Coronavirus

[FTOF]

The problem with people quoting figures to back up their argument, is that these figures are based on data obtained using ever changing, flawed methods and  are largely nebulous in their meaning,  as has been discussed endlessly on here. What happens is someone seizes on a particular figure, and uses it to promote whatever viewpoint that they wish to project onto the general public, whether their viewpoint has any substance to it or not.

IMO the government know that these figures can't be trusted, hence the cautious approach, at present.

The big problem for me is the lack of consistency relating to which businesses can open or not, and the blatant disregard towards basic measures designed to reduce the possibility of virus transmission by a sizeable proportion of individuals. i.e. non-use of face masks in certain circumstances.

For example, why can you have a food takeaway shop with possibly half a dozen individuals working side by side in a kitchen, but not workers on a construction site fitting out the inside of a new build house?

We do need to move more quickly business wise, but, in the short term, it can't just be "back to normal". I certainly think that if social distancing and hygiene measures are observed that the likes of zoos, shops and pubs should be looking to open.

The school matter to an extent is a bit of a red herring. When all this started the outlook was pretty bleak. It's now much improved, and if it continues to improve, then I reckon that the current blended learning (I hate that f**king term) model won't be required for too long. A month or so, might be enough to see if there are any significant consequences in viral spread by putting large groups of pupils together. If not, then the move back to more normal practice, as long as the recommended hygiene measures are maintained, should be sought.

As I've stated before, if we're careful, I think we may see localised outbreaks appearing, which hopefully can be controlled to a certain extent.

We simply don't know whether this virus has had its day and what it holds for the future and that's why some degree of caution still has to be applied.

I stated right at the beginning of this that the cost of lockdown on cancer patients etc. and mental health, could be huge. I hope I'm wrong.  I certainly found it a bit strange that during a global pandemic where the health of millions was under severe strain, that a significant group of medical experts, by their own admission, were the quietest that they had ever been. Most likely due to government advice, but who knows?

 

 

 

 

[ALBIONSAINT]

FTOF, I think the problem is that this is a novel virus so nobody really knows if what they are doing is right. The SG appear to be putting people’s health before business, whether that is right or wrong is up for discussion, I guess we will find out somewhere down the line. In the meantime we can only work with the information we have and base our decisions on that information. 

[St.Ricky]

11 minutes ago, FTOF said:

The problem with people quoting figures to back up their argument, is that these figures are based on data obtained using ever changing, flawed methods and  are largely nebulous in their meaning,  as has been discussed endlessly on here. What happens is someone seizes on a particular figure, and uses it to promote whatever viewpoint that they wish to project onto the general public, whether their viewpoint has any substance to it or not.

IMO the government know that these figures can't be trusted, hence the cautious approach, at present.

The big problem for me is the lack of consistency relating to which businesses can open or not, and the blatant disregard towards basic measures designed to reduce the possibility of virus transmission by a sizeable proportion of individuals. i.e. non-use of face masks in certain circumstances.

For example, why can you have a food takeaway shop with possibly half a dozen individuals working side by side in a kitchen, but not workers on a construction site fitting out the inside of a new build house?

We do need to move more quickly business wise, but, in the short term, it can't just be "back to normal". I certainly think that if social distancing and hygiene measures are observed that the likes of zoos, shops and pubs should be looking to open.

The school matter to an extent is a bit of a red herring. When all this started the outlook was pretty bleak. It's now much improved, and if it continues to improve, then I reckon that the current blended learning (I hate that f**king term) model won't be required for too long. A month or so, might be enough to see if there are any significant consequences in viral spread by putting large groups of pupils together. If not, then the move back to more normal practice, as long as the recommended hygiene measures are maintained, should be sought.

As I've stated before, if we're careful, I think we may see localised outbreaks appearing, which hopefully can be controlled to a certain extent.

We simply don't know whether this virus has had its day and what it holds for the future and that's why some degree of caution still has to be applied.

I stated right at the beginning of this that the cost of lockdown on cancer patients etc. and mental health, could be huge. I hope I'm wrong.  I certainly found it a bit strange that during a global pandemic where the health of millions was under severe strain, that a significant group of medical experts, by their own admission, were the quietest that they had ever been. Most likely due to government advice, but who knows?

