Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 9
Discussion
For Christ sake - https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/5790799/nico...
Remember to read the comments...one mentioned having an organised BOOO.
Remember to read the comments...one mentioned having an organised BOOO.
Klippie said:
For Christ sake - https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/5790799/nico...
Remember to read the comments...one mentioned having an organised BOOO.
Remember to read the comments...one mentioned having an organised BOOO.
When I saw the headline I thought she’d caught something!
Amazing how people can really consider applauding someone who’s just copied what others have decided, and simply changed the running order and timing.
REALIST123 said:
Klippie said:
For Christ sake - https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/5790799/nico...
Remember to read the comments...one mentioned having an organised BOOO.
Remember to read the comments...one mentioned having an organised BOOO.
When I saw the headline I thought she’d caught something!
Amazing how people can really consider applauding someone who’s just copied what others have decided, and simply changed the running order and timing.
The Courier said:
Grateful for what exactly?
Sir, – I keep hearing and reading we should be grateful for the very presence of Nicola Sturgeon,but nobody seems to be able to offer any good reason why.
A total of 2,490 people have lost their lives to this virus.
That is 0.05% of the population and our economy has been closed down.
Livelihoods lost,education abandoned and,crucially,medical treatment withheld.
We should be grateful for that?
Approximately 32,700 Scots are diagnosed with cancer every year and 16,200 die.
Cancer screening was reduced by 70% in April and remains 30% below normal levels four months later.
Cancer survival increases hugely with early diagnosis, but that opportunity has been withheld for thousands of Scots. Why should we be grateful for that?
We’re doing so much better than the evil Tories of Westminster, are we?
Scotland has tested 286,000 people,roughly 5% of our population.
England has tested 8,400,000 people,15% of the population.Why should Scots be grateful?
This virus poses no threat to children,yet schools remain shut.
This virus poses minimal threat to healthy people of working age,including teachers,yet businesses remain shut and many will not reopen.
This virus poses a more substantial threat to the elderly and unwell,yet the elderly were removed from hospitals and other medical services were reduced or suspended.
Face coverings pose a genuine threat to health if they are worn for a prolonged period and not regularly replaced or cleaned and stored in a sterile environment.
They offer minimal,if any,protection from this virus,yet we are now obliged to wear one.
Every step of the way,Sturgeon has made the same errors as Westminster,the only difference is timing.
Yet Westminster is to be damned and we should be grateful for Sturgeon.
Aye, right.
A letter I read today,wonder what the resident nats will make of it?Sir, – I keep hearing and reading we should be grateful for the very presence of Nicola Sturgeon,but nobody seems to be able to offer any good reason why.
A total of 2,490 people have lost their lives to this virus.
That is 0.05% of the population and our economy has been closed down.
Livelihoods lost,education abandoned and,crucially,medical treatment withheld.
We should be grateful for that?
Approximately 32,700 Scots are diagnosed with cancer every year and 16,200 die.
Cancer screening was reduced by 70% in April and remains 30% below normal levels four months later.
Cancer survival increases hugely with early diagnosis, but that opportunity has been withheld for thousands of Scots. Why should we be grateful for that?
We’re doing so much better than the evil Tories of Westminster, are we?
Scotland has tested 286,000 people,roughly 5% of our population.
England has tested 8,400,000 people,15% of the population.Why should Scots be grateful?
This virus poses no threat to children,yet schools remain shut.
This virus poses minimal threat to healthy people of working age,including teachers,yet businesses remain shut and many will not reopen.
This virus poses a more substantial threat to the elderly and unwell,yet the elderly were removed from hospitals and other medical services were reduced or suspended.
Face coverings pose a genuine threat to health if they are worn for a prolonged period and not regularly replaced or cleaned and stored in a sterile environment.
They offer minimal,if any,protection from this virus,yet we are now obliged to wear one.
Every step of the way,Sturgeon has made the same errors as Westminster,the only difference is timing.
Yet Westminster is to be damned and we should be grateful for Sturgeon.
Aye, right.
General Price said:
The Courier said:
Grateful for what exactly?
Sir, – I keep hearing and reading we should be grateful for the very presence of Nicola Sturgeon,but nobody seems to be able to offer any good reason why.
A total of 2,490 people have lost their lives to this virus.
