Coronavirus

[oaksoft 13,893]

59 minutes ago, antrin said:

Aye.

 

That was why Orkney happily prevented non-islanders and those with no REAL business using the Ferries to the Islands.

A political decision then.

[oaksoft 13,893]

1 hour ago, Cookie Monster said:

 

 

As I work with numerous folk from Argyll and Bute I know for a fact that figure is wrong.

I don't know where you got your figures from as in the last 7 days, there has been 7 reported cases according to Public Health Scotland.
 

 

Are you actually splitting hairs over a couple of cases? 

Fair enough.

[FTOF 11,494]

[WeeBud 1,288]

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

So like I said, the decision is political rather than based on health data.

At the moment you can't travel to those areas outwith your own local authority without good reason anyway.

Once the law changes I'm not sure what people on the islands can do to stop others visiting if they want to do so.

It’s really about health in all honesty, it’s not there just now and the islanders want to see the effects of the loosening of travel restrictions before allowing free travel to the island......the FM has already said that the islands will have a say in when they are available to everyone. Barra had over 5% of its population contract the virus and had over 10% self isolating in an outbreak over a seven day period.....as I said the age and vulnerability of the island population puts it at more risk than mainland and very few of the islands have hospitals or hospital beds. 

[antrin 5,085]

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

A political decision then.

If the concept of self-preservation and protecting your loved ones can be construed as "political",  then you may be right.

[smcc 1,286]

Is it not constructive to suggest that you might develop some common sense?

[bazil85 3,348]

2 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Zero cases baz.

Zero cases.

Perhaps they are cautiously waiting for cases to drop into negative numbers before reacting. 

You are welcome to attempt an answer to my question about why pubs are currently not allowed to fully open in those areas when they have zero cases.

Wouldn't likely be zero if they opened up in a manner where people were coming in and out and mixing. 

You open pubs in these areas, you encourage travel to them and the virus spreads. You open pubs in a lot of places like this and don't allow travel, many may not have the business to keep them going as there will be a heavy tourism requirement for a lot I imagine. 

Edited April 7 by bazil85

[smcc 1,286]

4 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Feel free to contribute something constructive once in a while. 

It's OK, the government have not banned that activity. 

Is it not constructive to suggest that you might develop some common sense?

[oaksoft 13,893]

12 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Wouldn't likely be zero if they opened up in a manner where people were coming in and out and mixing. 

You open pubs in these areas, you encourage travel to them and the virus spreads. You open pubs in a lot of places like this and don't allow travel, many may not have the business to keep them going as there will be a heavy tourism requirement for a lot I imagine. 

OK so that is called not trusting the public and is a decision based on politics not health data. That's all I'm saying.

[oaksoft 13,893]

13 hours ago, antrin said:

If the concept of self-preservation and protecting your loved ones can be construed as "political",  then you may be right.

I do like the smell of a bit of melodrama first thing in the morning.

Cannae beat it.

[oaksoft 13,893]

13 hours ago, WeeBud said:

It’s really about health in all honesty, it’s not there just now and the islanders want to see the effects of the loosening of travel restrictions before allowing free travel to the island......the FM has already said that the islands will have a say in when they are available to everyone. Barra had over 5% of its population contract the virus and had over 10% self isolating in an outbreak over a seven day period.....as I said the age and vulnerability of the island population puts it at more risk than mainland and very few of the islands have hospitals or hospital beds. 

So why are the pubs not fully open on the islands if nobody is allowed to visit those islands and there are no cases there?

Why are there any restrictions at all at zero cases with nobody allowed in?

Edited Thursday at 06:55 AM by oaksoft

[insaintee 4,934]

15 hours ago, oaksoft said:

How does banning the full opening pubs in Orkney, Dumfries and Shetland when they have zero infections cause an importation of cases? That seems a reasonable question to ask.

People travel from the mainland to go to the pub. We have "covid" tourism now.  

[bazil85 3,348]

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

OK so that is called not trusting the public and is a decision based on politics not health data. That's all I'm saying.

Do you not think fully trusting the public is a tiny bit idealistic given the last 14-15 months? We are also pretty close to people being allowed to travel for self catering breaks I believe, if a bunch of Scotland has open hospitality, people could technically legally go to these areas and use the pubs, I would bet they would in large numbers compared to places without open pubs. Again spreading the virus. 

For me it's where you draw the line regarding attendance to pubs in these areas, mitigation of such pent up want for many over the last year and management of the cost and reward for so many businesses in so many of these areas, especially if reliant on tourism. 