 

 

 

 

A comprehensive review. I agree that not enough is known about the virus. Decisions, good or bad, can only be taken on the information available. What is clear is that an earlier closing of our borders and a rigorous track, trace and isolate poilcy would have been likely to have greatly reduced infection and deaths. In other words.. More early caution would have been sensible. It seems strange, therefore to argue in favour of being incautious by too fast a return to gatherings in pubs, clubs, theatres, cinemas etc. Money can be borrowed and repaid but history appears to show that the dead remain dead. 

[faraway saint]

29 minutes ago, FTOF said:

The problem with people quoting figures to back up their argument, is that these figures are based on data obtained using ever changing, flawed methods and  are largely nebulous in their meaning,  as has been discussed endlessly on here. What happens is someone seizes on a particular figure, and uses it to promote whatever viewpoint that they wish to project onto the general public, whether their viewpoint has any substance to it or not.

IMO the government know that these figures can't be trusted, hence the cautious approach, at present.

The big problem for me is the lack of consistency relating to which businesses can open or not, and the blatant disregard towards basic measures designed to reduce the possibility of virus transmission by a sizeable proportion of individuals. i.e. non-use of face masks in certain circumstances.

For example, why can you have a food takeaway shop with possibly half a dozen individuals working side by side in a kitchen, but not workers on a construction site fitting out the inside of a new build house?

We do need to move more quickly business wise, but, in the short term, it can't just be "back to normal". I certainly think that if social distancing and hygiene measures are observed that the likes of zoos, shops and pubs should be looking to open.

The school matter to an extent is a bit of a red herring. When all this started the outlook was pretty bleak. It's now much improved, and if it continues to improve, then I reckon that the current blended learning (I hate that f**king term) model won't be required for too long. A month or so, might be enough to see if there are any significant consequences in viral spread by putting large groups of pupils together. If not, then the move back to more normal practice, as long as the recommended hygiene measures are maintained, should be sought.

As I've stated before, if we're careful, I think we may see localised outbreaks appearing, which hopefully can be controlled to a certain extent.

We simply don't know whether this virus has had its day and what it holds for the future and that's why some degree of caution still has to be applied.

I stated right at the beginning of this that the cost of lockdown on cancer patients etc. and mental health, could be huge. I hope I'm wrong.  I certainly found it a bit strange that during a global pandemic where the health of millions was under severe strain, that a significant group of medical experts, by their own admission, were the quietest that they had ever been. Most likely due to government advice, but who knows?

 

 

 

 

^^^^^^^ Too much time on his hands. 

[faraway saint]

22 minutes ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

FTOF, I think the problem is that this is a novel virus so nobody really knows if what they are doing is right. The SG appear to be putting people’s health before business, whether that is right or wrong is up for discussion, I guess we will find out somewhere down the line. In the meantime we can only work with the information we have and base our decisions on that information. 

In cases like this there's going to be some variances in numbers, that's the same for every country.

The thing is, as you say, we, and governments make decisions based on numbers they have.

Most of what @FTOF says has elements of truth, when you type that much you've GOT to get something right. 

I seen a quite from Italian government   member who, being honest, said something along the lines they HAD to take a calculated risk or the country would be crippled.

There's going to be a risk, it's been reduced enough, IMO, to open things up starting this week.

I need some granddaughter time. 

[St.Ricky]

There are 24 hours in each day. Since I don't spend many of them betting, boozing or watching meaningless football matches on TV then I can put my time to better use perhaps. 

Back to The C. V. 

My guess is that we will continue to move forward more slowly than in England. I do think that there will be a degree of conditionality in opening up further. Our position on masks will largely mirror that of England. Our position on social distancing too with masks might be reduced to one metre but cashless and table service only in pubs and cafes. 

[St.Ricky]

30 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

In cases like this there's going to be some variances in numbers, that's the same for every country.

The thing is, as you say, we, and governments make decisions based on numbers they have.

Most of what @FTOF says has elements of truth, when you type that much you've GOT to get something right. 

I seen a quite from Italian government   member who, being honest, said something along the lines they HAD to take a calculated risk or the country would be crippled.

