I want a shutdown NOW!

Balf

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

You're glossing over deaths as just being 98 year olds dying.

No, just highlighting the impacts that are being ignored.

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Exams haven't been trashed.

Not what you'd be saying if it was your Leaving Cert, and you've already been told that everyone is getting 100% for their oral exams.

And I can tell from your posts that you're smart enough to know that's not a good outcome.

Balf

martingriff wrote: »

Oh no I realise our economy will be hit and hit hard. Hopefully when this is over people's confidence will still be there we also have suspensions of rates mortgages and utility bills so these should help.

Simple suspension of bill payments doesn't cure the problem. That's glossing over the long-term impact.

Alf Veedersane

Balf wrote: »

No, just highlighting the impacts that are being ignored.Not what you'd be saying if it was your Leaving Cert, and you've already been told that everyone is getting 100% for their oral exams.

And I can tell from your posts that you're smart enough to know that's not a good outcome.

Well, not just highlighting the impacts that are apparently ignored. The comment about implementing the measures to save 98 year olds indicates more than that.

The other impacts are not being ignored. Cancelling the orals is a small element. Students are still being taught, still working and there's time to implement a means to facilitate exams.
I don't think not closing the schools was an option.

Muahahaha

Balf wrote: »

No, just highlighting the impacts that are being ignored.Not what you'd be saying if it was your Leaving Cert, and you've already been told that everyone is getting 100% for their oral exams.
.

That decision to give everyone 100% in their orals was bizarre, surely they could have been conducted via telephone or Skype.

Also when the dust settles on this I can see legal challenges from students who arent doing a language and are thus at an unfair disadvantage in the points race when competing for university places.

Alf Veedersane

Muahahaha wrote: »

That decision to give everyone 100% in their orals was bizarre, surely they could have been conducted via telephone or Skype.

Also when the dust settles on this I can see legal challenges from students who arent doing a language and are thus at an unfair disadvantage in the points race when competing for university places.

It certainly seemed like a rushed decision. Absolutely no need to make a decision on it so far out from the main exams.

riffmongous

As far as I know the LC is graded on a bell curve, so giving everyone 100% in the orals won't make a difference in the end, it just means that the written part of the exam will now be graded differently to ensure that almost the same amount of people get an A, B, C, etc overall as every other year. You could have just given them 0% and it would have the same outcome

Seve OB

riffmongous wrote: »

As far as I know the LC is graded on a bell curve, so giving everyone 100% in the orals won't make a difference in the end, it just means that the written part of the exam will now be graded differently to ensure that almost the same amount of people get an A, B, C, etc overall as every other year. You could have just given them 0% and it would have the same outcome

well actually i heard an expert on the radio and he made a valid point that it does make a difference

this might not be exactly be the way he laid out the example, but you should get the idea.

for the fella who is crap at irish & might be lucky to scrape a pass. well he now gets 100% in this but probably might have gotten about 50% otherwise (if he was lucky). ok its not the whole score, but lets say it gives him an extra 10-20 points in the overall leaving and brings him to 500 points.

now take the fella who is a whizz. pretty much guaranteed straight a's and would have walked away from the oral with an easy 100%. it gives him no benefit. he finishes his leaving on 495.

both these lads are going for last spot in the same course.

now see the difference?

SCOOP 64

My sister in law just got a text from her boss, business as usual see you Monday, she is a receptionist in a solicitors,
don't think i seen this on the essential work list , Legal ?

Jinglejangle69

SCOOP 64 wrote: »

My sister in law just got a text from her boss, business as usual see you Monday, she is a receptionist in a solicitors,
don't think i seen this on the essential work list , Legal ?

Crime will still go on.

And divorces etc.

recyclebin

That's one long list of essential services. I get some of them like pharma and medical devices but lots of others don't need to be on it. I got a text from my employer this morning saying factory is closed for next two weeks. It looks like they jumped the gun as they are now on essential list even though I wouldn't class them as essential myself (ag and forest machinery). Probably for the best that they closed as it puts hundreds of employees at risk if they stayed open as it not possible to implement social distancing.