You can claim it's all political if you want but there is certainly economic and public health concerns that are factoring into keeping these places closed. 

[DougJamie 6,928]

Personally I hoped all pubs in Paisley remained shut permanently

Less Jakies, Less Junkies, Less Beggars in the town centre

Must all have found redemption

 

[Cookie Monster 1,556]

So why are the pubs not fully open on the islands if nobody is allowed to visit those islands and there are no cases there?
Why are there any restrictions at all at zero cases with nobody allowed in?

No stock, they can't get deliveries.

[faraway saint 31,638]

1 minute ago, Cookie Monster said:

 

 

No stock, they can't get deliveries.

 

Poor people, starving to death. 🤪

[WeeBud 1,288]

3 hours ago, oaksoft said:

So why are the pubs not fully open on the islands if nobody is allowed to visit those islands and there are no cases there?

Why are there any restrictions at all at zero cases with nobody allowed in?

Because "essential workers" are allowed onto the islands and generally stay in the hotels which are attached to the local pubs. If the pubs are open to all then the "essential workers" will mix with the locals in a bar with alcohol flowing and, as always with alcohol, peoples inhibitions and awareness of their environment will drop.....it really is pretty simple!!

[Tommy 3,735]

Personally I hoped all pubs in Paisley remained shut permanently
Less Jakies, Less Junkies, Less Beggars in the town centre
Must all have found redemption
 

Think I will move back to Renfrew now

[Bud the Baker 8,933]

The government's gammonesque policies wrt the pandemic from March-December 2020 were a disaster and the reason for many of the 150,000 Covid deaths the UK has suffered - that's all been pointed out before.

Since then a combination of a successful vaccination program and a third lockdown has brought the situation back under control. We currently have a route out of Lockdown "dates based on data" which I see no need to change.

It would've seemed incredible 3/4 month's ago but our leader and self-styled "King of the World" is likely to come out of this smelling of roses!🌺

Edited Thursday at 11:48 AM by Bud the Baker

[faraway saint 31,638]

47 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

The government's gammonesque policies wrt the pandemic from March-December 2020 were, like most countries, trying to deal with the unknown, and one of many reasons for a number of the 126,927 Covid deaths the UK has suffered - that's all been pointed out before.

Since then a combination of a successful vaccination program and a third lockdown has brought the situation back under control. We currently have a route out of Lockdown "dates based on data" which I see no need to change.

It would've seemed incredible 3/4 month's ago but our leader and self-styled "King of the World" is likely to come out of this smelling of roses!🌺

A few alterations, wouldn't want your one sided view to be seen as "Facts".

As for your last sentence, well, while some of the utter drivel aimed at Johnson has been, frankly, embarrassing, it's also ridiculous to suggest everything that has happened previously should make him out some sort of hero. 

The last year, or so, has been a f**k up in proportions I hope we never see again, some avoidable, some, unfortunately, not. 

This GREAT thread is a classic, lots of views, lots of drivel, everything that makes a thread great, but it's also a reflection of people's views/feeling in a terrible time. 

Can't wait for it, this thread, to drop down and into the archives of the forum. 

[bazil85 3,348]

7 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

A few alterations, wouldn't want your one sided view to be seen as "Facts".

As for your last sentence, well, while some of the utter drivel aimed at Johnson has been, frankly, embarrassing, it's also ridiculous to suggest everything that has happened previously should make him out some sort of hero. 

The last year, or so, has been a f**k up in proportions I hope we never see again, some avoidable, some, unfortunately, not. 

This GREAT thread is a classic, lots of views, lots of drivel, everything that makes a thread great, but it's also a reflection of people's views/feeling in a terrible time. 

Can't wait for it, this thread, to drop down and into the archives of the forum. 

And we can get some focus on the real issues, like what brilliant banter it is that SMISA want £1,500 for a panda suit... 

[Bud the Baker 8,933]

33 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

A few alterations, wouldn't want your one sided view to be seen as "Facts".

As for your last sentence, well, while some of the utter drivel aimed at Johnson has been, frankly, embarrassing, it's also ridiculous to suggest everything that has happened previously should make him out some sort of hero. 

The last year, or so, has been a f**k up in proportions I hope we never see again, some avoidable, some, unfortunately, not. 

This GREAT thread is a classic, lots of views, lots of drivel, everything that makes a thread great, but it's also a reflection of people's views/feeling in a terrible time. 

Can't wait for it, this thread, to drop down and into the archives of the forum. 

