New national restrictions in Scotland

[Scotrail12]

From the BBC Live Feed


Further hotel quarantine measures I expect. But what other arbitrary rules do we reckon could be announced?

Probably all to do with hotel quarantine.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

Schools in Scotland to start returning from 22 February, subject to final confirmation.

https://twitter.com/LucyJWhyte/status/1356613312734253057

Schools and nurseries going back on a phased basis.
First phase from 22nd Feb:
*full time return of early learning and childcare
*full time return for P1-P3
* some senior pupils back in class part time for practical work needed for national qualifications.

Lockdown to continue until end of February, and the FM is optimistic that a gradual relaxation can start from there-on-in.

 

[Scotrail12]

Fantastic news!

 

[Mag_seven]

Schools in Scotland to start returning from 22 February, subject to final confirmation.

https://twitter.com/LucyJWhyte/status/1356613312734253057

Lockdown to continue until end of February, and the FM is optimistic that a gradual relaxation can start from there-on-in.

Fantastic news!

There wouldn't be elections in the offing would there?

 

[Huntergreed]

Worrying to hear 'physical distancing and masks are likely to remain for some time yet' and 'restrictions may need to continue even after a significant proportion of the adult population has been vaccinated'.

I think there's a worrying shift in perspective. The default should (and must) be that we should have no restrictions unless they really, really are needed to protect the NHS.

The default just now seems to be that we should be in lockdown, and that anything less restrictive is something to be 'grateful' for and that we shouldn't accept and expect any liberties beyond lockdown. This is a very dangerous mindset and must change right now.

 

[6862]

The default just now seems to be that we should be in lockdown, and that anything less restrictive is something to be 'grateful' for and that we shouldn't accept and expect any liberties beyond lockdown. This is a very dangerous mindset and must change right now.

I honestly believe we are living in the 'new normal'.

 

[XAM2175]

Worrying to hear 'physical distancing and masks are likely to remain for some time yet' and 'restrictions may need to continue even after a significant proportion of the adult population has been vaccinated'.

What were you expecting? "The first step of our plan is to immediately end all restrictions. You may henceforth conduct yourselves as though none of this ever happened. Thank you very much."?

I've said in another thread that cautious advances are the lesser evil in communications compared to the cycles of boastful promises and regretful retractions, and I've not changed my mind.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

What were you expecting? "The first step of our plan is to immediately end all restrictions. You may henceforth conduct yourselves as though none of this ever happened. Thank you very much."?

I've said in another thread that cautious advances are the lesser evil in communications compared to the cycles of boastful promises and regretful retractions, and I've not changed my mind.

Once a "significant proportion of the adult population" has been vaccinated, there will be no need to "protect the NHS" any longer. Some may believe this to be the case once the priority groups have been vaccinated. Nonetheless, once the majority of the adult population has been vaccinated, all coronavirus-related restrictions/laws should be dropped. End.

 

[XAM2175]

Once a "significant proportion of the adult population" has been vaccinated, there will be no need to "protect the NHS" any longer.

I agree. I also note that the quote is "restrictions may need to continue" and that there is no single definition of 'significant proportion'. Taking into consideration also that there is still some uncertainty as to the efficacy of the various vaccines in preventing transmission, I don't view it as unreasonable for any government to be avoiding for the time being making firm predictions of the date on which restrictions will end as long as there continues to be visible progress towards that date all the same.

 

[Yew]

Schools in Scotland to start returning from 22 February, subject to final confirmation.

https://twitter.com/LucyJWhyte/status/1356613312734253057

Lockdown to continue until end of February, and the FM is optimistic that a gradual relaxation can start from there-on-in.

The word gradual is concerning.

 

[najaB]

The word gradual is concerning.

Because removing all restrictions in one go is likely to go swimmingly.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

Because removing all restrictions in one go is likely to go swimmingly.

I don't think that's what @Yew is implying.

Not I, nor do I think anyone, expect the Scottish Government on March 1st to go, "ok off you trot, no physical distancing, no face coverings, pack into offices, stadiums, concert halls again. Covid is gone."