Pauliedragon

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Crime will still go on.

And divorces etc.

My neighbour works for a solicitor. People are queuing up to make wills.

SCOOP 64

Im wrong ,just checked list again" Financial and Legal" on essential list.

Alf Veedersane

SCOOP 64 wrote: »

Im wrong ,just checked list again" Financial and Legal" on essential list.

It's not a blanket assignment of being 'essential' to everything the qualifies as 'Financial and Legal'.

1. Banking and financial services (including banks, credit unions and post offices)

2. accountancy, legal and insurance services necessary to support essential services and vulnerable people

But you'll get people stretching things to shoehorn a client into that description

martingriff

Balf wrote: »

Simple suspension of bill payments doesn't cure the problem. That's glossing over the long-term impact.

So we should just go back with our lives then?

You continually gloss over this question from everyone but please answer it.

So your okay with the deaths and hospital been overwhelmed?

Queasy Tadpole

Pauliedragon wrote: »

My neighbour works for a solicitor. People are queuing up to make wills.

Hah honest to god I was gonna do the same. No will. Young enough. Wife. Assets. Not gonna chance it.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

It is NOT a shutdown, thousands will pour into my non essential factory Monday morning.

riffmongous

Seve OB wrote: »

well actually i heard an expert on the radio and he made a valid point that it does make a difference

this might not be exactly be the way he laid out the example, but you should get the idea.

for the fella who is crap at irish & might be lucky to scrape a pass. well he now gets 100% in this but probably might have gotten about 50% otherwise (if he was lucky). ok its not the whole score, but lets say it gives him an extra 10-20 points in the overall leaving and brings him to 500 points.

now take the fella who is a whizz. pretty much guaranteed straight a's and would have walked away from the oral with an easy 100%. it gives him no benefit. he finishes his leaving on 495.

both these lads are going for last spot in the same course.

now see the difference?

But the average student won't gain the points like that, the written part will be graded harder so the overall remains the same.. it will maybe benefit anyone who happens to be very weak at the oral and great at written

It's a bit pointless to discuss specific examples like the above really, since that can already happen under the current system, since they are already ruled by the grade curve and it's why so many ask for a re-check each year, like they probably would in this example

Plumbthedepths

Hunky Monster wrote: »

It is NOT a shutdown, thousands will pour into my non essential factory Monday morning.

I'm defined as an essential worker, happy to be heading back to work Monday. My wife is happier than I am.

Rjd2

Hunky Monster wrote: »

It is NOT a shutdown, thousands will pour into my non essential factory Monday morning.

You or a workmate need to spell out the risks for the company if the virus pops up in your workplace, they may not care about their employees health, but what they are doing is insanely risky from a legal POV.

Ignoring the morality of it, if you are an employer asking people to come into an office for a non essential job after Leo's speech on Friday is putting your company at risk in more ways than one.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

Rjd2 wrote: »

You or a workmate need to spell out the risks for the company if the virus pops up in your workplace, they may not care about their employees health, but what they are doing is insanely risky from a legal POV.

Ignoring the morality of it, if you are an employer asking people to come into an office for a non essential job after Leo's speech on Friday is putting your company at risk in more ways than one.

The funny thing is all the office staff are working from home because it’s too dangerous. But not too dangerous for workers on the line.

I mean if we’re out in the open and we’ve to stay 2m away from everyone what’s the fückin point if they shoe horn a few thousand people into a factory Monday morning.

One rule for office staff and another for the plebs on the floor.

Badly Drunk Boy

Hunky Monster wrote: »

It is NOT a shutdown, thousands will pour into my non essential factory Monday morning.

I work in a factory in the what I'd call 'healthcare but not health market'. We could shutdown, except orders have increased since this all started. I sorta shot myself in the foot by saying yesterday that I'll take the next week off as holidays, while colleagues are saying/pretending they have it and are getting 2 weeks paid holidays for it.

