When will this shit end?

[Slugy]

1 hour ago, DeanoL said:

Up to that - it depends. My partner's Dad was in for two months before he passed.

Sorry to hear mate. suppose it really is case depending.

[zahidf]

4 minutes ago, xxialac said:

 

Young people aren't about to go round to their mate's for an illicit beer and then think "oh I'd best not - don't want to endanger our country's older people". You're not living in the real world. 

Except loads of younger people have and still are doing that! If you believe that people are following the non-household mixing rules,  then what's stopping them?

[stephos83]

Today's vaccination numbers:

 

 

[duke88]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

Except loads of younger people have and still are doing that! If you believe that people are following the non-household mixing rules,  then what's stopping them?

Exactly. I'm not young, but nowhere near old enough that I'd be at serious risk of being severely ill. I don't follow the rules to protect myself, I do it to protect others. And I'd imagine that's how everyone else thinks.

[StuMalinas]

Bit Better Today

 

 

[zahidf]

3 minutes ago, stephos83 said:

Today's vaccination numbers:

 

 

Second doses ramping up

[StuMalinas]

3 minutes ago, stephos83 said:

Today's vaccination numbers:

 

 

dang you got there first! 

[zahidf]

Just now, Barry Fish said:

Another really bad day (relatively speaking)...

I said yesterday although they say the numbers will double towards end of next week the number of people needing second jabs is now a high number.  Lots of people complaining on my local Facebook group that there second does appointments have been cancelled for this week with no new date.

They should try to book a new date themselves online.

[Ozanne]

4 minutes ago, stephos83 said:

Today's vaccination numbers:

 

 

Good, steady progress being made. Day by day we are getting there. 

[Cherry Tree]

Who says that old folks are out partying.

 

[Crazyfool01]

see my post on previous page ... March the 14th is the week we start getting the massive numbers .... 

[JoeyT]

 

[JoeyT]

 

[topmarksbri]

The over 80s breaking rules just adds to this feeling that the generational contract has completely broken down. 82% of covid job losses have hit under 35s - so to then see the people that you've been protecting by staying inside and businesses have had to close for breaking rules sticks in the craw somewhat. 

[mcshed]

1 hour ago, zahidf said:

Not coming home to Scotland

Nicola Sturgeon's caution is going to cost Scotland.

Glasgow and Dublin are at growing risk of being cut from the list of hosts for this summer's European Championship.

With fewer than 100 days until the delayed Euros, Uefa wants each of the countries staging matches to submit their plans - including for the return of fans - by a deadline of 7 April.

Organisers say they still hope to stage matches at the 12 venues as planned.

But the Scottish and Irish governments are yet to provide assurances whether fans will be allowed back by June.

And Uefa is understood to be increasingly concerned they may have to strip Glasgow and Dublin of their matches.

Both Hampden Park and the Aviva Stadium are due to stage four games.

According to one source with knowledge of tournament planning, the position on fans in Dublin and Glasgow is currently "very bad", with the respective governments "taking a much tighter approach to Covid than other cities".

On Wednesday, Scotland's Health Secretary Jeane Freeman said that being part of the Euros was "a really big deal" for her country.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56250120

Hopefully this has some cut through to those not invested in politics. Scotland are due to return to tournament football for the first time in over twenty years in front of their own fans at Hampden and Nicola wants to put a stop to it because she's made a political point of being seen to be more cautious than England.

[xxialac]

40 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

 

 

Another wooosh - no one bashed old people

This is the point that ruins your entire point...  Younger people are doing this.

The scenes of parties in halls of residence are the exception not the norm.  You need to put down the Daily Mail 🙂 

 

Maybe not from you but there is bashing of old people on here and it's illogical and hypocritical and also there's a smug attitude that young people have been nobly protecting old people. 

And overwhelmingly most the protection has come from the general shutting down of society and society's temptations and that is imposed upon us. 

[xxialac]

The Home Office is a complete shambles under Patel

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/declaration-travel-airport-holiday-ban-priti-patel-b1812361.html

[Toilet Duck]

New information that we didn't have, but are starting to get a clearer picture of, changes the debate significantly when it comes to what vaccinated individuals get up to. We hoped that transmission would be cut by the vaccines, but even a blind optimist like me didn't dare hope for the level of protection from infection that is being observed. The whole idea of protecting others goes out the window if you have already done that by getting vaccinated. It's still a good idea for us to get a clear picture of what impact variants, full vaccination, seasonality etc has on transmission rates, but if vaccinated individuals are not becoming infected in the first place, then they aren't endangering society by mixing with people (difficult to infect someone else if you aren't infected!). I know it seems a bit unfair, but the reason for limiting contact is to reduce the spread, vaccinated individuals by definition now don't appear to be a major risk in that regard. 