That is 0.05% of the population and our economy has been closed down.
Livelihoods lost,education abandoned and,crucially,medical treatment withheld.
We should be grateful for that?
Approximately 32,700 Scots are diagnosed with cancer every year and 16,200 die.
Cancer screening was reduced by 70% in April and remains 30% below normal levels four months later.
Cancer survival increases hugely with early diagnosis, but that opportunity has been withheld for thousands of Scots. Why should we be grateful for that?
We’re doing so much better than the evil Tories of Westminster, are we?
Scotland has tested 286,000 people,roughly 5% of our population.
England has tested 8,400,000 people,15% of the population.Why should Scots be grateful?
This virus poses no threat to children,yet schools remain shut.
This virus poses minimal threat to healthy people of working age,including teachers,yet businesses remain shut and many will not reopen.
This virus poses a more substantial threat to the elderly and unwell,yet the elderly were removed from hospitals and other medical services were reduced or suspended.
Face coverings pose a genuine threat to health if they are worn for a prolonged period and not regularly replaced or cleaned and stored in a sterile environment.
They offer minimal,if any,protection from this virus,yet we are now obliged to wear one.
Every step of the way,Sturgeon has made the same errors as Westminster,the only difference is timing.
Yet Westminster is to be damned and we should be grateful for Sturgeon.
Aye, right.
A letter I read today,wonder what the resident nats will make of it?Sir, – I keep hearing and reading we should be grateful for the very presence of Nicola Sturgeon,but nobody seems to be able to offer any good reason why.
A total of 2,490 people have lost their lives to this virus.
That is 0.05% of the population and our economy has been closed down.
Livelihoods lost,education abandoned and,crucially,medical treatment withheld.
We should be grateful for that?
Approximately 32,700 Scots are diagnosed with cancer every year and 16,200 die.
Cancer screening was reduced by 70% in April and remains 30% below normal levels four months later.
Cancer survival increases hugely with early diagnosis, but that opportunity has been withheld for thousands of Scots. Why should we be grateful for that?
We’re doing so much better than the evil Tories of Westminster, are we?
Scotland has tested 286,000 people,roughly 5% of our population.
England has tested 8,400,000 people,15% of the population.Why should Scots be grateful?
This virus poses no threat to children,yet schools remain shut.
This virus poses minimal threat to healthy people of working age,including teachers,yet businesses remain shut and many will not reopen.
This virus poses a more substantial threat to the elderly and unwell,yet the elderly were removed from hospitals and other medical services were reduced or suspended.
Face coverings pose a genuine threat to health if they are worn for a prolonged period and not regularly replaced or cleaned and stored in a sterile environment.
They offer minimal,if any,protection from this virus,yet we are now obliged to wear one.
Every step of the way,Sturgeon has made the same errors as Westminster,the only difference is timing.
Yet Westminster is to be damned and we should be grateful for Sturgeon.
Aye, right.
General Price said:
A letter I read today,wonder what the resident nats will make of it?
My first thought was, "is this Trump's twitter feed", followed by , "thank god these little flu, double digit IQ imbeciles are nowhere near power". Final thought, was deep gratitude, that we have someone with half a brain in charge guiding us through this. sambucket said:
General Price said:
A letter I read today,wonder what the resident nats will make of it?
My first thought was, "is this Trump's twitter feed", followed by , "thank god these little flu, double digit IQ imbeciles are nowhere near power". Final thought, was deep gratitude, that we have someone with half a brain in charge guiding us through this. sambucket said:
My first thought was, "is this Trump's twitter feed", followed by , "thank god these little flu, double digit IQ imbeciles are nowhere near power". Final thought, was deep gratitude, that we have someone with half a brain in charge guiding us through this.
Could you counter any of those points in the letter? I'm willing to be educated but with the lack of cancer screening surely anyone with half a brain can see what the consequences are further down the line.
It does appear to me that she has done very little different to Boris, but somehow the opinions are polar opposites.
Uggers said:
Could you counter any of those points in the letter?
I'm willing to be educated but with the lack of cancer screening surely anyone with half a brain can see what the consequences are further down the line.
It does appear to me that she has done very little different to Boris, but somehow the opinions are polar opposites.
