When will Scotland return to some sort of normal?

[Carlisle]

Going on the statements made today it sounds very much like Nicola is hellbent on destroying both the economy and mental health of Scotland

Yet countries like Germany & Spain who also have historically strong devolved administrations, appear relatively unified in getting their economies re started ASAP

 

[Peter0124]

Sorry if someone has mentioned already but ScotRail appear to be bringing back many more services. Argyle & North Clyde are my local lines and both appear to be running a full timetable as of Monday.

Should be a good sign.

According to RTT there will be a near full timetable back on these routes, with the exception of no Milngavie-Edinburgh services and Lanark-GLC still remaining 1tph for some reason? Of course this is only between 8am and 8pm and I hope we get 100% full timetable by mid july

 

[Scotrail12]

According to RTT there will be a near full timetable back on these routes, with the exception of no Milngavie-Edinburgh services and Lanark-GLC still remaining 1tph for some reason? Of course this is only between 8am and 8pm and I hope we get 100% full timetable by mid july

Thought that there would be the Milngavie-Edinburgh services when I first checked but I double checked and they are still off. Still a good sign though, better than the paltry timetable we've had recently, especially on the Argyle. Glad also that the Motherwell-Cumbernauld branch is reopening as it means that Coatbridge Central will be used again, was worried that it would be closed for a while.

Think that Milngavie to Edinburgh is still off purely because the 334's are probably better suited for social distancing than the 318's/320's so they need to free up as many as possible. Most of the Airdrie-Balloch services during the lockdown have been 334's whereas it's usually only 1 diagram.

 

[route101]

Hopefully the EK service is back to half hourly.

 

[Butts]

Are the face covering rules starting in England next week applicable up here as well ?

Talking about Trains.

 

[route101]

Are the face covering rules starting in England next week applicable up here as well ?

Talking about Trains.

No

 

[Butts]

No

Thank God for that !!!

 

[Huntergreed]

I do find it a bit suspicious how Sturgeon’s interpretation of the evidence has led her to the conclusion that she needs to be more cautious than England.

Deaths in Scotland today: 5
Deaths in England today: 186

Given that the English population is ≈ 10 times the Scottish Population (55,200,000 vs 5,400,000) one would expect that, if there was reason to believe Scotland needed to take a more cautious approach, the Scottish deaths would be > English deaths/10

This would mean that the Scottish deaths would need to be around 19+ to warrant a more cautious approach based on these figures. In fact the deaths were 5, around 38 times less than the English deaths. This suggests the epidemic is not nearly as prominent in Scotland as in England and if anything, Scotland should be coming out of lockdown faster than England.

Let’s take the figures from yesterday to compare:

Scottish Deaths: 12
English Deaths: 133

As was the case today, the Scottish deaths are < the English deaths/10. In fact these were around 12 times higher. Again suggesting the epidemic was not quite as prominent in Scotland and that Scotland should be coming out of the crisis more quickly.

Finally let’s compare Wednesdays figures:

Scottish Deaths: 7
English Deaths: 229

Once again, the Scottish deaths < the English deaths/10. In fact these were around 32 times higher. This suggests once again that the epidemic is much less prominent in Scotland and that a faster exit to lockdown would be entirely justified compared to England.

Since we seem to be obsessed on the all important “R” rate, let’s compare estimates.

Estimate in Scotland: 0.6 - 0.8
Estimate in England: 0.8 - 1.0

This suggests to me that Scotland should be able to go ahead of England and ease more restrictions as the reproduction rate is considerably lower, meaning they have much more scope to ease more restrictions without risking an exponential growth in cases than England.

Conclusions:

Scotland should, from these statistics, be able to exit lockdown much faster and more safely than England (the opposite is happening and Scotland is miles behind).

Scotland has a lower “R” number (The opposite is happening, Sturgeon consistently reminds us
“We have reason to believe the “R” number may be considerably higher in Scotland than the rest of the UK”).

