Off Topic Thread 5.0

irishbucsfan

Neil3030 wrote: »

Do you honestly think the government are banning take away pints because of people getting drinks "to consume outside while socialising in a meeting of no more than two hosueholds within walking distance of their home"

No.

They're doing it because they won't enforce the rules they've already published. And this will make no difference to that either. People will do the same thing with or without drink they've brought from home.

And of course let's not forget that even currently if 2 households of young people sharing apartments/houses in Dublin legitimately met up for pints on South William Street, it looks awful and will draw anger from many quarters, and I don't really see why they'd care. But in reality its far safer than if they did it somewhere indoors. And that's something people need to come to terms with before Christmas.

Neil3030

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No.

They're doing it because they won't enforce the rules they've already published. And this will make no difference to that either. People will do the same thing with or without drink they've brought from home.

And of course let's not forget that even currently if 2 households of young people sharing apartments/houses in Dublin legitimately met up for pints on South William Street, it looks awful and will draw anger from many quarters, and I don't really see why they'd care. But in reality its far safer than if they did it somewhere indoors. And that's something people need to come to terms with before Christmas.

There's an extra risk created by repeated transactions. Drinks bought all at once, people are in and out of a public place in 15 minutes. Drinks bought one at a time, scores will stay in a public place all night. Far higher contact outside of people's bubbles.

Bazzo

Trust me, in 6 months ye will look back on this and be glad of competent political leadership. There are nearly as many people dying in the UK daily at the moment (even by the hoop jumping official numbers) as there are testing positive in Ireland.

pickarooney

How much are the fines for breaking lockdown rules in Ireland?

irishbucsfan

Neil3030 wrote: »

There's an extra risk created by repeated transactions. Drinks bought all at once, people are in and out of a public place in 15 minutes. Drinks bought one at a time, scores will stay in a public place all night. Far higher contact outside of people's bubbles.

There's an extra risk created by doing literally anything. However for what you've described its almost nothing. So long as people are wearing masks if they do have to go inside, so long as there's a low maximum occupancy inside the building while they're there, so long as people aren't allowed to remain inside for long, and so long as they are genuinely drinking them outside.

The outrage in this case is a complete waste of time. People get themselves worked up by some social media video and they immediately just want to forget what we've actually learned about the virus so far. If you were likely to catch the virus outside a bar, then the place I am right now would have been absolutely riddled all summer. Instead, there were almost no outbreaks here (and in many places like it) until the weather turned in October and people started moving indoors.

irishbucsfan

Bazzo wrote: »

Trust me, in 6 months ye will look back on this and be glad of competent political leadership. There are nearly as many people dying in the UK daily at the moment (even by the hoop jumping official numbers) as there are testing positive in Ireland.

The UK has been a disaster and the Irish leadership has generally been excellent.
Not just compared to the UK, comparing ourselves to them or the US almost seems like cheating. But there's a long way to go.

Podge_irl

Neil3030 wrote: »

There's an extra risk created by repeated transactions. Drinks bought all at once, people are in and out of a public place in 15 minutes. Drinks bought one at a time, scores will stay in a public place all night. Far higher contact outside of people's bubbles.

And conversely, if people are going to be meeting outside their bubbles anyway then it is much better that they be doing it outdoors than indoors.

Podge_irl

Neil3030 wrote: »

Look at the plots of the effects of the Wisconsin rallies. Both held at airports.

Both involved bussing crowds of people to the venue. So cramped, crowded indoor locations with re-circulating air.

If I'm honest the move from level 3 to level 5 didn't impact me at all because we were already taking that level of precaution. Herself works in a hospital with a lot of older patients and she is *terrified* of brining it in and getting someone sick so we've sat ahead of the restrictions and haven't once broken them.

The toll on health workers is something else by the way - significant and constant stress often met with indignation by people unhappy with the restrictions. I could well see a lot of people packing it in and changing career when covid is finally under control. On my facebook this morning I see a doctor I know who is working in Texas has been drafted in to work in a field hospital because they've run out of beds. That's a lot of tragedy coming into Christmas for a lot of families.