It's impossible to do, without comparing responses. But I'll try and avoid England. I'm willing to be educated but with the lack of cancer screening surely anyone with half a brain can see what the consequences are further down the line.
It does appear to me that she has done very little different to Boris, but somehow the opinions are polar opposites.
Loads of countries suspended cancer screenings and re-orientated health to covid. Sweden suspended cancer screenings for 2 months. Countries with loads of health care capacity such as Germany did a bit better but they still struggled to maintain services.
UK already had one of the poorest cancer screening records in EU before covid, so it didn't take much extra strain on the system to disrupt.
The clinical side isn't straight forward either. Someone close to me was due to start chemo when this kicked off. His immune system would be wrecked which adds risk. He had a discussion and decided to go forward. He caught an infection in hospital and ended up in ICU on a ventilator. Tested negative for COVID, but it highlights the issues with running cancer services during a virus outbreak.
Countries with high covid levels are going to have a harder time getting cancer services back online, than countries that have this under control eg Germany or New Zealand.
None of this proves Scotland's response was ideal re Cancer. But the message doesn't have anything to do with Scotland really. You could substitute England or a number of other countries. But the point in the message is simplistic. It's not at all clear that countries that 'let rip' such as USA are going to have better cancer outcomes long term, than countries that got this under control.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 11th July 21:46
Uggers said:
sambucket said:
My first thought was, "is this Trump's twitter feed", followed by , "thank god these little flu, double digit IQ imbeciles are nowhere near power". Final thought, was deep gratitude, that we have someone with half a brain in charge guiding us through this.
Could you counter any of those points in the letter? I'm willing to be educated but with the lack of cancer screening surely anyone with half a brain can see what the consequences are further down the line.
It does appear to me that she has done very little different to Boris, but somehow the opinions are polar opposites.
sambucket said:
It's impossible to do, without comparing responses. But I'll try and avoid England.
Loads of countries suspended cancer screenings and re-orientated health to covid. Sweden suspended cancer screenings for 2 months. Countries with loads of health care capacity such as Germany did a bit better but they still struggled to maintain services.
UK already had one of the poorest cancer screening records in EU before covid, so it didn't take much extra strain on the system to disrupt.
The clinical side isn't straight forward either. Someone close to me was due to start chemo when this kicked off. His immune system would be wrecked which adds risk. He had a discussion and decided to go forward. He caught an infection in hospital and ended up in ICU on a ventilator. Tested negative for COVID, but it highlights the issues with running cancer services during a virus outbreak.
Countries with high covid levels are going to have a harder time getting cancer services back online, than countries that have this under control eg Germany or New Zealand.
None of this proves Scotland's response was ideal re Cancer. But the message doesn't have anything to do with Scotland really. You could substitute England or a number of other countries. But the point in the message is simplistic. It's not at all clear that countries that 'let rip' such as USA are going to have better cancer outcomes long term, than countries that got this under control.
All the above doesn't explain the difference between Boris and Sturgeons opinion ratings when they by and large did exactly the same.Loads of countries suspended cancer screenings and re-orientated health to covid. Sweden suspended cancer screenings for 2 months. Countries with loads of health care capacity such as Germany did a bit better but they still struggled to maintain services.
UK already had one of the poorest cancer screening records in EU before covid, so it didn't take much extra strain on the system to disrupt.
The clinical side isn't straight forward either. Someone close to me was due to start chemo when this kicked off. His immune system would be wrecked which adds risk. He had a discussion and decided to go forward. He caught an infection in hospital and ended up in ICU on a ventilator. Tested negative for COVID, but it highlights the issues with running cancer services during a virus outbreak.
Countries with high covid levels are going to have a harder time getting cancer services back online, than countries that have this under control eg Germany or New Zealand.
None of this proves Scotland's response was ideal re Cancer. But the message doesn't have anything to do with Scotland really. You could substitute England or a number of other countries. But the point in the message is simplistic. It's not at all clear that countries that 'let rip' such as USA are going to have better cancer outcomes long term, than countries that got this under control.
Edited by sambucket on Saturday 11th July 19:32
So if the NHS failings are the same. Testing rates below what England's are. Care home deaths just as high. And a high number of deaths from Covid despite a considerably less populous country.
Why does she command such a high opinion poll rating? It doesn't make any sense at all.
Uggers said:
sambucket said:
It's impossible to do, without comparing responses. But I'll try and avoid England.
