary. The authorities in your scenario would certainly say that they were right. Whether they would be right is another question. And to state that if the number stays low indicates the measures were necessary is exactly the point. Whatever the result of the measures they can be claimed to be right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 7 minutes ago, Francis Albert said: The authorities in your scenario would certainly say that they were right. Whether they would be right is another question. And to state that if the number stays low indicates the measures were necessary is exactly the point. Whatever the result of the measures they can be claimed to be right. Indeed. But in amongst the scramble to discover some alternative explanation, residing in plain sight will be the actual explanation that the measures were responsible for any suppression of numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 ITV news with absolutely no sense of irony reporting " panic buying" 👿 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartsmad1874 Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 Some students may have a small part time job to get some extra money, wonder if they'll be eligible for the governments £500 payment since so many have to self isolate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 1 hour ago, milky_26 said: damn it i meant to say moran not mogan I knew what you meant. 👍 Angus seems such a long time ago eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muppetboy Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 Not meaning to hijack,the thread but have a question regarding the tightening of the rules and what it means for my partner and I. Basically I live alone but my 2 children stay over regularly. I have a partner who lives at home with her 69 and 74 year old parents and she also comes to my place frequently as well. Being a non cohabiting couple who are in a relationship I was clear that we were an exemption to the tightening of things this week, but the fact that she returns home to her mum and dads place has muddied the waters a little and her family are urging her not to come to my place and return home for fear of placing her folks in danger. any help or advice on the best course of action would be greatly appreciated Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 43 minutes ago, Victorian said: Indeed. But in amongst the scramble to discover some alternative explanation, residing in plain sight will be the actual explanation that the measures were responsible for any suppression of numbers. It would be an explanation. It wouldn't be proof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 3 minutes ago, Muppetboy said: Not meaning to hijack,the thread but have a question regarding the tightening of the rules and what it means for my partner and I. Basically I live alone but my 2 children stay over regularly. I have a partner who lives at home with her 69 and 74 year old parents and she also comes to my place frequently as well. Being a non cohabiting couple who are in a relationship I was clear that we were an exemption to the tightening of things this week, but the fact that she returns home to her mum and dads place has muddied the waters a little and her family are urging her not to come to my place and return home for fear of placing her folks in danger. any help or advice on the best course of action would be greatly appreciated She would be allowed to visit you thats not an issue but there is a risk to her parents. Its entirely up to you both to decide what is the best interests for you. Also what are her parents views regarding it? They might be happy for her to visit you? Do you mix with other people daily , if not any risk is minimal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 1 minute ago, Francis Albert said: It would be an explanation. It wouldn't be proof. Sometimes definitive proof for stuff is not an absolute necessity. While some people will draw reasonable conclusions from evidence, in whatever form that takes, others inevitably seize on the absence of proof in order to manipulate an alternative view. I can't see this ending soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartsmad1874 Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 5 minutes ago, Muppetboy said: Not meaning to hijack,the thread but have a question regarding the tightening of the rules and what it means for my partner and I. Basically I live alone but my 2 children stay over regularly. I have a partner who lives at home with her 69 and 74 year old parents and she also comes to my place frequently as well. Being a non cohabiting couple who are in a relationship I was clear that we were an exemption to the tightening of things this week, but the fact that she returns home to her mum and dads place has muddied the waters a little and her family are urging her not to come to my place and return home for fear of placing her folks in danger. any help or advice on the best course of action would be greatly appreciated Aslong as you limit time in big public spaces when shopping, going to restaurants etc so you lessen the risk of you passing it to each other and her taking it to her parents should be okay i'd imagine. Someone on here would have you both away from each other but adults should be trusted to use common sense and their own judgment but not according to some. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muppetboy Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 2 minutes ago, JamesM48 said: She would be allowed to visit you thats not an issue but there is a risk to her parents. Its entirely up to you both to decide what is the best interests for you. Also what are her parents views regarding it? They might be happy for her to visit you? Do you mix with other people daily , if not any risk is minimal. Thanks mate, appreciate it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 1 minute ago, Muppetboy said: Thanks mate, appreciate it No bother hope things are worked out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muppetboy Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 3 minutes ago, Heartsmad1874 said: Aslong as you limit time in big public spaces when shopping, going to restaurants etc so you lessen the risk of you passing it to each other and her taking it to her parents should be okay i'd imagine. Someone on here would have you both away from each other but adults should be trusted to use common sense and their own judgment but not according to some. Much appreciated mate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Victorian said: Sometimes definitive proof for stuff is not an absolute necessity. While some people will draw reasonable conclusions from evidence, in whatever form that takes, others inevitably seize on the absence of proof in order to manipulate an alternative view. I can't see this ending soon. OK It wouldn't be proof. I don't think it would be a reasonable conclusion from evidence either. It would be a proposition fortunately for those who rely on it impossible to disprove at present . Edited September 25, 2020 by Francis Albert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 4 minutes ago, Francis Albert said: OK It wouldn't be proof. I don't think it would be a reasonable conclusion from evidence either. It would be a proposition fortunately for those who rely on it impossible to disprove at present . Righto. Take it there's no proof to be gleaned from Sweden then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Victorian said: Righto. Take it there's no proof to be gleaned from Sweden then. I have never once suggested there was any "proof' to be gleaned from Sweden. Edited September 25, 2020 by Francis Albert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbofan99 Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartsmad1874 Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 (edited) Struggle to understand new restrictions. Case numbers are going to be high when more and more testing is ongoing and people are beginning to do more after a long 6 months however deaths are still relatively low, been so for a while and i'm of the belief that restrictions should only be put in place if the NHS struggles to cope again and with the number of patients in ICU i don't think thats the case. Recent new rulings like face coverings have proved to have not made much if any difference and these pub/restaurant curfews are probably not going to slow a rise in cases. Edited September 25, 2020 by Heartsmad1874 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Canada Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 It's interesting that somewhere in the region of £67 million has been spent on the PCR tests and associated costs so far in Scotland alone. I don't know if anyone else thinks that's poor value for money when they can't tell if someone has the live virus or not. No journalists seem to be asking these kinds of questions. It's not difficult to find an average cost and the total number of tests that have been conducted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spirt of 98 Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 45 minutes ago, Robbofan99 said: Let’s see the graph for April, cause that’s where we’re heading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbofan99 Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 1 minute ago, spirt of 98 said: Let’s see the graph for April, cause that’s where we’re heading. well u want need a graph for April just look at the figures for then . They will be online somewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graygo Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 19 minutes ago, Captain Canada said: It's interesting that somewhere in the region of £67 million has been spent on the PCR tests and associated costs so far in Scotland alone. I don't know if anyone else thinks that's poor value for money when they can't tell if someone has the live virus or not. No journalists seem to be asking these kinds of questions. It's not difficult to find an average cost and the total number of tests that have been conducted. There have been 750,529 tested in Scotland so that averages out at £89.27 per test. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Canada Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, graygo said: There have been 750,529 tested in Scotland so that averages out at £89.27 per test. This is from the SG website suggesting over 1.5m tests. The number you've quoted is individual people rather than tests. "A total of 654,246 COVID-19 tests carried out through NHS labs and 920,154 tests through UKG Labs in Scotland have reported results." It would seem each person is averaging 2 tests unless tests from England are being processed in Scotland? I'm not sure but even the lowest figure would still mean a huge total for a test that's 'a bit rubbish.' Edited September 25, 2020 by Captain Canada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.