Just in tiers with it all now ....

[dancemom]

New Thread, same old situation....

@BBCONEANDTWO

Is NS closing the border to England - are we not going to be able to travel to England this year at all. I'm gutted.

This hasn't been announced at all. Only thing said is to aim for elimination with JL saying this strategy would mean restricted international travel. There hasn't been anything about closing the border and this couldn't be done fully anyway partly as there isn't the man power for a hard border anyway!

NearWild - "There is no sense of how random (or otherwise) they chose the initial population. Absolutely fine for a random focus group on yogurt. But more important if you're going to point to this as "the voice of the broad population" "

The report sets out how the panel represents the various areas of Scotland; there were 2 people from the BAME community; the panel was meant to be 50/50 M/F but 1 woman dropped out; they were drawn from areas with varying degrees of deprivation, and there was a spread of ages as well. It was planned to meet the profile of the 2011 census. So, not entirely random then. Have you read it?

Can’t close the border when we’re all one country, the UK

What do UfT not have a fit about!

@ICouldHaveCheckedFirst

NearWild - "There is no sense of how random (or otherwise) they chose the initial population. Absolutely fine for a random focus group on yogurt. But more important if you're going to point to this as "the voice of the broad population" "

The report sets out how the panel represents the various areas of Scotland; there were 2 people from the BAME community; the panel was meant to be 50/50 M/F but 1 woman dropped out; they were drawn from areas with varying degrees of deprivation, and there was a spread of ages as well. It was planned to meet the profile of the 2011 census. So, not entirely random then. Have you read it?

Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant the original pool of 1500 that was whittled down.

No matter. I'm probably havering

Thank you for answering regarding the border - I was reading the posts and thought that she intended to close the border (although there isn't one).

Thanks everyone

@AudacityOfHope really interesting thanks for posting.

I'm not sure the sample size was in any big enough to be vaguely meaningful though. The thing that really jumped out at me was that nobody from frontline medicine contributed, were they all to busy? They were being asked to speak on the non direct impacts of covid 19, which I wonder may prove itself to be a huge underestimated impact.

@NearWildHeaven

Thanks *@AudacityOfHope*

I think it's interesting. Honestly if I'd been invited I'd have stuck my hand up. That's why I was reading more. Not suggesting anything more than possibly a slight envy at the opportunity

I think you can register on the website to be invited to other things. They did mention one other one about rural and agricultural affairs or something (I thought thank fuck that one sounds boring )

[quote Sweetpotatoaddict]@AudacityOfHope really interesting thanks for posting.

I'm not sure the sample size was in any big enough to be vaguely meaningful though. The thing that really jumped out at me was that nobody from frontline medicine contributed, were they all to busy? They were being asked to speak on the non direct impacts of covid 19, which I wonder may prove itself to be a huge underestimated impact.[/quote]
Yes, frontline medical staff were asked to be witnesses but none of those invited could commit I believe.

Need all the medical staff we can get at the moment....

[quote Sweetpotatoaddict]@AudacityOfHope really interesting thanks for posting.

I'm not sure the sample size was in any big enough to be vaguely meaningful though. The thing that really jumped out at me was that nobody from frontline medicine contributed, were they all to busy? They were being asked to speak on the non direct impacts of covid 19, which I wonder may prove itself to be a huge underestimated impact.[/quote]
The report says that at the 30th January session, panel members were asked to identify people who they wanted to speak to on the 6th Feb (a week later). This included "front line medical staff" to ask about indirect health effects. Unsurprisingly, no front line medical staff they asked were able to attend, given that short notice. I'd have thought that had they been invited as "keynote" speakers for the main sessions, during the planning process, they may have been able to attend, having been given more notice to arrange shifts/ childcare/ family stuff. As you say, I wonder if that is why such little "weight" was given to reducing indirect health effects in the panel's recommendations - which seemed to focus only on "wellbeing" initiatives, and having a think about what to do about the backlog in health care ("develop a strategy and fund some research on the impacts").

Overall, I'm really surprised that so many "neutral" (as in looking at both sides dispassionately, and not having direct experience of working in any particular business through the pandemic) academics were included rather than business leaders, front line medics, carers, families with vulnerable children, students and so on to talk about their actual experiences and what could have been done better to help them - and the same into the future. It isn't surprising that the focus and weight was given to cutting viral spread at all costs without such real life consideration of impacts of doing that through ever tighter restrictions on lives.

So the tourism expert spoke about "measures that could be used in the travel sector, including quarantine hotels, travel
corridors and pre-departure testing" and not (according to the report) the impact that the travel restrictions have had and will continue to have on hotels, seasonal staff, leisure providers and so on. The focus on rebuilding and future opportunities seems to tastefully skirt over the fact that many people with livelihoods dependent on tourism won't be able to take advantage of these things, because they are no longer in business and have no money and nothing left to rebuild. Obviously, taking these people into account now won't necessarily help them individually, as the harm has already been done, but it may help prevent other people going the same way.

@NotAnActualSheep indeed. Nothing but gratitude to Audacity for giving up her time and headspace to do this, but I feel the way it’s been conducted is so disappointingly SNP - engineering a situation that creates a narrow focus and confirms that what they planned to do anyway is ‘right.’