The 150,000 deaths is not my "one sided view" it's the ONS figure and shared by many leading scientists who have no axe to grind, unlike the government who after a number of changes conveniently settled on the lowest figure - in reality as I said the total currently stands at 150,000 UK Covid deaths.

As for spinning BJ as "some sorta hero" it's already happening, there were no mistakes. just unfortunate decisions that can only be criticized with the benefit of hindsight (Keir Starmer = Captain Hindsight) and a vaccination success which could not have happened without Brexit, conveniently forgetting that the program started before we "left" @antrin and implemented under EU emergency protocols

[faraway saint 31,638]

1 hour ago, Bud the Baker said:

The 150,000 deaths is not my "one sided view" it's the ONS figure and shared by many leading scientists who have no axe to grind, unlike the government who after a number of changes conveniently settled on the lowest figure - in reality as I said the total currently stands at 150,000 UK Covid deaths.

As for spinning BJ as "some sorta hero" it's already happening, there were no mistakes. just unfortunate decisions that can only be criticized with the benefit of hindsight (Keir Starmer = Captain Hindsight) and a vaccination success which could not have happened without Brexit, conveniently forgetting that the program started before we "left" @antrin and implemented under EU emergency protocols

Who use a method of measuring that's flawed, IMO, but you CHOOSE to believe the worst figure as it's always suited your agenda. 

We both agree hindsight has been used by many, in government and the general public, who, fortunately haven't been in the position to HAVE to make decisions at a time when it was almost a "lose/lose" situation. 

Anyway, here's to the day I can burn my fecking masks as, when it's deemed the right time, I, for one, won't be continuing with this stupid fashion accessory. 

 

[Bud the Baker 8,933]

39 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Who use a method of measuring that's flawed, IMO, but you CHOOSE to believe the worst figure as it's always suited your agenda. 

We both agree hindsight has been used by many, in government and the general public, who, fortunately haven't been in the position to HAVE to make decisions at a time when it was almost a "lose/lose" situation. 

Anyway, here's to the day I can burn my fecking masks as, when it's deemed the right time, I, for one, won't be continuing with this stupid fashion accessory. 

 

Everyone's got an agenda, even you I daresay. My opinion is that the government's preferred count is wrong and I've cited organizations and Scientists who have provided a more accurate one, I trust them above a proven liar with a reason to minimize the death toll and his gammon acolytes. Once again I'll ask the question you've never answered  - why would the ONS & the scientists who've backed them lie?

None of these blunders below can be put down to hindsight

• The "non policy" of herd immunity that meant we went into Lockdown1 too late
• Not making mask wearing compulsory in enclosed spaces compulsory coming out of Lockdown1.
• Going into Lockdown2 too late (go back to Oct4/p323 of this thread) 
• England coming out of their second lockdown too soon and putting London into Tier2 when the new variant was exploding down there - how many lives did that cost BJ?
• The Christmas fiasco (again go back to Oct4/p323 of this thread)

Any suggestions that the Covid getting worse over the winter was not foreseeable/inevitable and that the peak would be in the "flu season" Jan/Feb are apologies and not very convincing ones at that!

[faraway saint 31,638]

1 minute ago, Bud the Baker said:

Everyone's got an agenda, even you I daresay. My opinion is that the government's preferred count is wrong and I've cited organizations and Scientists who have provided a more accurate one, I trust them above a proven liar with a reason to minimize the death toll and his gammon acolytes. Once again I'll ask the question you've never answered  - why would the ONS & the scientists who've backed them lie?

None of these blunders below can be put down to hindsight

• The "non policy" of herd immunity that meant we went into Lockdown1 too late
• Not making mask wearing compulsory in enclosed spaces compulsory coming out of Lockdown1.
• Going into Lockdown2 too late (go back to Oct4/p323 of this thread) 
• England coming out of their second lockdown too soon and putting London into Tier2 when the new variant was exploding down there - how many lives did that cost BJ?
• The Christmas fiasco (again go back to Oct4/p323 of this thread)

Any suggestions that the Covid getting worse over the winter was not foreseeable/inevitable and that the peak would be in the "flu season" Jan/Feb are apologies and not very convincing ones at that!

Who said they lied?  

Blunders, aye, probably the same as 90% of every government in the world. 

Yes, they CAN be seen as blunders in HINDSIGHT as they were done using whatever data was available at the time. 

You do remember the amount of "scientists" that were coming out of the woodwork with various theories? 

Old ground, thanks for playing...............................onwards an upwards.