So can someone explain the discrepancy between the evidence I’ve presented and what’s actually happening, or is it simply Nicola loudly and proudly extending two fingers across to Mr. Johnson in a bid to be the “better leader” and advance her independence campaign and increase public opinion of the SNP?

Sources:

Death Figures:

https://c19downloads.azureedge.net/downloads/csv/coronavirus-deaths_latest.csv

“R” Number Estimates:

Scotland:

https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-modelling-epidemic-scotland-issue-no-4/

England:

The R value and growth rate

The latest reproduction number (R) and growth rate of coronavirus (COVID-19).

www.gov.uk

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suspect one thing she's concerned about is English visitors, which with public transport use discouraged and flying a bit unpleasant will largely be from Northern England - the worst affected bit at present.

 

[takno]

I do find it a bit suspicious how Sturgeon’s interpretation of the evidence has led her to the conclusion that she needs to be more cautious than England.

Deaths in Scotland today: 5
Deaths in England today: 186

Given that the English population is ≈ 10 times the Scottish Population (55,200,000 vs 5,400,000) one would expect that, if there was reason to believe Scotland needed to take a more cautious approach, the Scottish deaths would be > English deaths/10

This would mean that the Scottish deaths would need to be around 19+ to warrant a more cautious approach based on these figures. In fact the deaths were 5, around 38 times less than the English deaths. This suggests the epidemic is not nearly as prominent in Scotland as in England and if anything, Scotland should be coming out of lockdown faster than England.

Let’s take the figures from yesterday to compare:

Scottish Deaths: 12
English Deaths: 133

As was the case today, the Scottish deaths are < the English deaths/10. In fact these were around 12 times higher. Again suggesting the epidemic was not quite as prominent in Scotland and that Scotland should be coming out of the crisis more quickly.

Finally let’s compare Wednesdays figures:

Scottish Deaths: 7
English Deaths: 229

Once again, the Scottish deaths < the English deaths/10. In fact these were around 32 times higher. This suggests once again that the epidemic is much less prominent in Scotland and that a faster exit to lockdown would be entirely justified compared to England.

Since we seem to be obsessed on the all important “R” rate, let’s compare estimates.

Estimate in Scotland: 0.6 - 0.8
Estimate in England: 0.8 - 1.0

This suggests to me that Scotland should be able to go ahead of England and ease more restrictions as the reproduction rate is considerably lower, meaning they have much more scope to ease more restrictions without risking an exponential growth in cases than England.

Conclusions:

Scotland should, from these statistics, be able to exit lockdown much faster and more safely than England (the opposite is happening and Scotland is miles behind).

Scotland has a lower “R” number (The opposite is happening, Sturgeon consistently reminds us
“We have reason to believe the “R” number may be considerably higher in Scotland than the rest of the UK”).

So can someone explain the discrepancy between the evidence I’ve presented and what’s actually happening, or is it simply Nicola loudly and proudly extending two fingers across to Mr. Johnson in a bid to be the “better leader” and advance her independence campaign and increase public opinion of the SNP?

Sources:

Death Figures:

https://c19downloads.azureedge.net/downloads/csv/coronavirus-deaths_latest.csv

“R” Number Estimates:

Scotland:

https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-modelling-epidemic-scotland-issue-no-4/

England:

The R value and growth rate

The latest reproduction number (R) and growth rate of coronavirus (COVID-19).

www.gov.uk

It's 100% indefensible nonsense. I'm getting close to done with this country, and if we're looking at remote working for the next year there's really very little reason for me to stay.

 

[scotrail158713]

I do find it a bit suspicious how Sturgeon’s interpretation of the evidence has led her to the conclusion that she needs to be more cautious than England.

Deaths in Scotland today: 5
Deaths in England today: 186

Given that the English population is ≈ 10 times the Scottish Population (55,200,000 vs 5,400,000) one would expect that, if there was reason to believe Scotland needed to take a more cautious approach, the Scottish deaths would be > English deaths/10

This would mean that the Scottish deaths would need to be around 19+ to warrant a more cautious approach based on these figures. In fact the deaths were 5, around 38 times less than the English deaths. This suggests the epidemic is not nearly as prominent in Scotland as in England and if anything, Scotland should be coming out of lockdown faster than England.