Also on facebook this morning I see an increasing number of people engaging in complete denial about the virus and worse - rubbishing the vaccine as dangerous with no evidence at all. The vitriol from this latter group as opposed to the genuine fear of the former says a lot about the state of humanity.

Stheno

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No.

They're doing it because they won't enforce the rules they've already published. And this will make no difference to that either. People will do the same thing with or without drink they've brought from home.

And of course let's not forget that even currently if 2 households of young people sharing apartments/houses in Dublin legitimately met up for pints on South William Street, it looks awful and will draw anger from many quarters, and I don't really see why they'd care. But in reality its far safer than if they did it somewhere indoors. And that's something people need to come to terms with before Christmas.

They are tightening up the meeting outdoors if there is drink involved

From the IT

A ban on two or more people meeting outdoors to drink takeaway alcohol will be introduced under plans to be considered by the Cabinet today amid concern over street gatherings and a rise in Covid-19 cases in recent days.

awec

Stheno wrote: »

They are tightening up the meeting outdoors if there is drink involved

From the IT

The meetings will just take place in less obvious places, or indoors.

Stheno

awec wrote: »

The meetings will just take place in less obvious places, or indoors.

Exactly - it all seems completely futile

awec

awec wrote: »

The meetings will just take place in less obvious places, or indoors.

Stheno wrote: »

Exactly - it all seems completely futile

On the contrary, there will be people that would be willing to meet up outdoors for pints, but won't be willing to host.

I don't know if the likely decrease in outdoor intra-house meetings will be offset by fewer but more risky indoor intra-house meetings however.

I did the outdoor drinking thing at the weekend. Was around rathgar/rathmines area. It wasn't nearly as busy as south william street. In fact it wasn't crowded at all. Never felt unsafe at any moment. There was six of us at one stage. There isn't a hope we're suddenly going to start going indoors and do this sort of thing. We only did it because it was available to us outdoors and fell within what we thought was morally acceptable. Some people are going to have house parties regardless, it's not true to think that everyone who was out last weekend will be driven to indoor parties.

Podge_irl

Deleted User wrote: »

I did the outdoor drinking thing at the weekend. Was around rathgar/rathmines area. It wasn't nearly as busy as south william street. In fact it wasn't crowded at all. Never felt unsafe at any moment. There was six of us at one stage. There isn't a hope we're suddenly going to start going indoors and do this sort of thing. We only did it because it was available to us outdoors and fell within what we thought was morally acceptable. Some people are going to have house parties regardless, it's not true to think that everyone who was out last weekend will be driven to indoor parties.

I don't think everyone will be driven indoors. But given the risk of transmission seems vastly higher indoors, it wouldn't take much to make the entire thing utterly counter productive while simultaneously taking some last semblance of normality away from a vast amount of people.

Yeah_Right

A few months ago I would have said no way would I get a vaccine that was developed this year. Way too soon. But now I'd be first in the queue when one comes out. I'm frustrated with the restrictions but in fairness I have been lucky. I still get to go into the office and have face to face conversations with real people. And my family are on the other side of the world so its not like I saw a lot of them anyway.
My wife is really struggling. She has been working from home since March, obviously caught up with friends and family when the restrictions eased over summer but this second lockdown has hit her hard. She is a much more social person than me and a big hugger. Whereas I think a great Saturday is sitting in watching multiple matches of rugby and soccer back to back with some good food and drink

Christmas is her favourite time of year and it is going to be really tough on her if the restrictions are still in place. She will definitely break them.

Zzippy

Podge_irl wrote: »

I don't think everyone will be driven indoors. But given the risk of transmission seems vastly higher indoors, it wouldn't take much to make the entire thing utterly counter productive while simultaneously taking some last semblance of normality away from a vast amount of people.

You know what? This isn't a normal situation. People trying to hold on to a semblance of normality are a problem if that normality involves socialising with people from other households, especially with alcohol involved. Yeah yeah, social distancing etc, but when alcohol is involved people forget or lose their inhibitions, and precautions which don't come naturally are forgotten. How many of those people on South William St at the weekend were maintaining a 2m distance. Sweet FA, that's how many.

I've seen my parents once in 9 months. They've met their new granddaughter once. It's infuriating to be doing the right thing to protect others, when people think it's alright to go drinking in groups where they are clearly not adhering to public health guidelines. Just so they can have their "semblance of normality". And f*** everyone else...