But a "gradual" relaxation sounds very much like the initial relaxation back in May, which took 2 months. That takes us to the start of May.

I think what would be much more reasonable would be a drop to level 3 restrictions for every local authority on March 1st, and then each LA reducing through the levels progressively as vaccination and infection rates allow with a weekly review, as it was in November in December. Perhaps NS was just being a pessimist today and this is what she is anticipating, of course, but this seems the best course of action IMO.

Oh, and getting schools back full-time should be a priority too. But there's also an economy that needs to recover (and in NS' case, an election to win).

 

[Journeyman]

I don't think that's what @Yew is implying.

Not I, nor do I think anyone, expect the Scottish Government on March 1st to go, "ok off you trot, no physical distancing, no face coverings, pack into offices, stadiums, concert halls again. Covid is gone."

But a "gradual" relaxation sounds very much like the initial relaxation back in May, which took 2 months. That takes us to the start of May.

I think what would be much more reasonable would be a drop to level 3 restrictions for every local authority on March 1st, and then each LA reducing through the levels progressively as vaccination and infection rates allow with a weekly review, as it was in November in December. Perhaps NS was just being a pessimist today and this is what she is anticipating, of course, but this seems the best course of action IMO.

Oh, and getting schools back full-time should be a priority too. But there's also an economy that needs to recover (and in NS' case, an election to win).

I think the SNP would win by a landslide even if Sturgeon announced COVID lockdown will last another fifty years.

 

[najaB]

But a "gradual" relaxation sounds very much like the initial relaxation back in May, which took 2 months. That takes us to the start of May.

It's about managing expectations. If they set out that the relaxation will be gradual but it turns out to be a short process, everyone's happy. If they say "It would be inhumane to cancel everyone's Easter" and then on March 31st say that nobody can have Easter dinner with more than six people, nor can anyone stay over for... err... Egging Day then people will be, understandably, upset.

 

[Journeyman]

It's about managing expectations. If they set out that the relaxation will be gradual but it turns out to be a short process, everyone's happy. If they say "It would be inhumane to cancel everyone's Easter" and then on March 31st say that nobody can have Easter dinner with more than six people, nor can anyone stay over for... err... Egging Day then people will be, understandably, upset.

Yeah, I think a lesson has been learned from Christmas here. As long as things don't get worse, which is something I always dread whenever there's an update on things, I can cope with things progressing slowly. The worst thing is lifting restrictions too quickly, getting a massive spike in cases and then going back into lockdown for ages. Managing expectations is sensible.

 

[Stathern Jc]

I'm not expecting to avoid having to go back to the DIY haircuts with the beard trimmer.

 

[Peter0124]

Covid-19 restrictions will not be scrapped when vaccine rollout complete, says Deputy First Minister

Covid-19 restrictions will not be scrapped in Scotland once the vaccination programme is complete, Deputy First Minister John Swinney has said.

www.scotsman.com

At the coronavirus daily briefing on Friday Mr Swinney said it was important to be “clear” with the public about expectations around restrictions and the vaccine, and that there will be a need for restrictions “for some considerable time”.

Why do we still need travel restrictions/masks/social distancing even when all the vaccinations are done???

Can understand not being able to travel overseas but surely travel within the UK should be allowed, especially if they have vaccinated everyone!!

 

[Huntergreed]

Covid-19 restrictions will not be scrapped when vaccine rollout complete, says Deputy First Minister

Covid-19 restrictions will not be scrapped in Scotland once the vaccination programme is complete, Deputy First Minister John Swinney has said.

www.scotsman.com

Why do we still need travel restrictions/masks/social distancing even when all the vaccinations are done???

Utter lunacy if this is true. We don’t need them, and frankly to keep them would be a severe, unnecessary assault on our civil liberties (I think they need to remember we are a democracy, we follow what is desired by the majority, and I refuse to believe the majority would want this. People are complaint because they believe this is temporary, if this becomes more permanent, then people will simply stop abiding by the rules. The government needs to stop this ridiculous misbalance of risk and start prioritising quality of life over purely focusing on quantity of life. What’s the use of living if we are not permitted the one thing we thrive on, social contact?)