Loads of countries suspended cancer screenings and re-orientated health to covid. Sweden suspended cancer screenings for 2 months. Countries with loads of health care capacity such as Germany did a bit better but they still struggled to maintain services.
UK already had one of the poorest cancer screening records in EU before covid, so it didn't take much extra strain on the system to disrupt.
The clinical side isn't straight forward either. Someone close to me was due to start chemo when this kicked off. His immune system would be wrecked which adds risk. He had a discussion and decided to go forward. He caught an infection in hospital and ended up in ICU on a ventilator. Tested negative for COVID, but it highlights the issues with running cancer services during a virus outbreak.
Countries with high covid levels are going to have a harder time getting cancer services back online, than countries that have this under control eg Germany or New Zealand.
None of this proves Scotland's response was ideal re Cancer. But the message doesn't have anything to do with Scotland really. You could substitute England or a number of other countries. But the point in the message is simplistic. It's not at all clear that countries that 'let rip' such as USA are going to have better cancer outcomes long term, than countries that got this under control.
All the above doesn't explain the difference between Boris and Sturgeons opinion ratings when they by and large did exactly the same.Loads of countries suspended cancer screenings and re-orientated health to covid. Sweden suspended cancer screenings for 2 months. Countries with loads of health care capacity such as Germany did a bit better but they still struggled to maintain services.
UK already had one of the poorest cancer screening records in EU before covid, so it didn't take much extra strain on the system to disrupt.
The clinical side isn't straight forward either. Someone close to me was due to start chemo when this kicked off. His immune system would be wrecked which adds risk. He had a discussion and decided to go forward. He caught an infection in hospital and ended up in ICU on a ventilator. Tested negative for COVID, but it highlights the issues with running cancer services during a virus outbreak.
Countries with high covid levels are going to have a harder time getting cancer services back online, than countries that have this under control eg Germany or New Zealand.
None of this proves Scotland's response was ideal re Cancer. But the message doesn't have anything to do with Scotland really. You could substitute England or a number of other countries. But the point in the message is simplistic. It's not at all clear that countries that 'let rip' such as USA are going to have better cancer outcomes long term, than countries that got this under control.
Edited by sambucket on Saturday 11th July 19:32
So if the NHS failings are the same. Testing rates below what England's are. Care home deaths just as high. And a high number of deaths from Covid despite a considerably less populous country.
Why does she command such a high opinion poll rating? It doesn't make any sense at all.
biggbn said:
It makes sense to me. She had appeared calm, concise and very in control. Boris has appeared like, well, Boris. He has not had a good look during this pandemic and neither have his talking heads....
Please note, I said appeared, but in a game of smoke and mirrors, appearance is all!Uggers said:
Why does she command such a high opinion poll rating? It doesn't make any sense at all.
Because she's been on telly every single f
king day, appearing to be on top of things. Because she has no effective opposition and a media that fawns over her. And because she's got half the country giving her a pass because they believe in fairy stories. All about keeping up appearances and fk all to do with her record, which is objectively piss poor in many respects.Not least achieving her (supposed) raison detre.
technodup said:
Uggers said:
Why does she command such a high opinion poll rating? It doesn't make any sense at all.
Because she's been on telly every single fking day, appearing to be on top of things. Because she has no effective opposition and a media that fawns over her. And because she's got half the country giving her a pass because they believe in fairy stories. All about keeping up appearances and fk all to do with her record, which is objectively piss poor in many respects.Not least achieving her (supposed) raison detre.
Uggers said:
All the above doesn't explain the difference between Boris and Sturgeons opinion ratings when they by and large did exactly the same.
So if the NHS failings are the same. Testing rates below what England's are. Care home deaths just as high. And a high number of deaths from Covid despite a considerably less populous country.
Why does she command such a high opinion poll rating? It doesn't make any sense at all.
You asked for a specific counter to the point about screening in the message.So if the NHS failings are the same. Testing rates below what England's are. Care home deaths just as high. And a high number of deaths from Covid despite a considerably less populous country.
Why does she command such a high opinion poll rating? It doesn't make any sense at all.
Re the polls I think it's quite simple - approval of the broader strategy to strongly suppress the virus. That's a very popular strategy, for better or worse.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff