Coronavirus

Interesting chart here given that the UK and Peru locked down, and Brazil and Sweden didn't.

Raises the question of whether a full lockdown was necessary, or should we have focused instead on shielding the at risk groups.



https://scontent.flhr2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...89&oe=5F2FEE81

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

Sridhar does advise ScotGov, and speaks very clear sense whenever she's on the tellybox, which is quite a lot. Sometimes makes me wonder who's getting the better advice on public health - Sturgeon, from a professor of public health, or Johnson, from a weirdo spad who can barely dress himself.

---

Theyve started using her quite a bit as the go to expert on UK wide BBC radio.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GlesgaeHibby

Interesting chart here given that the UK and Peru locked down, and Brazil and Sweden didn't.

Raises the question of whether a full lockdown was necessary, or should we have focused instead on shielding the at risk groups.



https://scontent.flhr2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...89&oe=5F2FEE81

---

The main thing that graph tells you is that there are only two countries with deaths climbing faster than the other three, Brazil and Peru, probably because the virus is now moving to that part of the globe. Only having five sample countries and those countries having very different degrees of lockdown means the data doesnt tell you much about the efficacy of policy IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibsbollah

Theyve started using her quite a bit as the go to expert on UK wide BBC radio.

---

She's been interviewed on numerous programmes on all tv channels for months.

What I find a bit odd, is why the SG have never had any of their Scientific Advisory Group appear at any of the daily briefings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GlesgaeHibby

Interesting chart here given that the UK and Peru locked down, and Brazil and Sweden didn't.

Raises the question of whether a full lockdown was necessary, or should we have focused instead on shielding the at risk groups.



https://scontent.flhr2-1.fna.fbcdn.n...89&oe=5F2FEE81

---

Difficult to describe the UK as ever being in full lockdown. It was implemented late, lifted too early in some places, with a number of exemptions and then add in top of that the disastrous decision to send many infected people from hospital back into care homes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CapitalGreen

Difficult to describe the UK as ever being in full lockdown. It was implemented late, lifted too early in some places, with a number of exemptions and then add in top of that the disastrous decision to send many infected people from hospital back into care homes.

---

Couldn't agree more. They continually say they were following the science. Pretty obvious they didn't lock down earlier as they were caught on the hop.

The pre pandemic exercise's carried out by all 4 nations highlighted this lack of preparedness some time ago and yet they did nothing to address this.

Given they could see what had unfolded in Italy there was no logical reason to not lockdown earlier, it would have saved thousands of lives.

Not closing the borders was the biggest mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibsbollah

The main thing that graph tells you is that there are only two countries with deaths climbing faster than the other three, Brazil and Peru, probably because the virus is now moving to that part of the globe. Only having five sample countries and those countries having very different degrees of lockdown means the data doesnt tell you much about the efficacy of policy IMO.

---

You can add data for other countries at the website.

It does show that the UK and Sweden have had broadly similar outcomes having taken very different policy approaches - although I appreciate it's not that simple given other factors like vastly different population densities between the two countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir David Gray

Where do you live?

---

Manchester. We've been in lock down the whole time. We've not broken rules and neither have either of parents. I don't see is any different than going to someone's down the street.

It's just unclear from here what stage Scotland is at compared to the cluster F. Down here.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GlesgaeHibby

You can add data for other countries at the website.

It does show that the UK and Sweden have had broadly similar outcomes having taken very different policy approaches - although I appreciate it's not that simple given other factors like vastly different population densities between the two countries.

---

There was a scientific school of thought, and I'm sure it was referenced fairly early in this thread, that suggested without a vaccine in the short to medium term a majority of countries would show similar levels of infection and death rates per head of population regardless of whether they locked down or not. The big difference was at what stage and how rapidly those deaths occurred.

The graph you posted is a small sample size but I don't think the thinking behind it is all that out there.

There is definitely a swell of “anti-lockdown” opinion, particularly amongst the type of conservative who values individual liberty (and particular the individual’s right to earn money) over all other rights.

Personally I believe that the initial lockdown was more than justified - given what we knew at the time about the coronavirus - and that it ideally should have occurred earlier, but I’m open to the idea of different approaches in future as we learn more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GlesgaeHibby

It does show that the UK and Sweden have had broadly similar outcomes having taken very different policy approaches

---

You could fairly easily argue that for a crucial part of the time - that period when UKGov was talking openly about herd immunity, before they started denying they had ever talked about it - the policy approach was identical to Sweden's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just_Jimmy

Manchester. We've been in lock down the whole time. We've not broken rules and neither have either of parents. I don't see is any different than going to someone's down the street.

It's just unclear from here what stage Scotland is at compared to the cluster F. Down here.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

---

As of yesterday 3 households can now meet indoors in Scotland (up to a maximum of 8 people) including overnight stays.

There's no specific guidance that I've seen that mentions travel between the different areas of the UK but considering people can now come into Scotland from numerous parts of the world without needing to quarantine, I don't see why you can't visit your parents considering the current rules on indoor meetings between households.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

You could fairly easily argue that for a crucial part of the time - that period when UKGov was talking openly about herd immunity, before they started denying they had ever talked about it - the policy approach was identical to Sweden's.

---

Indeed, what the British government claimed was policy, what was policy and what actually happened are 3 completely different things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just_Jimmy

With the changes, can I now come home and visit my parents. Neither of us has been home now for 9 months.

I'd like to get back in 2020.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

---

Yes you can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CapitalGreen

Difficult to describe the UK as ever being in full lockdown. It was implemented late, lifted too early in some places, with a number of exemptions and then add in top of that the disastrous decision to send many infected people from hospital back into care homes.