Podge_irl

Zzippy wrote: »

You know what? This isn't a normal situation. People trying to hold on to a semblance of normality are a problem if that normality involves socialising with people from other households, especially with alcohol involved. Yeah yeah, social distancing etc, but when alcohol is involved people forget or lose their inhibitions, and precautions which don't come naturally are forgotten. How many of those people on South William St at the weekend were maintaining a 2m distance. Sweet FA, that's how many.

I've seen my parents once in 9 months. They've met their new granddaughter once. It's infuriating to be doing the right thing to protect others, when people think it's alright to go drinking in groups where they are clearly not adhering to public health guidelines. Just so they can have their "semblance of normality". And f*** everyone else...

Anyone who thinks "**** everyone else" will continue to think so. This needs to be an exercise in practicality and realism. People living alone, particularly young people, who may want to meet up in a small group outdoors are at miniscule risk of spreading anything. You stop that and tell them to stay alone all the time and they will not obey, they will move gatherings indoors. Which is worse. Also its a lot easier for someone with a family to dismiss this than young people living alone to be frank.

Get pissed off about those who are breaking the rules (either the letter of spirit of them) all you want. Rules in and of themselves do nothing and making something illegal does not stop it. The problem here was a limited one and one of enforcement.

awec

The other elephant in the room is that schools remain open, and the chances of the virus spreading in those is much greater than anyone having a pint outdoors. But there is total reluctance to even acknowledge this. It is quite bizarre to hear them talk about there being no real evidence of spread in schools, so lets keep them open, on the other hand here's some total supposition about some people on the street, so lets ban that.

They even had to change the rules for schools and come up with a totally different definition of a close contact.

I completely agree with the approach of not closing schools due to the huge knock on effect that has, but it is just frustrating all the bullshit around it.

irishbucsfan

Podge_irl wrote: »

Anyone who thinks "**** everyone else" will continue to think so. This needs to be an exercise in practicality and realism. People living alone, particularly young people, who may want to meet up in a small group outdoors are at miniscule risk of spreading anything. You stop that and tell them to stay alone all the time and they will not obey, they will move gatherings indoors. Which is worse. Also its a lot easier for someone with a family to dismiss this than young people living alone to be frank.

Get pissed off about those who are breaking the rules (either the letter of spirit of them) all you want. Rules in and of themselves do nothing and making something illegal does not stop it. The problem here was a limited one and one of enforcement.

Absolutely.


We should be constantly learning and evolving our understanding of how best to protect everyone and our guidelines should follow. Looking across the world, it seems its completely possible to allow some people to socialise with food and drink in a very low-risk setting. And if it's possible to do that, then we should be coming up with ways to push people in that direction. Because the alternative (closing everything) is clearly completely unenforceable, and thats far from just Ireland. A regulation is only worthwhile if it is being followed.

For example, if we take New Year's Eve, surely no one thinks that closing everything down that night will stop parties. So if it's not going to stop it, why not TRY to offer a safer alternative... granted its going to be December soon and if its bucketing rain then people aren't going to be staying outside for long anyway!

awec

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Absolutely.


We should be constantly learning and evolving our understanding of how best to protect everyone and our guidelines should follow. Looking across the world, it seems its completely possible to allow some people to socialise with food and drink in a very low-risk setting. And if it's possible to do that, then we should be coming up with ways to push people in that direction. Because the alternative (closing everything) is clearly completely unenforceable, and thats far from just Ireland. A regulation is only worthwhile if it is being followed.

For example, if we take New Year's Eve, surely no one thinks that closing everything down that night will stop parties. So if it's not going to stop it, why not TRY to offer a safer alternative... granted its going to be December soon and if its bucketing rain then people aren't going to be staying outside for long anyway!

It might have, if they hadn't messed about during the summer when spread was almost non-existent and refused to open things up again.

A huge part of the problem now is that we've essentially been in continuous lockdown since March. The longer it goes on, the less compliance there will be.

"The next 2 weeks are crucial", "we need to flatten the curve", "we're not quite there yet".

irishbucsfan

awec wrote: »

The other elephant in the room is that schools remain open, and the chances of the virus spreading in those is much greater than anyone having a pint outdoors. But there is total reluctance to even acknowledge this. It is quite bizarre to hear them talk about there being no real evidence of spread in schools, so lets keep them open, on the other hand here's some total supposition about some people on the street, so lets ban that.

They even had to change the rules for schools and come up with a totally different definition of a close contact.

I completely agree with the approach of not closing schools due to the huge knock on effect that has, but it is just frustrating all the bullshit around it.

Ah, I don't think there's any great reluctance to acknowledge they are a risk. Its just in society you have to try and limit the total amount of risk taking that is occurring across everyone on aggregate. It's been acknowledged that people with children are at greater risk, but we're making up for that elsewhere by greatly limiting the risk of others.

EDIT: Sorry was trying to find where I saw that acknowledged but I think it was in one of the CMO briefings a little while back when schools were going back

aloooof

awec wrote: »

The other elephant in the room is that schools remain open, and the chances of the virus spreading in those is much greater than anyone having a pint outdoors. But there is total reluctance to even acknowledge this. It is quite bizarre to hear them talk about there being no real evidence of spread in schools, so lets keep them open, on the other hand here's some total supposition about some people on the street, so lets ban that.

They even had to change the rules for schools and come up with a totally different definition of a close contact.

I completely agree with the approach of not closing schools due to the huge knock on effect that has, but it is just frustrating all the bullshit around it.

I kinda disagree awec, I think they were relatively clear about this when the schools were re-opening at the time.

Some of the arguments we saw were along the lines of "schools are open but I can't even go for a pint?" but, imo, that's looking at it exactly backward. You can't go for a pint so that schools can stay open.

We're reducing risks elsewhere so that we can tolerate higher risk in more important settings.

Zzippy

Podge_irl wrote: »

Anyone who thinks "**** everyone else" will continue to think so. This needs to be an exercise in practicality and realism. People living alone, particularly young people, who may want to meet up in a small group outdoors are at miniscule risk of spreading anything. You stop that and tell them to stay alone all the time and they will not obey, they will move gatherings indoors. Which is worse. Also its a lot easier for someone with a family to dismiss this than young people living alone to be frank.

Get pissed off about those who are breaking the rules (either the letter of spirit of them) all you want. Rules in and of themselves do nothing and making something illegal does not stop it. The problem here was a limited one and one of enforcement.

People have been able to eat and drink outside all summer, this is a short lockdown to try get things under control again. it's not like they haven't been able to socialise for the last 9 months. People who think guidelines don't apply to them are basically saying "F*** everyone else" no matter how they excuse their exceptionalism.

awec

Zzippy wrote: »

People have been able to eat and drink outside all summer, this is a short lockdown to try get things under control again. it's not like they haven't been able to socialise for the last 9 months. People who think guidelines don't apply to them are basically saying "F*** everyone else" no matter how they excuse their exceptionalism.

Not in Dublin.

aloooof

aloooof wrote: »

I kinda disagree awec, I think they were relatively clear about this when the schools were re-opening at the time.

Some of the arguments we saw were along the lines of "schools are open but I can't even go for a pint?" but, imo, that's looking at it exactly backward. You can't go for a pint so that schools can stay open.

We're reducing risks elsewhere so that we can tolerate higher risk in more important settings.

Yeah and this lockdown is also happening at lower numbers than the last one so that non covid treatments can continue in hospitals.

Buer

awec wrote: »

Not in Dublin.

Yeah, they were able to eat and drink inside elsewhere!

People had months where they could drink happily in a pub somewhere that was serving food which we know wasn't strictly enforced. In the pubs that were enforcing the guidelines, they could finish their meals and continue drinking outside after 105 minutes.

On a separate note - I can hardly believe how badly Johnson has just made the Scottish independence situation for himself. Are they actively seeking for Scotland to leave?

Zzippy

Deleted User wrote: »

On a separate note - I can hardly believe how badly Johnson has just made the Scottish independence situation for himself. Are they actively seeking for Scotland to leave?

Link? What's he done now?

Zzippy

Zzippy wrote: »

Link? What's he done now?

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-54965585

While independence appears to be polling around 55%, devolution has well north of 70% popular support.