[Paul ™]

9 minutes ago, xxialac said:

The Home Office is a complete shambles under Patel

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/declaration-travel-airport-holiday-ban-priti-patel-b1812361.html

What a surprise 😏

[incident]

1 hour ago, zahidf said:

Not coming home to Scotland

Nicola Sturgeon's caution is going to cost Scotland.

Glasgow and Dublin are at growing risk of being cut from the list of hosts for this summer's European Championship.

With fewer than 100 days until the delayed Euros, Uefa wants each of the countries staging matches to submit their plans - including for the return of fans - by a deadline of 7 April.

Organisers say they still hope to stage matches at the 12 venues as planned.

But the Scottish and Irish governments are yet to provide assurances whether fans will be allowed back by June.

And Uefa is understood to be increasingly concerned they may have to strip Glasgow and Dublin of their matches.

Both Hampden Park and the Aviva Stadium are due to stage four games.

According to one source with knowledge of tournament planning, the position on fans in Dublin and Glasgow is currently "very bad", with the respective governments "taking a much tighter approach to Covid than other cities".

On Wednesday, Scotland's Health Secretary Jeane Freeman said that being part of the Euros was "a really big deal" for her country.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56250120

Just imagine the political fallout if those games were not only taken off Glasgow but given to say Cardiff or Manchester instead..

[JoeyT]

EU making lots of friends.

 

[steviewevie]

world beating

 

[steviewevie]

12 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

New information that we didn't have, but are starting to get a clearer picture of, changes the debate significantly when it comes to what vaccinated individuals get up to. We hoped that transmission would be cut by the vaccines, but even a blind optimist like me didn't dare hope for the level of protection from infection that is being observed. The whole idea of protecting others goes out the window if you have already done that by getting vaccinated. It's still a good idea for us to get a clear picture of what impact variants, full vaccination, seasonality etc has on transmission rates, but if vaccinated individuals are not becoming infected in the first place, then they aren't endangering society by mixing with people (difficult to infect someone else if you aren't infected!). I know it seems a bit unfair, but the reason for limiting contact is to reduce the spread, vaccinated individuals by definition now don't appear to be a major risk in that regard. 

maybe so, but that is not what is current govt guidance...and seeing as young people have been making many sacrifices all year I don't blame them being pissed off seeing older vaccinated people breaking rules now.

[DeanoL]

1 hour ago, zahidf said:

As I've said before though, it's been a long year and solidarity isn't going to last much longer.

 

This is why I think they may need to speed things up a bit. Cautious approach is all well and good but people aren't going to stay locked up once they have a vaccine

There's no public health argument for that though is there? Just an argument from fairness: lots of people are going to break the rules, so we should relax them so it's fair on the people that wouldn't break the rules.

Whereas the health argument is that lots of people are going to break the rules, so we need the rules to be harsher so the people who are following them can spread it even less.

21 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

New information that we didn't have, but are starting to get a clearer picture of, changes the debate significantly when it comes to what vaccinated individuals get up to. We hoped that transmission would be cut by the vaccines, but even a blind optimist like me didn't dare hope for the level of protection from infection that is being observed. The whole idea of protecting others goes out the window if you have already done that by getting vaccinated. It's still a good idea for us to get a clear picture of what impact variants, full vaccination, seasonality etc has on transmission rates, but if vaccinated individuals are not becoming infected in the first place, then they aren't endangering society by mixing with people (difficult to infect someone else if you aren't infected!). I know it seems a bit unfair, but the reason for limiting contact is to reduce the spread, vaccinated individuals by definition now don't appear to be a major risk in that regard. 

While that's true, the approach of vaccinating the elderly first was down to the fact we didn't know the vaccine prevented transmission and just that it helped prevent serious illness and death. If we're now seeing data that says it prevents transmission, moving to a system of vaccinating younger, more active people with more contacts first would now make more sense? (And in retrospect, is what we should have done all along).

Which I guess would also be a strong argument for pushing back second doses to get everyone a first one. Because if the vaccine actually cuts transmission strongly, you actually protect the vulnerable more by vaccinating those who could transmit to them, rather than the marginal increase in effectiveness of the second dose.

[steviewevie]

26 minutes ago, JoeyT said:

EU making lots of friends.

 

most of their AZ vaccines ordered are being manufactured in OZ.