---

Perhaps not a full lockdown, but the UK still implemented a lockdown that imposed serious restrictions on our freedoms for a considerable period of time, backed up with high compliance rates (at least initially). Kids haven't been in school since March, people's mental and physical health have suffered, many businesses have shut their doors for good as a result of pretty draconian measures. These measures will have a lasting impact, and take a long time to recover from. Fully understand that scientific advisors have a very difficult job here, in trying to navigate the safest path through managing the direct risks of Covid-19 to public health, and the wider risks of lockdown on the economy, and health. Time, and a full enquiry at an appropriate point, will tell us what we got right and what we got wrong here.

Fully agree on the care homes scandal - the single biggest failing in all this IMO. Data was clear that the virus was seriously dangerous for those in older age groups, and those with underlying health conditions. Protecting them from the virus should have been the priority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

You could fairly easily argue that for a crucial part of the time - that period when UKGov was talking openly about herd immunity, before they started denying they had ever talked about it - the policy approach was identical to Sweden's.

---

True. Herd immunity caused a lot of anger at the time, and I think that's more down to the way it was communicated at a time when people were really anxious about the virus and what impact it would have on us in the UK.

Herd immunity is our exit strategy though - either through enough of us being exposed to the virus and developing antibodies, or through vaccination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GlesgaeHibby

You can add data for other countries at the website.

It does show that the UK and Sweden have had broadly similar outcomes having taken very different policy approaches - although I appreciate it's not that simple given other factors like vastly different population densities between the two countries.

---

UK and Sweden are 2 of the worst performers and were fairly close in terms of policy approach. There’s a measure of “lockdown strictness” somewhere on the FT site. and both were behind the curve putting measures in place.

Sweden wasn’t quite as slow as the UK but was a bit less strict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smartie

There is definitely a swell of “anti-lockdown” opinion, particularly amongst the type of conservative who values individual liberty (and particular the individual’s right to earn money) over all other rights.

Personally I believe that the initial lockdown was more than justified - given what we knew at the time about the coronavirus - and that it ideally should have occurred earlier, but I’m open to the idea of different approaches in future as we learn more.

---

They’re like climate deniers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just_Jimmy

Manchester. We've been in lock down the whole time. We've not broken rules and neither have either of parents. I don't see is any different than going to someone's down the street.

It's just unclear from here what stage Scotland is at compared to the cluster F. Down here.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

---

Yes and from today you can stay overnight. You are still supposed to 2m distance and follow hygiene regime etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir David Gray

As of yesterday 3 households can now meet indoors in Scotland (up to a maximum of 8 people) including overnight stays.

There's no specific guidance that I've seen that mentions travel between the different areas of the UK but considering people can now come into Scotland from numerous parts of the world without needing to quarantine, I don't see why you can't visit your parents considering the current rules on indoor meetings between households.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scouse Hibee

Yes you can.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

Yes and from today you can stay overnight. You are still supposed to 2m distance and follow hygiene regime etc.

---

Excellent news. It'll be a few weeks before we can anyway but it's good to know.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

They’re like climate deniers.

---

Opposition to lockdown, for some, will be purely financially driven, but that's really quite a poor generalisation. On the climate, the scientific evidence base is absolutely clear that we need to take drastic action or face devastating consequences. We know exactly what action we need to take (getting politicians moving on it is the issue).

On Covid-19, taking action to lockdown the country no doubt helped to break chains of transmission, but at great cost to both the economy and public health (through postponed treatment, postponed screening, people not presenting at hospitals during peak of crisis, impact of lockdown on mental health etc). We know austerity led to deaths, and the recession / increased unemployment as a result of lockdown will also drive people into poverty and have a lasting and damaging impact on public health.

Dealing with Covid-19 was always going to be about finding the path of least harm. Given that the virus ripped through care homes, and to a lesser extent hospitals (due to nosocomial outbreaks) I think we'd be in a better place both in terms of number of deaths and impact on the economy if we'd properly protected those who are extremely vulnerable to the virus (our older population, and those with existing co-morbidities). We know that the impact for young people with no underlying health conditions is low, which suggests locking down that group wasn't the right thing to do.

For context, across Scotland there have been over 4,000 Covid-19 related deaths. Of that number, 28 were in the 15-44 age category. In 2018 there were 279 male suicides in the 15-44 age category in Scotland. Add in females and it takes you to 370. I fear the number for 2020 will be higher when you consider the emotional strain of lockdown, coupled with the fear, stress and reality of many losing their jobs - although I sincerely hope it won't be.

Daily Scottish update;

7 new cases since yesterday
Decrease of 49 in hospital including a decrease of 14 in the confirmed cases
Decrease of 6 in intensive care
4121 have left hospital since 5th March
No deaths registered since yesterday

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GlesgaeHibby

Opposition to lockdown, for some, will be purely financially driven, but that's really quite a poor generalisation. On the climate, the scientific evidence base is absolutely clear that we need to take drastic action or face devastating consequences. We know exactly what action we need to take (getting politicians moving on it is the issue).

On Covid-19, taking action to lockdown the country no doubt helped to break chains of transmission, but at great cost to both the economy and public health (through postponed treatment, postponed screening, people not presenting at hospitals during peak of crisis, impact of lockdown on mental health etc). We know austerity led to deaths, and the recession / increased unemployment as a result of lockdown will also drive people into poverty and have a lasting and damaging impact on public health.

Dealing with Covid-19 was always going to be about finding the path of least harm. Given that the virus ripped through care homes, and to a lesser extent hospitals (due to nosocomial outbreaks) I think we'd be in a better place both in terms of number of deaths and impact on the economy if we'd properly protected those who are extremely vulnerable to the virus (our older population, and those with existing co-morbidities). We know that the impact for young people with no underlying health conditions is low, which suggests locking down that group wasn't the right thing to do.

For context, across Scotland there have been over 4,000 Covid-19 related deaths. Of that number, 28 were in the 15-44 age category. In 2018 there were 279 male suicides in the 15-44 age category in Scotland. Add in females and it takes you to 370. I fear the number for 2020 will be higher when you consider the emotional strain of lockdown, coupled with the fear, stress and reality of many losing their jobs - although I sincerely hope it won't be.