There's going to be a risk, it's been reduced enough, IMO, to open things up starting this week.

I need some granddaughter time. 

To quote you.. Quite

But.. Quite wrong in wanting to move too quickly

Edited June 16, 2020 by St.Ricky

[faraway saint]

13 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

There are 24 hours in each day. Since I don't spend many of them betting, boozing or watching meaningless football matches on TV then I can put my time to better use perhaps. 

Back to The C. V. 

My guess is that we will continue to move forward more slowly than in England. I do think that there will be a degree of conditionality in opening up further. Our position on masks will largely mirror that of England. Our position on social distancing too with masks might be reduced to one metre but cashless and table service only in pubs and cafes. 

Hilarious, as you average just over 11 posts EVERY day compared my paltry 8 a day.

Aye, you have MUCH better things to do, if you include trolling. 

Back to CV? You took it OFF topic, ya absolute fool. 

[Bud the Baker]

I see NZ has recorded it's first 2 cases of Covid in weeks...

Quote

New Zealand ends Covid-free run with two cases from UK

Pair drove nearly 650km to visit dying parent after being released early from quarantine but officials claim public were not at risk

But the news of the women’s travel forced the government to suspend its policy of granting compassionate exemptions to its quarantine rules.

 

[faraway saint]

3 hours ago, Ayrshire Saints said:

2 new cases in NZ confirmed overnight, source believed to be 2 UK nationals who travelled for a family funeral. Interesting to see if they can shut this down instantly.

 

2 hours ago, smcc said:

AFAIK they were not quarantined on arrival in NZ but were allowed to visit a dying relative. I have no idea how long they have been in NZ but there is obviously  an opportunity for further spread.

 

2 hours ago, faraway saint said:

They were, but were released early to reach the relative who was dying. They had arrived on 7th June.

The pair were released early from government quarantine and permitted to drive from the city of Auckland to Wellington, the capital – nearly 650km away –

The women – one aged in her 30s and the other in her 40s – had arrived in Auckland on a flight from the UK via Brisbane, Australia, on 7 June, Bloomfield said

 

 

2 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

I see NZ has recorded it's first 2 cases of Covid in weeks...

 

Finger on the pulse. 

[St.Ricky]

4 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

I see NZ has recorded it's first 2 cases of Covid in weeks...

 

2 ladies from the UK. Were in isolation in NZ hotel. They were given a dispensation to travel 650 miles or so to visit a dying relative. 

F Man has a direct line to Jacinda

Edited June 16, 2020 by St.Ricky

[St.Ricky]

My, but that wee man has a terrible temper. Lack of self control must have held him back in life. Talk first, think later. The pattern continues on here. 

[Bud the Baker]

2 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Finger on the pulse. 

As ever it wasn't on the top page and being lazy I couldn't be bothered going back. .

Still it shows they are quarantining in the Antipodes and I presume the prospect of a "travel bubble" with them is not an immediate prospect.

[faraway saint]

2 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

As ever it wasn't on the top page and being lazy I couldn't be bothered going back. .

Still it shows they are quarantining in the Antipodes and I presume the prospect of a "travel bubble" with them is not an immediate prospect.

Apologies, it seems I have a temper. 

Hope you've recovered from my post. 

[St.Ricky]

Granddaughter time didn't last long. The attention span of a gnat. 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Interesting factoid, the the R number for measles is 15 although less fatal it does give a bit of context when you realise the COVID R number is between 0.6 and 0.8 

Less fatal is a bit of an understatement

[FTOF]

1 hour ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

FTOF, I think the problem is that this is a novel virus so nobody really knows if what they are doing is right. The SG appear to be putting people’s health before business, whether that is right or wrong is up for discussion, I guess we will find out somewhere down the line. In the meantime we can only work with the information we have and base our decisions on that information. 

Indeed.

If you look back in the thread it's what I've been saying all along. It's going to take a while, to fully understand this virus and that's assuming we ever do.

Despite the huge amount of work undoubtedly being spent by scientists studying this virus, the mention of positive developments in relation to producing a vaccine have been very thin on the ground over the past couple of months.