Let’s take the figures from yesterday to compare:

Scottish Deaths: 12
English Deaths: 133

As was the case today, the Scottish deaths are < the English deaths/10. In fact these were around 12 times higher. Again suggesting the epidemic was not quite as prominent in Scotland and that Scotland should be coming out of the crisis more quickly.

Finally let’s compare Wednesdays figures:

Scottish Deaths: 7
English Deaths: 229

Once again, the Scottish deaths < the English deaths/10. In fact these were around 32 times higher. This suggests once again that the epidemic is much less prominent in Scotland and that a faster exit to lockdown would be entirely justified compared to England.

Since we seem to be obsessed on the all important “R” rate, let’s compare estimates.

Estimate in Scotland: 0.6 - 0.8
Estimate in England: 0.8 - 1.0

This suggests to me that Scotland should be able to go ahead of England and ease more restrictions as the reproduction rate is considerably lower, meaning they have much more scope to ease more restrictions without risking an exponential growth in cases than England.

Conclusions:

Scotland should, from these statistics, be able to exit lockdown much faster and more safely than England (the opposite is happening and Scotland is miles behind).

Scotland has a lower “R” number (The opposite is happening, Sturgeon consistently reminds us
“We have reason to believe the “R” number may be considerably higher in Scotland than the rest of the UK”).

So can someone explain the discrepancy between the evidence I’ve presented and what’s actually happening, or is it simply Nicola loudly and proudly extending two fingers across to Mr. Johnson in a bid to be the “better leader” and advance her independence campaign and increase public opinion of the SNP?

Sources:

Death Figures:

https://c19downloads.azureedge.net/downloads/csv/coronavirus-deaths_latest.csv

“R” Number Estimates:

Scotland:

https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-modelling-epidemic-scotland-issue-no-4/

England:

The R value and growth rate

The latest reproduction number (R) and growth rate of coronavirus (COVID-19).

www.gov.uk

I have to say that really highlights how bizarre her stance really is. I think she believes Boris is going about it completely wrong and easing too early, but can’t say that in public so is making up some rubbish excuse instead.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have to say that really highlights how bizarre her stance really is. I think she believes Boris is going about it completely wrong and easing too early, but can’t say that in public so is making up some rubbish excuse instead.

Boris is certainly taking a fairly big risk with R close to 1 anyway (ideally you want it down below 0.5 in lockdown which gives you much more to play with, and I'm starting to think 3 more weeks of full lockdown would have been sensible as it would have allowed a faster easing afterwards), but Scotland's rate is much lower. What she actually needs to be able to do is to close the border, hence the 5 mile thing which is the only way she can do it. Then Scotland could follow its own path without imports from the part of England that are most likely to go to Scotland at the moment (as the driving distance is reasonable) - the badly affected North of England.

 

[leightonbd]

I’m no fan of the SG but you can at least say the approach has been pretty consistent throughout lockdown, with a clear priority of driving numbers to extremely low levels. (Politically it has the advantage that SG look good while the UK picks up the tab, and though Rishi is slowly pulling the rug out here they will just turn that to political advantage too). There is a path out of lockdown beginning this coming week and progressing further in early July. You could imagine pulling those dates forward by a week, and maybe they will for stage 3 (Currently to be announced on 9 July for 15 July). Most of us know what will happen next.

On the whole this compares favourably to Downing Street policy which has a strong whiff of making it up as they go along, chopping and changing focus, setting targets and missing them. Guided by the science/ not guided by the science. Credibility undermined. Etc.

SG have made some shockingly bad calls too, and that Health Minister seems to have the opppsite of the Midas touch, but the numbers are doing the right thing. Maybe Nicola wants to be the next Jacinta.

 

[snookertam]

England has almost the highest death rate of any country in the world - not sure why Scotland would want to be using them as an example. Equally parts of England have the R rate as over 1, suggesting that stricter lockdown is required.