---

It has been a tricky situation to deal with in real time and with little proper evidence to go on. In a situation like that, governments should be allowed to govern as they see fit and in what they see as the best interests of their people.

There are aspects of your post that I agree with, there is much that I disagree with. What I would point out is that there still quite a lot of mights and maybes in there. There might be a spike in suicides. There might be an increase in cancer cases not picked up in a timeous fashion.

There’s a chance that those things may prove not to be severe as we might think, and it might shape how we do things in future.

Gathering evidence once this has all played out then rigorously analysing it will hopefully lead to appropriate conclusions.

I maintain we were correct to lockdown in the first instance but would hope a more targeted approach may be adopted in future, as we learn more and more about the behaviour of this virus.

Let’s use the benefit of hindsight and not bash those who did not have the benefit of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir David Gray

Daily Scottish update;

7 new cases since yesterday
Decrease of 49 in hospital including a decrease of 14 in the confirmed cases
Decrease of 6 in intensive care
4121 have left hospital since 5th March
No deaths registered since yesterday

---

Good stats, and a wee bit heartening after yesterday's 18 new cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GlesgaeHibby

Opposition to lockdown, for some, will be purely financially driven, but that's really quite a poor generalisation. On the climate, the scientific evidence base is absolutely clear that we need to take drastic action or face devastating consequences. We know exactly what action we need to take (getting politicians moving on it is the issue).

On Covid-19, taking action to lockdown the country no doubt helped to break chains of transmission, but at great cost to both the economy and public health (through postponed treatment, postponed screening, people not presenting at hospitals during peak of crisis, impact of lockdown on mental health etc). We know austerity led to deaths, and the recession / increased unemployment as a result of lockdown will also drive people into poverty and have a lasting and damaging impact on public health.

Dealing with Covid-19 was always going to be about finding the path of least harm. Given that the virus ripped through care homes, and to a lesser extent hospitals (due to nosocomial outbreaks) I think we'd be in a better place both in terms of number of deaths and impact on the economy if we'd properly protected those who are extremely vulnerable to the virus (our older population, and those with existing co-morbidities). We know that the impact for young people with no underlying health conditions is low, which suggests locking down that group wasn't the right thing to do.

For context, across Scotland there have been over 4,000 Covid-19 related deaths. Of that number, 28 were in the 15-44 age category. In 2018 there were 279 male suicides in the 15-44 age category in Scotland. Add in females and it takes you to 370. I fear the number for 2020 will be higher when you consider the emotional strain of lockdown, coupled with the fear, stress and reality of many losing their jobs - although I sincerely hope it won't be.

---

It’s taken decades for climate science to win out over the sceptics. The semi plausible “science” that tried to deny the numbers for economic reasons is strikingly similar and has left us with a much bigger crisis than we’d have had if we’d tackled emissions sooner.

Nobody has come up with a plausible way to keep more and less vulnerable people apart. The clearly best way to deal with this has been test/trace/isolate and suppress. Scotland has played catch up to get from a crap position to somewhere that there is a chance of restarting the large part of the economy while keeping on top of it. We were so poorly prepared that we absolutely needed lockdown to get there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

It’s taken decades for climate science to win out over the sceptics. The semi plausible “science” that tried to deny the numbers for economic reasons is strikingly similar and has left us with a much bigger crisis than we’d have had if we’d tackled emissions sooner.

Nobody has come up with a plausible way to keep more and less vulnerable people apart. The clearly best way to deal with this has been test/trace/isolate and suppress. Scotland has played catch up to get from a crap position to somewhere that there is a chance of restarting the large part of the economy while keeping on top of it. We were so poorly prepared that we absolutely needed lockdown to get there.

---

We also live in a country where;

1. The temperature hovers near 4 degrees C for a longer period than most climates. 4C is the temperature at which the virus thrives best.
2. Culturally we spend relatively more time indoors socialising than outdoors, where the virus spreads quickest.
3. Health indicators are poor. The virus disproportionately affects those of poor health.
4. There are pockets of deprivation, poor housing and overcrowding, conditions in which the virus thrives.
5. There is a high incidence of other respiratory illnesses especially during the flu season.
6. There is not as established a system of test and trace as there is elsewhere in Europe.

Scotland has been spared the worst of the virus through a combination of luck and SOME good messaging and leadership. It might not be the case when/if we get hit with it again this winter.

Interesting guide on the exception to wearing face covering in shops.

No mention of particular condition such as asthma.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/co...for-consumers/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

It’s taken decades for climate science to win out over the sceptics. The semi plausible “science” that tried to deny the numbers for economic reasons is strikingly similar and has left us with a much bigger crisis than we’d have had if we’d tackled emissions sooner.

Nobody has come up with a plausible way to keep more and less vulnerable people apart. The clearly best way to deal with this has been test/trace/isolate and suppress. Scotland has played catch up to get from a crap position to somewhere that there is a chance of restarting the large part of the economy while keeping on top of it. We were so poorly prepared that we absolutely needed lockdown to get there.

---

Agree. Although where we'd got to pre-Covid was politicians acknowledging and talking about the climate emergency, without actually doing anything different. The response to Covid-19 (irrespective of views on what we got right and wrong) is an emergency response, and it's exactly that focus that we need to give to the climate emergency if we are serious about securing the future of generations to come.

I also agree we're now in a good place with test and protect - the response to the D&G outbreak showed that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

Interesting guide on the exception to wearing face covering in shops.

No mention of particular condition such as asthma.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/co...for-consumers/

---

Was in a few food shops today, none of the checkout staff were wearing masks, seemingly not mandatory for them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smartie

It has been a tricky situation to deal with in real time and with little proper evidence to go on. In a situation like that, governments should be allowed to govern as they see fit and in what they see as the best interests of their people.

