https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-...rtner-12162209
How did he think that was a good idea?
Printable View
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-...rtner-12162209
How did he think that was a good idea?
I understand the sentiment the article is trying to convey; that rules can take away our genuine humanity (I think?) but there isn't a real equivalence between the pandemic and the other examples the authors cites - with the exception of maybe drug taking which has a chain of misery that goes half way round the world - but they said they would take drugs anyway, so morally I'm already questioning the meaning of the article.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
If she enters a care home and infects half the residents is she a mass murderer? I would argue that, while she didn't mean to, her carelessness costs lives and is the Covid equivalent of dangerous driving. I get that it's out of love or at least well meaning, but there are real, obvious reasons we can't do these things and I would have thought that was obvious to the author.
I have heard today that someone I know is driving from London to Edinburgh before the travel relaxation, in a hired car with their own household, as well as 2 others in the same vehicle. Putting this authors spin on it, they're being sensible not using public transport, they're isolating for 5 days beforehand, but it pisses me off because we made the decision to cancel our Christmas plans because to me that feels like the best thing we can do morally for us, our families and the country, not bend and break the rules in order to do what we want.
I feel that sometimes, we just need to do it - especially when you ask "why would the rules be imposed on us?". To what end would the government not want us to shop till we drop and spend billions over the festive period? This is a government that thrives on economic growth, so why would they impose rules that restrict that so much?
It’s the last one until the 5th January as wellQuote:
Originally Posted by Diclonius
Plan to ease restrictions in the UK over Christmas is a "major error that will cost many lives" according to two medical journals.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55311717
Definite u turn coming from Westminster on that one i reckon, will be interesting to see how it plays out up here if it happens. I do suspect the devolved nations were coerced into it somehow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir David Gray
Yep, I got the impression at the time that Nicola wasn't too happy with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by degenerated
What I don't understand is why Perth and Kinross was originally in level 2, 7 days per 100,000 was below 75,it was then placed in level 3 once the figures rose above 90,and was a maximum of less than 120. I think the 75 figure is the trigger between level 2 and 3.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir David Gray
There must have been some financial element tied to it. Can't think of any other reasonQuote:
Originally Posted by Mikey
There is no other explanation; its so at odds with the messaging from the Scottish Government. Could furlough support have been hanging on it?Quote:
Originally Posted by degenerated
Was the furlough support extension not put in place before this was all agreed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jones28
Can't help but feel that the "new variant" story is being played up as the cover for this. There have been multiple new variants over the pandemic so far, this is the only one highlighted by a govt minister as far as I remember.Quote:
Originally Posted by degenerated
75 is the trigger between 1 and 2, you need to get to 150 for level 3 with the obvious other caveatsQuote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Yes I thought similar the European strain is different to the original strain already, so why in all the papers and in Hancocks statement. Can only think Christmas turnaround or to justify London going to 3Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
If there is going to be a U turn by Westminster, and by extension Holyrood, Stormont etc, then it has to happen in the next day or 2.
The bonkers decision to lift restrictions at Christmas, which all leaders were complicit in, has already opened the floodgates. A timely change of plan might allow some people to make alternative arrangements and not just plough on regardless. Holding off until the 22nd is just not an option if a change is going to happen.
It is but their latest 7 day average test positivity rate up to 11th December is 5% which is right on the edge of level 3 territory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
That being the case, PKC should have started in 1 and gone up to 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mon Dieu4
I'm going back to the beginning of November when the level system comes into effect when PKC started in level 2, the figures were lower than the trigger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir David Gray
I know other factors are applicable but it seems Perth could have been in level 1. That being said, level 2 was OK but going to level 3 means there are no restaurants open in pitlochry because they are mostly parts of hotels.
I kind of admire his determination and she must have been a pretty good catch to go to all that effort!! Bet he was ****ting it when he realised his 40 minutes was taking hours in heavy seas!Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Duly punished for his indiscretions right enough.
Its so at odds with the past behaviour of sturgeon, drakeford and foster that complicit might be a bit strong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
Proper romantic, hats off to the chap.Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeSloan
I think anyone who has ever carried out a ridiculous stunt in the hope of getting one's end away should be respectful of this guy.
Considerate negative covid test result before he headed off as well.
I'm well impressed.
Now there's a thread....Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
They could have vetoed it so they are all complicit. They have all made several bad decisions during this crisis, we can’t blame Westminster for them all.Quote:
Originally Posted by degenerated
You are probably correct. I'd still argue that barring real coercion they should have refused to go along with a 4 nations approach so at odds with their previous actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by degenerated
It's just a bizarre piece of decision making all round. It will be interesting to see if the full story ever comes out.
One of my work colleagues based in Kent, has tested positive for Covid
His kids brought it from school, and now the whole family has had it
No signs of a cough, or loss of smell/taste, just a cracking headache and feeling lethargic
That's how I see it. The FM was asked specifically about being pressurised by WM into agreeing and she said no, followed by something about the talks being constructive between all 4 Leaders.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
100% :agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
If things do go wrong as a result of this farce then Sturgeon's every bit as culpable for the many preventable deaths that occur and the effects it will have on the NHS as the other UK leaders are.
She has said during this pandemic that she will never be a First Minister who simply "rubber stamps" decisions taken by another Government so this is 100% on her if it goes wrong in Scotland.
It doesn't honestly matter if the UK reverse their decision to relax the rules at Christmas - millions will be doing what they want anyway and the end-outcome will still look horrific in January regarding new cases and deaths.
Some dark months ahead I fear...
The briefing in less than an hour might be interesting. Does she still take it easy and ask for caution or does she U-turn and say the restrictions for each level will be in place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir David Gray
I'm all for having more faith in Sturgeon/SG than Boris/WM but it seems a bit far to just decide that something the SG does that isn't agreeable must have been WM coercing them to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by degenerated
Sturgeon was on TV yesterday talking about seeing her parents at Christmas. She said they were staying outside and I don't know if they are in the same council area but she'll know that not everyone will be in the position to have an outside area or be in the same council area. I think she wouldn't have mentioned it if it wasn't something she generally agreed with/accepted as a trade off for Christmas.
Maybe a part of what makes it seem so at odds with previous decisions is the exaggerated language used by its detractors? "Christmas free for all" "no restrictions" "do as you please" etc. The rules as they are still require social distancing, they still limit how many households/people you can meet, they still have strong restrictions on hospitality - 2020 Christmas won't look anything remotely like what it usually would and there are still many ways in which we, and the virus, are being restricted throughout the period.
There's no chance of WM or SG u-turning on this one.
I think it was yes, but thats not to say there weren't talks going on behind the scenes. Optics will have played a part in this; Westminster want to look like the generous, fun-loving uncle and the rest of the home nations have to fall in line; further to that I think it's been done in part to save having to enforce travel bans as many people would do what they wanted anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Santa Cruz
Not that that has deterred other countries in Europe from blanket no's and lockdowns again.