I’ll admit, I called NS a tin pot dictator yesterday and I usually scorn folk who toss about words like that. Working in modern languages I have colleagues who lived under Ceaucescu, the Stasi, Saddam bloody Hussain. But last night I just felt dumbfounded by it all, like she is trying to make us as small, closed off and controlled as possible. Spinning public opinion to promote the party policy. She’s gone too far.

Guys...the panel was commissioned by the cross-party Committee, the Convener of which is Conservative, and the Deputy Chair Monica Lennon, who is Labour.

You can disagree with the report but just disagree with it on its actual merits, instead of trying to fit it into your SNP bad narrative.

@NotAnActualSheep we were asked on week 3 to come up with a list of people we would choose to run our recommendations by, so we could gauge their opinions before finalising the shortlist of recommendations we'd put into a report. That's when we requested a frontline medic, journalist, islander, etc.

No criticism of the folk on the panel @AudacityOfHope, very much directed at the method that was used, and the evidence base that was made available.

As I have said I have huge concerns that at some point the mitigation’s in place for covid start doing more harm than there is benefit to them. One of which is the impact on people’s general health, mental health, and overall health of the nation.

Yeah, that's all absolutely fair, and it's not like I'm here to defend it, I volunteered my time and got paid for it, that's all of my involvement.

This was run by the Committee Engagement Unit; their staff liaise with each committee and make sure they get to hear public voices. I think it was started four or five years ago based on a recommendation from parliament. (I know I'm a nerd, I looked into it...)

It's trying to fit the SNP bad square into a round hole that feels off to me.

Thanks audacity. Yes, I picked that up from the report. I was just surprised that the committee/ steering group, or whoever chose the experts hadn't a) considered that a front line medic would be a suitable person to have in the first place or b) that the panel might want to speak to one in week 4, so maybe think about lining one up in advance of then, given they are famously not generally sitting round waiting to be invited to things!

The structure of the panel seemed to be a couple of steps removed from the cross party committee itself. There seems to be a "committee engagement unit" which gathers experts/ evidence etc in general for all parliamentary committees (assume that is staffed by civil servants) and they worked with 2 academics to work on the basis for the CP. They then set up a steering group, which modified and approved the overarching aim of the CP, and the steering group, I assume identified and invited the experts. Most of the steering group were academics, so presumably asked their colleagues/ people they were aware of with an interest in the field, rather than industry leaders, practitioners and so on.

I don't think the people they chose were bad, or they, or the committee itself had any form of agenda (other than getting public opinion on the question they devised) - but I think it almost certain that the panel recommendations would have been different with a different set of experts, or a different steering group. Which isn't a problem, usually, assuming CPs are usually just one "voice" used in developing policy. Most policy has a much wider public consultation exercise around it, with any stakeholders with an interest able to contribute. I know the SG did something like that for the first strategic roadmap (online, with contributions sought from the public, industry, businesses etc) but I never heard where that went or how the comments gained were assessed and incorporated into policy (they probably weren't directly as they were so diverse and conflicting).

But now this report seems to be very highly weighted by NS/ SG and while the methodology is perfectly sound for what it is, it just seems to give it much more influence than it would merit under normal circumstances. And I think that's why people are worried. As you said yesterday, you don't think that you, an Internet random should have such an extraordinary amount of power as to insist schools open or stay closed or whatever! But the way the report was spoken of reverently by NS/ JL etc yesterday re elimination/ travel restrictions I think is leading people to think that actually you and your 18 colleagues are being given the power to influence policy in a way that will negatively affect their lives.

Sorry... I type so slowly you already said half of what I was waffling there!

To be fair they're probably just paying lip service to it - I know that as of yesterday morning anyway they hadn't read it.

I do think it's a laudable aim though, to have a more participative democracy, so even if it's flawed or small, it's a step towards the kind of country I want to live in.

I'm sure I've bored the absolute arse off of everyone now, so I'm going to slink off for a name change at some point today

Interesting to see that Mark Drakeford has said this morning that Wales' strategy is based on maximum suppression, not elimination.

Not bored here audacity and thanks for all the information.

Audacity thanks for your clarity of explanation, rationality and for taking time to share your knowledge and experience. Enjoy your name change and return to anonymity until it's time for .

I don't think the panel is the only evidence the government is looking at re covid. I'd imagine that front line medics, business leaders in travel, etc have been consulted in other ways. No offence to @AudacityOfHope, but I'd be surprised if this panel was the sole instrument of decision making for the government.

So would I @icanboogieboogiewoogie I don't think that was ever anyone's expectation! I think it just got played out in one day's news cycle that's all.

Yes, fair enough! There probably wasn't enough else happening yesterday so it may have been given more weight than necessary... I hope the consultation and reporting of other sectors comes soon and is given the same media coverage. Thanks again audacity! Enjoy your name change

It's just been announced that dental students won't be able to start their courses as planned in September. Hardly surprising as the current final years have to repeat, but surely this is going to cause a huge backlog... So the students wanting to apply for 2022 won't be able to because it will be taken up with this year's students and so on. Im sure things will settle out in a few years, but I'm really worried about dentistry full stop. I can't see them ever catching up with the backlog of routine 6 monthly checks given the restrictions on number of patients which it sounds like will continue for ages. So only people with urgent needs will be seen unless you can pay and everyone else is ignored until it becomes urgent. This seems like such a backwards step. Not to mention the importance of dentist checks in childhood to ensure proper tooth development and get children used to the experience, and checking for mouth cancers and things in adults...