There's certainly questions about for how long the 2m distancing rule is sustainable, and I would have issues about the actions taken by the Scottish gov't at the start of the lockdown, but I quite understand why we are being cautious here. Other countries opening up faster also locked down faster, so driving the R rate down didn't take as long.

 

[takno]

Equally parts of England have the R rate as over 1, suggesting that stricter lockdown is required.

One part of England, the southwest, has an estimated R value of 0.8-1.1, so even there the middle estimate is below 1. It also has a low infection rate, meaning that the R value is driven as much by the odd statistical anomaly or one-off event as it is by any genuine trends. Nothing suggests that a stricter lockdown is required or even useful in any region of England right now.

 

[route101]

Looks like the East Kilbride service remains hourly with peak workings added. Neilston gets a half hourly service though.

 

[Scotrail12]

Looks like the East Kilbride service remains hourly with peak workings added. Neilston gets a half hourly service though.

Surprised that EK is 1tph. I would expect that there are a fair few NHS workers who use that line for Hairmyres.

 

[haggishunter]

In reply to Huntergreed's post above, a few weeks ago the range of the R number was higher in Scotland. Now the upper range of R in Scotland is the lower limit of the range in each of the English regions. Basically the numbers have improved because Scotland has been more cautious in relaxing lockdown - ultimately that might mean next week or early July Scotland can take a bigger step. However there are some indications that numbers are going the wrong direction in Dumfries and Galloway, the implication being that is in part due to people from NW England completely disregarding the 5 mile guidance once in Scotland.

This is a big conundrum for tourism and leisure sectors - to get the R number down to open up more and keep them open, travel might have to remain discouraged thus preventing the sector getting the numbers for many businesses to be worth opening. There's long since stopped being good options, only less bad ones and the worst option of all is one that leads to a second wave kicking off and wiping out the summer visitor / activity season entirely.

 

[Scrotnig]

The fabled 'R number' is entirely fictitious and cannot be accurately tracked to anything meaningful at all.

it is merely trotted out to suit whatever it is a particular politician wants to justify at the time.

And I don't buy the idea that there's only one area of Scotland where it's definitely higher, and that just happens to be the fault of people from England ignoring the rules...oh how convenient that would be for Sturgeon. Not buying it for a second.

We are being lied to to suit the politicians' agenda.

 

[Huntergreed]

However there are some indications that numbers are going the wrong direction in Dumfries and Galloway, the implication being that is in part due to people from NW England completely disregarding the 5 mile guidance once in Scotland.

I agree that English visitors likely won’t follow the 5 mile rule, but I’d be interested to know both what the “indications” that our region is going in the wrong direction are. We have only had an increase of 1 case in the last 2 weeks, 0 deaths for 4 weeks, there’s 0 in hospital with the virus, I don’t see anything that may even remotely indicate we might be going in the wrong direction, I think we’re in a pretty good position as far as cases and deaths are concerned.

This is a big conundrum for tourism and leisure sectors - to get the R number down to open up more and keep them open, travel might have to remain discouraged thus preventing the sector getting the numbers for many businesses to be worth opening. There's long since stopped being good options, only less bad ones and the worst option of all is one that leads to a second wave kicking off and wiping out the summer visitor / activity season entirely.

I agree there’s no one easy solution, but as cases continue to fall I don’t see why we must still restrict travel and tourist activities. Arguably the salvation of our heavily damaged economy is far more important than suppressing this virus at this stage and without allowing travel or tourism this will be very difficult indeed.

 

[leightonbd]

Numbers of infected people are now getting seriously low, see the latest weekly report. This has a high end estimate of 4,500 infected people in Scotland (mid-point 2,000). At those levels you would think we have a very good platform for reopening, and could indeed be doing it a bit sooner.

Coronavirus (COVID-19): modelling the epidemic (issue no. 4)

Latest findings in modelling the COVID-19 epidemic in Scotland, both in terms of the spread of the disease through the population (epidemiological modelling) and of the demands it will place on the system, for example in terms of health care requirement.

www.gov.scot

Without meaningful testing, and track and trace, it’s still difficult to have confidence that any resurgence will be picked up and addressed quickly enough - I suppose that is the Achilles heel.

 

[takno]

In reply to Huntergreed's post above, a few weeks ago the range of the R number was higher in Scotland. Now the upper range of R in Scotland is the lower limit of the range in each of the English regions. Basically the numbers have improved because Scotland has been more cautious in relaxing lockdown - ultimately that might mean next week or early July Scotland can take a bigger step. However there are some indications that numbers are going the wrong direction in Dumfries and Galloway, the implication being that is in part due to people from NW England completely disregarding the 5 mile guidance once in Scotland.

This is a big conundrum for tourism and leisure sectors - to get the R number down to open up more and keep them open, travel might have to remain discouraged thus preventing the sector getting the numbers for many businesses to be worth opening. There's long since stopped being good options, only less bad ones and the worst option of all is one that leads to a second wave kicking off and wiping out the summer visitor / activity season entirely.

That's ascribing a lot of undue credit to the supposed benefits of keeping lockdown in place. There's every indication that the reason for the fall in R value over the last few weeks is a falloff in nursing home infections. Sturgeon said it was being driven largely by those at the time, but rather cluelessly appeared to think that made more of a problem rather than less. Now that it has worked its way through the whole of that closed population, it's naturally falling off, meaning that the R value now better matches the community transmission rate.

Of course the community transmission rate is what actually mattered in the first place. Basically we've just added 3 weeks of trashing to the Scottish economy for nothing.

As to the idea that you can meaningfully measure R in an area as small as Dumfries and Galloway, the idea is nuts. You're drawing on such a small number of cases at this point that the number is basically completely random noise. Using random noise to concoct some nonsense about the English being to blame is pathetic tbh. It's needlessly antagonistic and not useful at all in getting us out of the economic and health crisis the politicians are creating for us

 

[route101]

Surprised that EK is 1tph. I would expect that there are a fair few NHS workers who use that line for Hairmyres.

I wonder why its been kept at 1 per hour. Cant see the Neilston line being any busier.

Anyone found the timetables for Scotrail?

All i get is the journey planner.

 

[haggishunter]

As to the idea that you can meaningfully measure R in an area as small as Dumfries and Galloway, the idea is nuts.

Nowhere did I or as far as I can see anyone else refer to R number for D&G. I did however hear on the radio a report that hospital admissions relating to coronavirus and % of +ve tests were down across individual health boards except D&G. It might have been wrong, or I picked it up wrong, but since the NW of England is one of the region with the highest R range etc in England at present, then some spill over doesn't seem improbable.

I was skiing at Glencoe on Fri 20th March, it was busy for a weekday and it was clear there were a lot of people on the mountain who'd never skied in Scotland before. It was becoming obvious that people from all corners of the UK were starting to pile into Highland Scotland, at a time of year that a surge in visitors would ordinarily be very welcome, but this meant there was an upsurge in long distance travelling - the opposite of what was desirable under the circumstances and it points to the potential for issues when lockdown eases further, particularly if there are flare ups in other parts of the UK. It's unavoidable that the further someone travels / the longer the journey they undertake the more they will have to interact with other people on route and the more opportunities there are for transmission of the virus.

We're going to have to accept facemasks and other physical barriers to mitigate the need for social distancing for some time, people need to be encouraged to still go out less than they normally would, to stay local more than they normally would. The test/trace systems needs to be very robust and there needs to be a clear strategy and plan going into the autumn before we wind up with a complete sh!teshow of a second wave on top of seasonal flu, as people move indoors more.

 

[Djgr]

Nowhere did I or as far as I can see anyone else refer to R number for D&G. I did however hear on the radio a report that hospital admissions relating to coronavirus and % of +ve tests were down across individual health boards except D&G. It might have been wrong, or I picked it up wrong, but since the NW of England is one of the region with the highest R range etc in England at present, then some spill over doesn't seem improbable.