 

[najaB]

Why do we still need travel restrictions/masks/social distancing even when all the vaccinations are done???

We'll probably need a lot less of them, but since vaccination isn't 100% effective it would be foolhardy to scrap all restrictions as soon as the last shot goes into the last arm.

 

[Peter0124]

We'll probably need a lot less of them, but since vaccination isn't 100% effective it would be foolhardy to scrap all restrictions as soon as the last shot goes into the last arm.

I agree we need to be cautious still, but I think "travel restrictions" ie most likely only staying within your council area, is taking it too far.

 

[Yew]

We'll probably need a lot less of them, but since vaccination isn't 100% effective it would be foolhardy to scrap all restrictions as soon as the last shot goes into the last arm.

Why? This was supposed to be to stop the hospitals being overwhelmed, not to try and stop all forms of death...

 

[najaB]

Why? This was supposed to be to stop the hospitals being overwhelmed, not to try and stop all forms of death...

Again, it remains to be seen what "travel restrictions" actually means. It might mean being told you can't leave your council area, it might mean a prohibition against international travel to hotspots, it might mean anything in-between.

 

[Scotrail12]

We'll probably need a lot less of them, but since vaccination isn't 100% effective it would be foolhardy to scrap all restrictions as soon as the last shot goes into the last arm.

No - it's really not foolhardy, we need society to fully get back to normal ASAP. Vaccinations are supposed to people from being ill. We can't eliminate COVID so what the hell is the point in having extra restrictions?

COVID is always going to be there, by the logic that the vaccines are not 100% effective, you're essentially saying that we need to have restrictions permanently.

 

[najaB]

No - it's really not foolhardy, we need society to fully get back to normal ASAP.

I think people need to divorce themselves from the idea of "back to normal". Even if Covid-19 disappeared tomorrow we aren't going back to exactly where we were before.

A year or more of remote working represents a paradigm shift for businesses, there's going to be a lot fewer people commuting into city centres on a daily basis. Similarly, the boom in online shopping and food delivery is likely to be here to stay, going out to eat is likely to be less of a thing that it was. Both of these are going to reshape our city streetscape. International travel is likely to change as well, since the demand for business travel is likely to remain supressed for the better part of a decade.

What we need to do, as quickly as practical, is get to a state where there is no need for any restrictions at all - which is likely to be a while off.

 

[Scotrail12]

I think people need to divorce themselves from the idea of "back to normal". Even if Covid-19 disappeared tomorrow we aren't going back to exactly where we were before.

A year or more of remote working represents a paradigm shift for businesses, there's going to be a lot fewer people commuting into city centres on a daily basis. Similarly, the boom in online shopping and food delivery is likely to be here to stay, going out to eat is likely to be less of a thing that it was. Both of these are going to reshape our city streetscape. International travel is likely to change as well, since the demand for business travel is likely to remain supressed for the better part of a decade.

What we need to do, as quickly as practical, is get to a state where there is no need for any restrictions at all - which is likely to be a while off.

Obviously the world changes in some ways with working from home being more common (though not in any business I would work in) but what you were suggesting was that some restrictions need to be kept. Why is it that it should be a while off until no restrictions? We've vaccinated the elderly and vulnerable and that pretty much stops them from getting seriously unwell. Are we trying to protect the young and healthy from catching it? If so, we've lost all perspective on risk given that the only people who are likely to be seriously affected by COVID are older and vulnerable categories.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

I think people need to divorce themselves from the idea of "back to normal". Even if Covid-19 disappeared tomorrow we aren't going back to exactly where we were before.

No, people need to divorce themselves from the idea of "the new normal".

We need to be in a position where people/businesses can operate as they did pre-pandemic, not necessarily have to. And by that I mean scrapping the coronavirus act and putting anything that the government deem necessary into guidance instead.