(I've loads of holidays to take so it's not an issue...but still...)

Pete_Cavan

Hunky Monster wrote: »

The funny thing is all the office staff are working from home because it’s too dangerous. But not too dangerous for workers on the line.

I mean if we’re out in the open and we’ve to stay 2m away from everyone what’s the fückin point if they shoe horn a few thousand people into a factory Monday morning.

One rule for office staff and another for the plebs on the floor.

What factory has "a few thousand people" working in the same building even with all office staff working from home?

ILoveYourVibes

I have heard so many people say they are not going to observe it. In fact they seem more defiant now.

El_Duderino 09

recyclebin wrote: »

...I wouldn't class them as essential myself (ag and forest machinery). Probably for the best that they closed as it puts hundreds of employees at risk if they stayed open as it not possible to implement social distancing.

I’d say ag machinery is pretty important. Absolutely nobody is buying brand new ag machinery right now but repairs will be very important. I’d say the only ones who might buy new machinery would be the government if they need to harvest crops in a hurry if this lockdown is going to roll on past harvest time.

But ultimately, the restrictions will tighten further. It’s important to do it incrementally to avoid spooking people and causing panic and anarchy.

I see Boris Johnson is getting the UK used to the idea of further restrictions. It’s inevitable really. Once the health service is overrun, it’ll be obvious that we need greater restrictions. So there will be shortages in the coming months and it’s better to keep producing things for as long as possible to minimise the shortages when they happen.

El_Duderino 09

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I have heard so many people say they are not going to observe it. In fact they seem more defiant now.

Big talk. Wait until it gets real and they’ll change their tune. When they see people on the floors of Irish hospital corridors coughing and dying, they won’t want to get the disease.

Yeah, there are dopes out there. Look back at the last few pages where people are justifying doing stupid things and saying “shur, how is going for a cycle in the countryside a problem?”. As with everything else, people learn at different rates. The less clever people learn more slowly in general, but they’ll get there. I think most people will behave well in general.

ILoveYourVibes

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think most people will behave well in general.

Hope so ..then it could be over soon!:)

El_Duderino 09

Hunky Monster wrote: »

The funny thing is all the office staff are working from home because it’s too dangerous. But not too dangerous for workers on the line.

I mean if we’re out in the open and we’ve to stay 2m away from everyone what’s the fückin point if they shoe horn a few thousand people into a factory Monday morning.

One rule for office staff and another for the plebs on the floor.

Well, can the office staff work from home? And can the floor staff work from home?

It Would seem there are different circumstances for the office staff and floor staff

Pete_Cavan

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah, there are dopes out there. Look back at the last few pages where people are justifying doing stupid things and saying “shur, how is going for a cycle in the countryside a problem?”.

Assuming you are on your own and are adhering to the 2km from home rule, going for a cycle in the countryside isn't a problem.

NIMAN

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well, can the office staff work from home? And can the floor staff work from home?

It Would seem there are different circumstances for the office staff and floor staff

In a manufacturing facility there will always be those who are directly involved in making whatever the company sells, and those who provide admin, engineering or r&d support to the product.

The former tend to be required to be physically in the factory, all the latter folk don't, as they aren't loading machines etc.

El_Duderino 09

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Hope so ..then it could be over soon!:)

I don’t think it would mean it will be over soon.

The quickest way to get it over with would be to get everyone to be infected right now and forget medical treatment because the medical system would be completely overrun. Those who survive, survive, those who don’t, don’t. The slowest way to deal with it would be to keep the infection rate to a level where the health system can cope with demands.

So imagine we get to a stable situation where 20,000 a week get covid. It would take 250 weeks for everyone in the republic to catch it and become immune.

And right now, the plan is that everyone gets it (or close to everyone). So we’re talking months of restrictions and distancing. Closer to 6 months than 6 weeks.