I was skiing at Glencoe on Fri 20th March, it was busy for a weekday and it was clear there were a lot of people on the mountain who'd never skied in Scotland before. It was becoming obvious that people from all corners of the UK were starting to pile into Highland Scotland, at a time of year that a surge in visitors would ordinarily be very welcome, but this meant there was an upsurge in long distance travelling - the opposite of what was desirable under the circumstances and it points to the potential for issues when lockdown eases further, particularly if there are flare ups in other parts of the UK. It's unavoidable that the further someone travels / the longer the journey they undertake the more they will have to interact with other people on route and the more opportunities there are for transmission of the virus.

We're going to have to accept facemasks and other physical barriers to mitigate the need for social distancing for some time, people need to be encouraged to still go out less than they normally would, to stay local more than they normally would. The test/trace systems needs to be very robust and there needs to be a clear strategy and plan going into the autumn before we wind up with a complete sh!teshow of a second wave on top of seasonal flu, as people move indoors more.

For what it's worth the North West England R figure is not one of the highest. The figure was updated in the last few days. The oft quoted figure from a week ago appears to have been an outlier.

In general the R figure is a dangerous statistic to use as the number of cases falls, as the low numbers can easily lead to wild fluctuations.

 

[alangla]

I don’t see how any reasonable estimate of the R value can be given for large chunks of Scotland given how few cases there are. D&G, Borders, Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland all have < 5 hospital cases, Forth Valley, Ayrshire & Tayside 5, 5 & 6 respectively. One family or one care home getting badly hit in these areas, some of which have big populations (Tayside is 400k+) would dramatically skew the figures.

source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-daily-data-for-scotland/

 

[leightonbd]

EasyJet are flying into (and presumably out of) Glasgow and Inverness today.

Will all those travelling be observing SG’s five mile restriction? Of course not.

Not very joined up. Mrs S is not in as much control as she would like to pretend.

Coronavirus: EasyJet's first Gatwick to Glasgow and Inverness flights in 11 weeks

The services from Gatwick flew to Glasgow and Inverness with reduced passenger capacity.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Huntergreed]

EasyJet are flying into (and presumably out of) Glasgow and Inverness today.

Will all those landing be observing SG’s five mile restriction? Of course not.

Not very joined up.

Coronavirus: EasyJet's first Gatwick to Glasgow and Inverness flights in 11 weeks

The services from Gatwick flew to Glasgow and Inverness with reduced passenger capacity.

www.bbc.co.uk

The plane wouldn’t even make it to the end of the runway before it’s halfway to 5 miles! It’s ludicrous that in England non essential shops are open, the transport network is open, and there’s no limit on distance. In Scotland, with much a lower proportion of deaths and a considerably lower “R” number, most shops are closed, the transport network is not open, and there’s a 5 mile limit. I would understand a more sensible restriction, say 20-50 miles, but 5 miles is far, far too restrictive to the point that nobody will follow it.

It appears that they’re determined to restrict us so much that they’ve stopped being “guided by the science” and are now guided by their own political best interests. They’re being seen to “do the right thing”.

 

[Butts]

EasyJet are flying into (and presumably out of) Glasgow and Inverness today.

Will all those travelling be observing SG’s five mile restriction? Of course not.

Not very joined up. Mrs S is not in as much control as she would like to pretend.

Coronavirus: EasyJet's first Gatwick to Glasgow and Inverness flights in 11 weeks

The services from Gatwick flew to Glasgow and Inverness with reduced passenger capacity.

www.bbc.co.uk

Do keep up !!

BA have been flying in and out of Edinburgh and Glasgow during the whole pandemic.

I flew from LHR to GLA on June 7th.

 

[haggishunter]

Everyone doesn't need to stay within 5 miles of home, if people are travelling for necessary work reasons which can't be done for home there is no restriction on distance travelled. There's also not a hard and fast limit on travelling to meet family members etc, the advice is not to travel so far that you require to make stops. The 5 mile guidance was to avoid driving beyond a 5 mile radius for exercise or leisure activities. It was also stated that travelling further would often be reasonable for people in rural areas for fairly obvious reasons, lack of services and facilities closer to home etc.