Do I expect this to happen in March 2021? Of course not. But as the vaccination roll-out progresses, and prevalence of the virus continues to fall, there will be less and less need for the coronavirus legislation. By law, the least restrictive measures must be imposed.

While I don't expect the country/world to go back to how it was pre-pandemic, e.g. WFH and international travel as you mention, there should be the option to return to that way of living.

The flu vaccine is 40-60% effective dependent on the year and we don't go about with face nappies, anti-social distancing and stepping into the road to avoid oncoming pedestrians, do we? And remember it's only offered to certain age groups. So why should we have to do these things for a vaccine that is 60-90% effective, and the entire adult population is going to be offered the vaccine?

I think once people get vaccinated and the weather turns nicer, people will start voting with their feet, and the legislation will be quietly dropped off bit by bit as less and less people "follow the rules".

 

[kez19]

Utter lunacy if this is true. We don’t need them, and frankly to keep them would be a severe, unnecessary assault on our civil liberties (I think they need to remember we are a democracy, we follow what is desired by the majority, and I refuse to believe the majority would want this. People are complaint because they believe this is temporary, if this becomes more permanent, then people will simply stop abiding by the rules. The government needs to stop this ridiculous misbalance of risk and start prioritising quality of life over purely focusing on quantity of life. What’s the use of living if we are not permitted the one thing we thrive on, social contact?)

Grabs tinfoil and runs (literally), I see Jason mentions not until the world has been vaccinated (hears a can being kicked..)

 

[Carlisle]

What we need to do, as quickly as practical, is get to a state where there is no need for any restrictions at all - which is likely to be a while off.

How would we achieve & retain the zero Covid environment your post appears to imply we need in order to lift all restrictions, without a policy of hotel quarantine of everyone entering the Uk & Ireland continuing indefinitely?

 

[kez19]

We'll probably need a lot less of them, but since vaccination isn't 100% effective it would be foolhardy to scrap all restrictions as soon as the last shot goes into the last arm.

Yet wasn’t vaccinated bring the key for getting out..oh hang on (fetches goalposts and moves them up the field) but I see nothing else matters anyway

I’m sorry to add then I think the Scottish Government should scrap its roll up our sleeve campaign as they clearly state in one part it’s a way to get back to normal, but I guess either he hasn’t a clue (all of them) or telling porkies which is it?

I think people need to divorce themselves from the idea of "back to normal". Even if Covid-19 disappeared tomorrow we aren't going back to exactly where we were before.

A year or more of remote working represents a paradigm shift for businesses, there's going to be a lot fewer people commuting into city centres on a daily basis. Similarly, the boom in online shopping and food delivery is likely to be here to stay, going out to eat is likely to be less of a thing that it was. Both of these are going to reshape our city streetscape. International travel is likely to change as well, since the demand for business travel is likely to remain supressed for the better part of a decade.

What we need to do, as quickly as practical, is get to a state where there is no need for any restrictions at all - which is likely to be a while off.

Isn’t that the whole point of the governments role is finding ways than prolong it what’s the end goal?

Quickly and practical - governments (well this one ain’t) do things quick do they? All it does is pass the buck but I guess blaming people elsewhere is practical so meh.

 

[najaB]

Obviously the world changes in some ways with working from home being more common (though not in any business I would work in) but what you were suggesting was that some restrictions need to be kept.

Yet wasn’t vaccinated bring the key for getting out.

What I said was:

it would be foolhardy to scrap all restrictions as soon as the last shot goes into the last arm

Some restrictions will still make sense, for some period of time after the vaccination program is completed. For example, while there are hotspots around the world it makes sense to limit travel to (and more importantly, from) those locations if for not other reason that preventing the importation of variants for which our vaccines aren't effective.

The vast majority of people will be able to get out and about with few if any restrictions on their day to day activities once more than c. 70% of the population is vaccinated.

We need to be in a position where people/businesses can operate as they did pre-pandemic, not necessarily have to.

I know it's fun to argue on the Internet, but we actually aren't in disagreement. Put the flamethrower down and read what I wrote again.