There are aspects of your post that I agree with, there is much that I disagree with. What I would point out is that there still quite a lot of mights and maybes in there. There might be a spike in suicides. There might be an increase in cancer cases not picked up in a timeous fashion.

There’s a chance that those things may prove not to be severe as we might think, and it might shape how we do things in future.

Gathering evidence once this has all played out then rigorously analysing it will hopefully lead to appropriate conclusions.

I maintain we were correct to lockdown in the first instance but would hope a more targeted approach may be adopted in future, as we learn more and more about the behaviour of this virus.

Let’s use the benefit of hindsight and not bash those who did not have the benefit of it.

---

I really hope so.

I do genuinely believe Sturgeon has made what she believes to be the best decisions for the people, based on the evidence presented to her - and I don't envy anyone in that position. This isn't something any of us have had to deal with in our lifetimes, and I can't imagine how agonising some of these decisions would be to take.

All I would say is that there was data available pre-lockdown which demonstrated the virus was mild to moderate for most, and of particular low concern for young people with no underlying health conditions. We also knew it was deadly for older people, and those with existing conditions. NRS numbers for Scotland now show that to be the case (28 Covid related deaths in the 15-44 age group out of 1,236 in total for the year). I do think part of the problem here, and one of the lessons to learn, is that the media whipped up fear around this and the politicians were responding to this rather than being given space to properly consider their response.

I think now that Test & Protect is up and running, we're in a good place in terms of getting things moving again and I hope in the not too distant future there will be space to properly learn lessons from this (the good and the bad).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billy Whizz

Was in a few food shops today, none of the checkout staff were wearing masks, seemingly not mandatory for them

---

Retail staff don't have to wear mask when other measure is in place such as perspex screen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

Retail staff don't have to wear mask when other measure is in place such as perspex screen.

---

Yes they sit behind these
Is there any evidence that the Perspex head gear is any better than the face mask
I see lots of staff who work on self service checkouts wearing them, and it’s easier to communicate with customers

Another 148 UK deaths

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Grieves

Another 148 UK deaths

---

820 cases as well.

Highest daily total in more than 2 weeks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Grieves

Another 148 UK deaths

---

They should start actually reporting that it's essentially deaths in England.

7 new cases in Scotland and over 800 in England.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir David Gray

820 cases as well.

Highest daily total in more than 2 weeks.

---

That’s not good, just shows you that that the virus is still very active, and social interaction is increasing its transmission

No way should England be registering that many deaths on a day when Scotland registered it's 3rd day in a row with no deaths.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...5c447cc0c9.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...51dfea2264.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...b406e3d5a0.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...902ac98021.jpg

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steven79

No way should England be registering that many deaths on a day when Scotland registered it's 3rd day in a row with no deaths.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...5c447cc0c9.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...51dfea2264.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...b406e3d5a0.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...902ac98021.jpg

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

---

Not really unfortunately, when you’ve seen the lack of social distancing over the last few weeks

I was in a fair few shops today and it looks like 100% of people were wearing masks. Thankfully it now appears like things are starting to get back to normal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I was in a fair few shops today and it looks like 100% of people were wearing masks. Thankfully it now appears like things are starting to get back to normal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Wearing masks is anything but normal ;)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

On subject of masks I watched a BBC World report yesterday which said 25% of people in UK / England ( not sure which ) were wearing masks / face coverings compared with 75% in some countries and 65% in Spain . No idea how they got their statistics - I live in southern Spain and would have expected to read a figure above 90% . In shops and public transport 100% , in the street between 80% and 99% depending on time ( early morning joggers not wearing masks for example ) - I certainly feel embarrassed not to wear a mask in the street now just as I did 2 months ago in a supermarket on odd visits 10 weeks ago . I suspect mask wearing is not so common in international tourist resorts ( I was in Marbella 3 weeks ago and there were fewer masks than elsewhere in Andalusia ) which may affect BBC stats . In the next few days , the Andalusian government is expected to make masks obligatory in all public places ( at present only closed places I think ) following example of other regions like Catalonia . Today , I`ve been in Gibraltar and was surprised to see almost nobody wearing a mask . In the street , less than 1% , in shops and bars a lot of the workers ( a lot but less than 50% with many with a mask around their necks but not covering mouth or nose so useless ) . A very high % of those wearing masks seemed to be Spanish workers or shoppers , used to wearing masks all the time on the other side of the border . Gibraltar has had a very low infection rate and no deaths . With no cruises and very few tourists visiting compared with before , they`ll feel safer but with news from elsewhere ( cases in Greece and Portugal for example ) it`ll be interesting to see if non - mask use continues to be normal .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I was in a fair few shops today and it looks like 100% of people were wearing masks. Thankfully it now appears like things are starting to get back to normal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

First time I wore a mask in Sainsbury's today. Have to say I found it quite uncomfortable breathing wise and was glad when I got out of shop to take mask off, but happy enough to wear one for 15 minutes or so if it helps the control of the virus.

Noticed one person not wearing one, maybe they had a reason to, but pretty much everyone complied.

I do wonder if it's the way ahead to get people into large scale social events like football games. Would be happy to wear a mask if it meant we could get back to games.

To be honest I think most people just wanted to be told to wear masks.. I’ve been in a few shops today and seen almost %100 compliance..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by murray26

To be honest I think most people just wanted to be told to wear masks.. I’ve been in a few shops today and seen almost %100 compliance..

---

I did. I’m happy to wear but I needed to be compelled to do so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulSmith

Wearing masks is anything but normal ;)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

---

Depends which part of the world you are in for that one.

It's perfectly normal to wear a mask in locations where there is bad stuff to breathe in or where you could do damage breathing bad stuff out.

Scotland just became part of that part of the world. Sh*t happens.

Finding the complaints about masks a bit childish really, selfish from some.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

Depends which part of the world you are in for that one.

It's perfectly normal to wear a mask in locations where there is bad stuff to breathe in or where you could do damage breathing bad stuff out.

Scotland just became part of that part of the world. Sh*t happens.

Finding the complaints about masks a bit childish really, selfish from some.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

---

Very well put.

Was In Morrisons at Piershill yesterday. Previous week I wore a mask for the first time in the shop to get used to it before it became compulsory. About 60/40 wearing masks then. Yesterday I only saw one person not and I assumed she had dispensation.

Also having to wear one in the Pros shop at the golf club.

Not particularly pleasant but if that’s all it takes to help then no hardship.

I had to go into the centre of Berlin yesterday for the first time in months. On my way back out there was a convoy of cars covered in UK and USA flags with police escorts. I only managed to read some of the banners they were flying because they were so poorly made and mostly illegible, but the general drift was anti-Merkel, pandemic denial and pro choice in relation to masks. This would appear to be mainly right wing generated over here and as always the AfD are trying to sell it as government oppression to the hard of thinking. Thankfully it was only a small demo, if you can call it a demo, it was more like a Reichstag drive past.

I see lots of people online complaining about wearing a mask, can’t breathe, really uncomfortable etc. Total nonsense in my opinion, some folk are going on about it as if they are being gagged. There are plenty of different masks available and they really don’t prevent you from breathing normally unless you have a specific underlying health issue and even then I feel some folk are just looking for an excuse not to wear one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scouse Hibee

I see lots of people online complaining about wearing a mask, can’t breathe, really uncomfortable etc. Total nonsense in my opinion, some folk are going on about it as if they are being gagged. There are plenty of different masks available and they really don’t prevent you from breathing normally unless you have a specific underlying health issue and even then I feel some folk are just looking for an excuse not to wear one.

---

We could get most people on board if we explain that in addition to helping to stop the spread of the virus, wearing a face mask stops Huawei 5G masts from locating you through facial recognition and using airplanes to spray you with vaccines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

We could get most people on board if we explain that in addition to helping to stop the spread of the virus, wearing a face mask stops Huawei 5G masts from locating you through facial recognition and using airplanes to spray you with vaccines.

---

True that, and we need all the help we can get stopping the aeroplane-vaxxing. I saw a plane yesterday not leaving any trail at all, meaning that they've now managed to make the vax spray completely invisible, the *******s.

I don't like wearing a mask but I'll do it. I just find it a bit claustrophobic and the inability to read people's facial expressions is a bit disconcerting. As uncomfortable as I find it it's 15 minutes here and there, the vast majority of the time is still mask free.

I was out and about yesterday and would say compliance was very high, probably well over 90%, the people not wearing masks stood out far more than those wearing them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I did. I’m happy to wear but I needed to be compelled to do so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I started covering my face with a scarf as soon as the first minister asked the population to do so, by the time it was mandatory it was second nature for me. You get used to it the more you do it.

Good to hear about compliance with wearing masks in shops and on public transport especially with a droplet transmitted virus. My experience is that it is a minor inconvenience for what 10 to 15 mins every couple of days. It is simply the right thing to do.

Saw this very interesting story of a Scottish pilot who has been in intensive care and in a coma in Vietnam. Amazing story and the treatment he got there.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-53196009

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

I started covering my face with a scarf as soon as the first minister asked the population to do so, by the time it was mandatory it was second nature for me. You get used to it the more you do it.

---

So did I becomes a habit pretty quickly.

https://twitter.com/inproportion2/st...175958529?s=21

Is the above all fake news, genuinely interested to hear the views of the more informed.

I have one ask, don’t instantly dismiss it and read it with an open mind.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Why was Gove not asked by Marr about England deaths and jump in new cases?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulSmith

https://twitter.com/inproportion2/st...175958529?s=21

Is the above all fake news, genuinely interested to hear the views of the more informed.

I have one ask, don’t instantly dismiss it and read it with an open mind.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

---

Genuinely interested to hear what your own informed view is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulSmith

https://twitter.com/inproportion2/st...175958529?s=21

Is the above all fake news, genuinely interested to hear the views of the more informed.

I have one ask, don’t instantly dismiss it and read it with an open mind.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

---

Rather than fake news, I’d say that it’s an “alternative viewpoint”.

It’s not one I share.

As I think I said before - lockdown in the UK was absolutely necessary at the time, based on who we were, where we were and how prepared we were.

Under other circumstances (such as now) you would hope that total lockdown won’t be necessary in the event of any second wave, and that a more targeted approach could be taken to combat outbreaks.

I’m still to be convinced that we (the UK, which we’re still part of) is there yet - or likely to be there - so even if you don’t like it I think you might have to brace yourself for more come autumn.

I’d expect “lockdown scepticism” to be starting to rise about now as the economic impact of lockdown starts to bite for many.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Santa Cruz

Genuinely interested to hear what your own informed view is?

---

It’s never changed. Feel free to look through this thread.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulSmith

It’s never changed. Feel free to look through this thread.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

---

Just found it a bit strange you posted a link, asking for others views, kind of implying people are not open minded, and chose not to share your own view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBHibees

Why was Gove not asked by Marr about England deaths and jump in new cases?

---

They’re best pals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Santa Cruz

Just found it a bit strange you posted a link, asking for others views, kind of implying people are not open minded, and chose not to share your own view.

---

I want to be enlightened by others who may have more credibility to critique what could be ‘fake news’ on Twitter.

Are you able to give me your views on the graphs and summarisation?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulSmith

I want to be enlightened by others who may have more credibility to critique what could be ‘fake news’ on Twitter.

Are you able to give me your views on the graphs and summarisation?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

---

If you feel it's "fake news" why state "I have one ask, don’t instantly dismiss it and read it with an open mind." That's the bit I don't understand, perhaps I am misinterpreting you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBHibees

Why was Gove not asked by Marr about England deaths and jump in new cases?

---

Or even asked the same question that was asked of Nicola Sturgeon, how many lives could have been saved by locking down a week earlier?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Santa Cruz

If you feel it's "fake news" why state "I have one ask, don’t instantly dismiss it and read it with an open mind." That's the bit I don't understand, perhaps I am misinterpreting you.

---

Any chance you could just comment on the thread and not pick holes in my posts?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

https://unherd.com/thepost/swedish-d...-19-in-sweden/


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulSmith

Any chance you could just comment on the thread and not pick holes in my posts?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

---

Ok. My comment is it’s never changed. Feel free to look through this thread.

I wasn't picking holes btw, I asked a reasonable question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulSmith

https://twitter.com/inproportion2/st...175958529?s=21

Is the above all fake news, genuinely interested to hear the views of the more informed.

I have one ask, don’t instantly dismiss it and read it with an open mind.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

---

I think the honest answer is we are in brand new territory with this virus and there isn't any definitive answers.

But although infection rates are very low, in Scotland at least wearing masks now makes sense as we are reopening shops, pubs and restaurants, meaning people will be mixing together in large numbers indoors for the first time in months.

I think masks are an extra safety precaution at this very delicate time. They are a minor inconvenience and if they aren't very effective, well so what?

My hope and expectation is that they won't be needed in a few weeks, at least in the shops. Public transport is another matter though.

I don’t mind wearing a mask but it has made me realise how much I rely on lip reading. I have a slight hearing impairment but I normally have no real issues unless there’s a lot of background noise. We went to a beer garden yesterday for some lunch and drinks and I really struggled to make out what the servers were saying. I think it was a combination of not being able to see their lips move and the mask muffling what they were saying (there wasn’t a great amount of background noise to begin with). One server was wearing a visor rather than a mask I understood her much better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulSmith

https://twitter.com/inproportion2/st...175958529?s=21

Is the above all fake news, genuinely interested to hear the views of the more informed.

I have one ask, don’t instantly dismiss it and read it with an open mind.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

---

At first glance it looks like selective use of data. Comparing Scotland with scandanavian countries for example. Why not compare England with the same countries and see how that looks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smartie

Rather than fake news, I’d say that it’s an “alternative viewpoint”.

It’s not one I share.

As I think I said before - lockdown in the UK was absolutely necessary at the time, based on who we were, where we were and how prepared we were.

Under other circumstances (such as now) you would hope that total lockdown won’t be necessary in the event of any second wave, and that a more targeted approach could be taken to combat outbreaks.

I’m still to be convinced that we (the UK, which we’re still part of) is there yet - or likely to be there - so even if you don’t like it I think you might have to brace yourself for more come autumn.

I’d expect “lockdown scepticism” to be starting to rise about now as the economic impact of lockdown starts to bite for many.

---

Any total lockdown in future would be madness. Data from elsewhere, backed up by our own death / infection figures show that for the young and healthy the risk is very low, and that it is dangerous for older people and those with existing conditions. Any future measures have to focus on protecting at risk groups and letting the rest of us get back to normal. Thankfully increased testing capacity and contact tracers in place we are in a much better place than we were pre lockdown to tackle any future localised outbreaks.

Imagine working a 14 hour shift in the NHS front line with multiple layers of masks

They must all be falling down due to lack of oxygen to the brain

If the masks help at all it's a incredibly minor inconvenience to pay

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBHibees

My experience is that it is a minor inconvenience for what 10 to 15 mins every couple of days. It is simply the right thing to do.

---

This is where I am. Not wearing a mask in confined public spaces is akin to not covering your mouth and nose when coughing and sneezing or not washing your hands after visiting the toilet. It's manky and antisocial. I can't respect anyone who just thinks "**** that, I'm not wearing a mask" because it's difficult to respect anyone who isn't willing to respect the lives of the older and vulnerable in our society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulSmith

Any chance you could just comment on the thread and not pick holes in my posts?

---

Regarding the comment on the bar chart, it misunderstands the whole rationale for introducing the requirement to wear masks. We need to wear masks BECAUSE lockdown is easing. We are consequently in contact with more people and therefore the risk of infection is greater.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GlesgaeHibby

Any total lockdown in future would be madness. Data from elsewhere, backed up by our own death / infection figures show that for the young and healthy the risk is very low, and that it is dangerous for older people and those with existing conditions. Any future measures have to focus on protecting at risk groups and letting the rest of us get back to normal. Thankfully increased testing capacity and contact tracers in place we are in a much better place than we were pre lockdown to tackle any future localised outbreaks.

---

At the start data indicated older were more susceptible. Not so much now.

https://time.com/5858593/younger-people-covid-19/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulSmith

https://twitter.com/inproportion2/st...175958529?s=21

Is the above all fake news, genuinely interested to hear the views of the more informed.

I have one ask, don’t instantly dismiss it and read it with an open mind.

---

It’s not news, fake or otherwise. It’s a random’s interpretation of data in the public domain. By his own admission, he’s not a scientist or a medical doctor. His opinion is probably about as valid as any random but having a Twitter account, a website and a lot of public charts doesn’t it any more valid that someone who looks at the data and decides to never take off their mask or leave their bedroom.

The guy you’ve linked to has a belief that the lockdown was unwarranted and the risks were overplayed (obvious by the ‘From the start of the current COVID-19 crisis it seemed to me that...’ line on his website) and is interpreting data to support his opinion. Like most folk on the Internet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack

At the start data indicated older were more susceptible. Not so much now.

https://time.com/5858593/younger-people-covid-19/

---

I think you’ve confused what’s been said.

Younger people have always been very susceptible to the virus but the vast majority don’t even know they’ve got it and if they do then its nothing more than a common cold symptom. Indisputable factual based evidence from around the world.


