M-m-m-my Corona…

[Mason89]

I’m with the academics on this now. Let the low risk categories live their lives and shield the vulnerable. Build up herd immunity and protect jobs at the same time. If everyone adheres to social distancing around their elder relatives surely this can work?

You’re with some academics, who are mostly completely out their lane.

[ByeByeScum2012]

You’re with some academics, who are mostly completely out their lane.

Matter of opinion that’s all. Science, figures, mortality, economics. Schools and cafes can open but nowhere else?

[Mason89]

Matter of opinion that’s all. Science, figures, mortality, economics. Schools and cafes can open but nowhere else?

Must be infuriating being a specialist in this field. You spend years slaving away at Uni, then even more building up work based experience without anyone giving a single f*ck. Then overnight, not only has the entire nation got an opinion on it, they’re entirely comfortable saying you’re making a complete c*nt of it.

I’m sure lessons will be learned though. Next outbreak, wee krankie & her squad of so called ‘experts’ can just log into AberdeenMad

[afc1903mad]

Absolutely not, no.

Pure ignorance then

[afc1903mad]

I’m with the academics on this now. Let the low risk categories live their lives and shield the vulnerable. Build up herd immunity and protect jobs at the same time. If everyone adheres to social distancing around their elder relatives surely this can work?

That would make sense and how they may have been considering, however .......

Professor Leitch was saying the other day was that the stats are now showing transference from the younger, less at risk groups to the more vulnerable.

The more it is out there, the more the more vulnerable are at risk, even with shielding, there is not a 100% protection from the virus.

[Aldo1983]

That would make sense and how they may have been considering, however .......

Professor Leitch was saying the other day was that the stats are now showing transference from the younger, less at risk groups to the more vulnerable.

The more it is out there, the more the more vulnerable are at risk, even with shielding, there is not a 100% protection from the virus.

I wouldn't bring up Professor Leitch. You've set off several alarms in people's heads on here. Standby, standby, standby.

[afc1903mad]

I wouldn't bring up Professor Leitch. You've set off several alarms in people's heads on here. Standby, standby, standby.

He is one of the spokespersons at the front of articulating the Scottish Governments reasoning and justification for their current implementation on the fight against Covid-19.

Do some just disregard him because he is a dentist?


On the point above, I'm sure he is not the one directly analyzing the data, he's just the frontman articulating it to us all

[sonofrgmsdad]

Playing devils advocate here.

Some of you guys are saying that what the government did in Aberdeen after that issue, was wrong, and should have been done differently. Then, when a similar issue happens in another part of Scotland, that they should do the same, even though you think that what they did in Aberdeen was wrong.
Surely it’s better that they’ve learnt and tried a different approach?

The tin foil hats up there must be in short supply!

As with Mason you seem to be twisting most of the opinions on here. It is not that the Aberdeen decision was right or wrong, nor that the Glasgow decision was right or wrong. It is not even that the correct body to make that decision is the Government (not the Dear Leader herself but collective cabinet).

The question being posed is why one solution was reasoned for one particular area and a different solution for another. We know there were different sources of infection for each region but haven't been told the reasoning why the solutions (politically) chosen were pertinent to stopping the spread in that region.

Pubs were the problem in Aberdeen so pubs were shut.
Housing was the problem in Glasgow so housing was restricted.
No reason has been put forward why Aberdeen had the additional restrictions on housing and a travel ban but Glasgow didn't have additional restrictions. All that is being asked is that we are told the basis for the decisions to make up our own minds rather than accept the Dear Leader knows best.

[sonofrgmsdad]

What difference does it make? That’s just flat out nitpicking

If she, as First Minister, chooses Weetabix over Shreddies for breakfast, is that a political decision?

What difference does it make is the crux of what were looking at. What are the reasons for maing certain decisions? We actually have a right to know.

As for the second part of your comment. Really? You can't tell the difference between Governmental and personal decisions? Proof here you're on the wind up?

[sonofrgmsdad]

Must be infuriating being a specialist in this field. You spend years slaving away at Uni, then even more building up work based experience without anyone giving a single f*ck. Then overnight, not only has the entire nation got an opinion on it, they’re entirely comfortable saying you’re making a complete c*nt of it.

I’m sure lessons will be learned though. Next outbreak, wee krankie & her squad of so called ‘experts’ can just log into AberdeenMad

At the next election we will be asked to voice a view on the next Government. Better that the view expressed is based on the evidence of what lies behind decisions so we can judge whether these were the best decisions or whether somebody else might have made better ones. Without the evidence we are then, like you are doing now, basing our next vote on whether the Dear Leader is making the best decisions on our behalf on the thought that she's bound to be following the medical advice. The advice though comes from the same school as lawyers. Put 5 in a room and ask a question and you'll get 5 answers. It may have escaped your notice that there are considerably different views being expressed by the medical experts.