[FTOF]

1 hour ago, faraway saint said:

^^^^^^^ Too much time on his hands. 

I'm trying to convert documents to make them more user friendly to pupils on Google classroom. It's not going well……………………………………..

[St.Ricky]

1 minute ago, FTOF said:

I'm trying to convert documents to make them more user friendly to pupils on Google classroom. It's not going well……………………………………..

Doesn't sound like much fun. 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

FTOF, I think the problem is that this is a novel virus so nobody really knows if what they are doing is right. The SG appear to be putting people’s health before business, whether that is right or wrong is up for discussion, I guess we will find out somewhere down the line. In the meantime we can only work with the information we have and base our decisions on that information. 

Happy to have that discussion. On what grounds should business be put before the health of the public in relation to a highly contagious respiratory virus.

[faraway saint]

15 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

1 hour ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

FTOF, I think the problem is that this is a novel virus so nobody really knows if what they are doing is right. The SG appear to be putting people’s health before business, whether that is right or wrong is up for discussion, I guess we will find out somewhere down the line. In the meantime we can only work with the information we have and base our decisions on that information. 

Happy to have that discussion. On what grounds should business be put before the health of the public in relation to a highly contagious respiratory virus.

Opening many business's, with proper hygiene systems in place, doesn't need to spread the virus.

Again, OTHER countries do it, although that doesn't suit your ever narrowing viewpoint. 

Maybe you should have the discussions with wee Nicola.................

PS Even the forum fool (see below) has a better grasp of reality than you, just about sums up your standing. 

Working or running a business: In Phase 2, remote working should remain the default position for those who can. Non-essential, indoor non-office-based workplaces can resume, once relevant guidance has been agreed – including factories and warehouses, lab and research facilities – with physical distancing. We are planning for the construction sector to implement remaining stages of phased return.

 

Edited June 16, 2020 by faraway saint

[St.Ricky]

8 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

1 hour ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

FTOF, I think the problem is that this is a novel virus so nobody really knows if what they are doing is right. The SG appear to be putting people’s health before business, whether that is right or wrong is up for discussion, I guess we will find out somewhere down the line. In the meantime we can only work with the information we have and base our decisions on that information. 

Happy to have that discussion. On what grounds should business be put before the health of the public in relation to a highly contagious respiratory virus.

 

8 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

1 hour ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

FTOF, I think the problem is that this is a novel virus so nobody really knows if what they are doing is right. The SG appear to be putting people’s health before business, whether that is right or wrong is up for discussion, I guess we will find out somewhere down the line. In the meantime we can only work with the information we have and base our decisions on that information. 

Happy to have that discussion. On what grounds should business be put before the health of the public in relation to a highly contagious respiratory virus.

A rhetorical question. None.. But in the real world there has to be a balance of risk. Therefore.. As low as possible. Flying is eg. Statistically very safe and highly regulated but planes do crash. We don't all stop flying. But... People first, economy second. 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

 

 

 

A rhetorical question. None.. But in the real world there has to be a balance of risk. Therefore.. As low as possible. Flying is eg. Statistically very safe and highly regulated but planes do crash. We don't all stop flying. But... People first, economy second. 

 

And that's exactly what the government will say they are doing. Managing the risk to as low a level as possible to protect lives.

 

There's a good chance UK Gov will say same even though they are taking a different approach.

 

I'm not sure even trump would claim to be putting business before the health of the population.

 

 

 

[portmahomack saint]

15 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

 

 

 

 

 

And that's exactly what the government will say they are doing. Managing the risk to as low a level as possible to protect lives.

 

There's a good chance UK Gov will say same even though they are taking a different approach.

 

I'm not sure even trump would claim to be putting business before the health of the population.

 

 

 

You just took that too far mate 

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, TPAFKATS said:

3 hours ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

FTOF, I think the problem is that this is a novel virus so nobody really knows if what they are doing is right. The SG appear to be putting people’s health before business, whether that is right or wrong is up for discussion, I guess we will find out somewhere down the line. In the meantime we can only work with the information we have and base our decisions on that information. 

Happy to have that discussion. On what grounds should business be put before the health of the public in relation to a highly contagious respiratory virus.

Who is suggesting it needs to be a binary decision?