The science clearly shows us that its still the very sick and 80 year plus age group that are more susceptible to actually dying or becoming that ill that they need ICU treatment. Again the evidence is fairly conclusive but I’ll happily be corrected.


If the Scottish Govt had been alert and focussed on caring for the elderly that were already in confined spaces (care homes/hospitals) and had measures in place from the outset then they would’ve saved hundreds (thousands?)of lives.

They’ve got away lightly with this by now making it about saving the general population...However it was never ever about saving the general population as we didn’t need saved from it in the first place.

We needed the Govt to step up and protect the vulnerable at the time and they failed spectacularly. The Scot Govt weren’t alone in this but still failed.

What we do now need saved from is the impact of lockdown, the draconian restrictions and the way that we’ve bankrupt the country for the next 50 odd years.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulSmith

I think you’ve confused what’s been said.

Younger people have always been very susceptible to the virus but the vast majority don’t even know they’ve got it and if they do then its nothing more than a common cold symptom. Indisputable factual based evidence from around the world.


The science clearly shows us that its still the very sick and 80 year plus age group that are more susceptible to actually dying or becoming that ill that they need ICU treatment. Again the evidence is fairly conclusive but I’ll happily be corrected.


If the Scottish Govt had been alert and focussed on caring for the elderly that were already in confined spaces (care homes/hospitals) and had measures in place from the outset then they would’ve saved hundreds (thousands?)of lives.

They’ve got away lightly with this by now making it about saving the general population...However it was never ever about saving the general population as we didn’t need saved from it in the first place.

We needed the Govt to step up and protect the vulnerable at the time and they failed spectacularly. The Scot Govt weren’t alone in this but still failed.

What we do now need saved from is the impact of lockdown, the draconian restrictions and the way that we’ve bankrupt the country for the next 50 odd years.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

---

Do we have a clue about long(er) term health implications yet?

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

At first glance it looks like selective use of data. Comparing Scotland with scandanavian countries for example. Why not compare England with the same countries and see how that looks.

---

The first graph is from English ONS data


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Callum_62

Do we have a clue about long(er) term health implications yet?

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

---

Of what, Covid 19? Dare I suggest that it will be the same as all the other variations of corona type virus that have been around for decades?

What do you think the long term health implications are of a lockdown, of which has never happened in modern history?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulSmith

Of what, Covid 19? Dare I suggest that it will be the same as all the other variations of corona type virus that have been around for decades?

What do you think the long term health implications are of a lockdown, of which has never happened in modern history?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

---

That's not what Devi Sridhar was suggesting recently

It seems too easy to cast a general net and say young folk are fine

At the moment, that's not actually known to be the case

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

I’ll qualify this post by making it clear that i haven’t done research into the circumstances but isn’t the elephant in the room in the “lockdown wasn’t necessary” argument countries like America and Brazil, who are getting absolutely rogered by the virus?

Quite likely that this can be shot down very quickly as I’ve stopped following the issue as closely over the last few weeks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Callum_62

That's not what Devi Sridhar was suggesting recently

It seems too easy to cast a general net and say young folk are fine

At the moment, that's not actually known to be the case

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

---

When does she expect the younger generation to start falling ill, as its been several months now. Does she think it will be next year, the year after or decades later?

Did she explain why this corona virus is different to others or did she simply state that’s unknown so we need to be very careful?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulSmith

The first graph is from English ONS data


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

---

I'm referring specifically to the graph comparison between Scotland and scandic countries. Post 6 in the thread. Why only Scotland and not England Northern Ireland and Wales?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matty_f

I’ll qualify this post by making it clear that i haven’t done research into the circumstances but isn’t the elephant in the room in the “lockdown wasn’t necessary” argument countries like America and Brazil, who are getting absolutely rogered by the virus?

Quite likely that this can be shot down very quickly as I’ve stopped following the issue as closely over the last few weeks.

---

Belarus is an interesting one. Zero lockdown and a death rate per million on a par with the UK.

The number of cases seems less relevant now than at the outset (protect the NHS, give us time to flatten the curve...remember those hourly reminders).

The argument has NEVER been lockdown wasn’t necessary. It had however to be proportionate to the risks and also had to be targeted at the most vulnerable.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulSmith

I think you’ve confused what’s been said.

Younger people have always been very susceptible to the virus but the vast majority don’t even know they’ve got it and if they do then its nothing more than a common cold symptom. Indisputable factual based evidence from around the world.


The science clearly shows us that its still the very sick and 80 year plus age group that are more susceptible to actually dying or becoming that ill that they need ICU treatment. Again the evidence is fairly conclusive but I’ll happily be corrected.


If the Scottish Govt had been alert and focussed on caring for the elderly that were already in confined spaces (care homes/hospitals) and had measures in place from the outset then they would’ve saved hundreds (thousands?)of lives.

They’ve got away lightly with this by now making it about saving the general population...However it was never ever about saving the general population as we didn’t need saved from it in the first place.

We needed the Govt to step up and protect the vulnerable at the time and they failed spectacularly. The Scot Govt weren’t alone in this but still failed.

What we do now need saved from is the impact of lockdown, the draconian restrictions and the way that we’ve bankrupt the country for the next 50 odd years.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

---

You accuse the Scottish government of not being alert, but in the early stages of the pandemic Scotland was following the same advice as the rest of the UK.

You then say we've bankrupt the country for the next 50 years, ignoring the fact that the Scottish government has not borrowed money from anywhere, that was Westminster. But how else would you have suggested handling the paralysis of the economy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

I'm referring specifically to the graph comparison between Scotland and scandic countries. Why only Scotland and not England Northern Ireland and Wales?

---

Dunno. I’m sure though that you could capture the data and make that comparison?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I’d imagine it would be reasonably (!!!) straightforward to protect vulnerable people of maybe 80+ years old, so there’s a borderline valid argument that we might manage that. The people who believe in this approach tend not to give a flying one about the well-being of that demographic though, and would happily see their personal tax liability for looking after their healthcare and pension eased.

The under 40s will by and large be ok, that’s not to say that some of the individual stories of people within that group who have become infected and either died or been seriously ill have been quite chilling.

The problem is the huge chunk of people who are neither old nor decrepit and who are vulnerable. How do you protect working people in their 50s who have type 2 diabetes for example? There are people who are a long way from needing the knackers yard, who will need to continue to work and be social who could be very vulnerable under measures short of lockdown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulSmith

Dunno. I’m sure though that you could capture the data and make that comparison?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

---

The answer is obviously that by doing so would not have supported their particular opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

You accuse the Scottish government of not being alert, but in the early stages of the pandemic Scotland was following the same advice as the rest of the UK.

You then say we've bankrupt the country for the next 50 years, ignoring the fact that the Scottish government has not borrowed money from anywhere, that was Westminster. But how else would you have suggested handling the paralysis of the economy?

---

Healthcare was, and still is devolved to Scotland, you cant say that they are absolved of any blame by suggesting that they followed the advice from another country?


We’ve bankrupt the country (UK this time) by imposing a lockdown which was not in proportion to the risk.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

The answer is obviously that by doing so would not have supported their particular opinion.

---

But you happily believe the stats and headlines on the BBC and Sky News everyday which is also there to support a particular opinion...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulSmith

https://twitter.com/inproportion2/st...175958529?s=21

Is the above all fake news, genuinely interested to hear the views of the more informed.

I have one ask, don’t instantly dismiss it and read it with an open mind.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

---

I doubt I'm more informed, but I'm not sure if that was meant as a dig or not.

My comment on the link is that it is virtually impossible to compare countries because there are so many factors which go into death rates.

Because of this I think that is is going to be something that, unfortunately, we will never fully know whether lockdown had any impact, or was fully necessary, as we can't compare like for like.

It is interesting that a lot of the comparisons trying to show the ineffectiveness of lockdown completely ignore New Zealand, a country who were demonstrably different in their approach to much of the developed world and who locked down hard and extremely early.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulSmith

Healthcare was, and still is devolved to Scotland, you cant say that they are absolved of any blame by suggesting that they followed the advice from another country?


We’ve bankrupt the country (UK this time) by imposing a lockdown which was not in proportion to the risk.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

---

Tell me a bit more about the country being bankrupt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulSmith

Healthcare was, and still is devolved to Scotland, you cant say that they are absolved of any blame by suggesting that they followed the advice from another country?


We’ve bankrupt the country (UK this time) by imposing a lockdown which was not in proportion to the risk.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

---

You have forgotten the "4 nations approach" which was being spouted at the beginning.

SAGE was providing the advice at the beginning, Scotland had not set up their own scientific advisory group then.

As for proportionate lockdown, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulSmith

But you happily believe the stats and headlines on the BBC and Sky News everyday which is also there to support a particular opinion...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

---

Do I? That's news to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sergio sledge

I doubt I'm more informed, but I'm not sure if that was meant as a dig or not.

My comment on the link is that it is virtually impossible to compare countries because there are so many factors which go into death rates.

Because of this I think that is is going to be something that, unfortunately, we will never fully know whether lockdown had any impact, or was fully necessary, as we can't compare like for like.

It is interesting that a lot of the comparisons trying to show the ineffectiveness of lockdown completely ignore New Zealand, a country who were demonstrably different in their approach to much of the developed world and who locked down hard and extremely early.

---

👍

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smartie

I’d imagine it would be reasonably (!!!) straightforward to protect vulnerable people of maybe 80+ years old, so there’s a borderline valid argument that we might manage that. The people who believe in this approach tend not to give a flying one about the well-being of that demographic though, and would happily see their personal tax liability for looking after their healthcare and pension eased.

The under 40s will by and large be ok, that’s not to say that some of the individual stories of people within that group who have become infected and either died or been seriously ill have been quite chilling.

The problem is the huge chunk of people who are neither old nor decrepit and who are vulnerable. How do you protect working people in their 50s who have type 2 diabetes for example? There are people who are a long way from needing the knackers yard, who will need to continue to work and be social who could be very vulnerable under measures short of lockdown.

---

I think you’re second sentence in the first paragraph just plays to the crowd mentality rather than having any substance, all IMO of course.

People under 40 die from infections and virus, they have done since the age of time.

There’s some brilliant data out there around the impact of C19 on the 45-60 age group.

However the fundamental choice that we have is do we enforce a lockdown or restrictions (of any degree) for an indefinite amount of time and prevent our kids from enjoying the brilliant social experiences that we’ve had?

I’d ask the question who is then being selfish.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulSmith

Healthcare was, and still is devolved to Scotland, you cant say that they are absolved of any blame by suggesting that they followed the advice from another country?


We’ve bankrupt the country (UK this time) by imposing a lockdown which was not in proportion to the risk.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

---

Despite the lockdown there has been 50,000+ deaths than normal. That's a simple fact.

How many deaths would you tolerate before implementing a lockdown?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

You have forgotten the "4 nations approach" which was being spouted at the beginning.

SAGE was providing the advice at the beginning, Scotland had not set up their own scientific advisory group then.

As for proportionate lockdown, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

---

So Scotland, despite C19 being on the radar for months prior to March, didn’t think to take precautions that they had jurisdiction to do so and it’s the UK Govt’s fault.

The thing is that we now know and Nicola Sturgeon is still threatening us daily that we’ll go back to stage 1 and have a total lockdown. So even with hindsight there appears to still be the same solution to a problem.

It was only a few months ago that Jason Leitch was on the news telling us that it was wrong to implement a lockdown and that face masks weren’t able to protect against C19....now we are supposed to hang onto his very word.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk