Can we have some fcuking control on the airports from high risk countries please?

is_that_so

is_that_so wrote: »

Another challenge to MHQ requirement, this one is completely understandable.



https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2021/0415/1210115-quarantine-courts/

How so? Does traveling for the purpose of collecting a surrogate baby make them immune to the disease? I sympathise with them of course, but the amount of "special cases" coming out iin the media is ridiculous. And don't get me started on the EU "sanctity of free movement" bull****. This is exactly why we need quarantine, everyone thinks they are special and are exempt from the travel restrictions.

I'm delighted to hear stories of people being unable to book flights because they haven't pre book their quarantine stay. This is exactly what we need. I hope the government fight ls them all in the courts and doesn't back down.

Father Hernandez

Deleted User wrote: »

How so? Does traveling for the purpose of collecting a surrogate baby make them immune to the disease? I sympathise with them of course, but the amount of "special cases" coming out iin the media is ridiculous. And don't get me started on the EU "sanctaty of free movement" bull****. This is exactly why we need quarantine, everyone thinks they are special and are exempt from the travel restrictions.

I'm delighted to hear stories of people being unable to book flights because they haven't pre book their quarantine stay. This is exactly what we need. I hope the government fight ls them all in the courts and doesn't back down.

There are already multiple exemptions so why wouldn't they challenge it?

Government officials are exempt, elite sportspeople maybe too, the virus doesn't differentiate between those exempt or not.

Good on them for challenging it, they'll most likely win as there are too many holes in MHQ as seen by cases thrown out already.

is_that_so

josip wrote: »

Is this due to the old mentality of can't be reprimanded if they apply the rules but if they were to actually evaluate a specific case on its merits, then they run the risk of a mark on their record ?

It really seems to be just a flat no to any appeal.

NSAman

I wonder if an ingrown toe nail appointment could be used as a High Court Challenge at this stage?

The whole thing is a sh1tshow.

Corholio

Fully vaccinated people to be made exempt from MHQ. Should have been the very first exemption even thought of.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

How so? Does traveling for the purpose of collecting a surrogate baby make them immune to the disease? I sympathise with them of course, but the amount of "special cases" coming out iin the media is ridiculous. And don't get me started on the EU "sanctity of free movement" bull****. This is exactly why we need quarantine, everyone thinks they are special and are exempt from the travel restrictions.

I'm delighted to hear stories of people being unable to book flights because they haven't pre book their quarantine stay. This is exactly what we need. I hope the government fight ls them all in the courts and doesn't back down.

have you ever had a new baby? This baby is a surrogate baby, so the mother cannot breastfeed it. It will need bottles, formula, sterilising equipment, a baby bath, a bassinet/crib...........I doubt the Maldron Hotel will provide all or any of this equipment!! This couple live 10 minutes from Dublin Airport and will be able to quarantine at home where they have ALL of this equipment.

They will not be going out as new parents (in case you didn't know) can barely get time to have a shower or go to the toilet, let alone go out for walks. In this case I hope they win their case. The MHQ is a really poorly thought out process and more and more cases are going to come before the Courts.

Corholio

Corholio wrote: »

Fully vaccinated people to be made exempt from MHQ. Should have been the very first exemption even thought of.

Common sense :rolleyes::rolleyes:

caveat emptor

NSAman wrote: »

Basically, what I see happening here is the government forcing through legislation which will make the airlines do the border controls for the government, while at the same time forcing them into a situation that is economically unviable.

This, of course, will lead to a bail out offer which will be forced on the tax payer.

But did we not already bail them out? Below on the legality point. EU can refer to its own law first.

At the heart of global pandemic governance is the WHO’s International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR), with 194 national signatories, which sets out key principles to guide national preparedness and response. At European regional level, EU Decision 1082/13 is the key legal instrument for cross border threats to health. This explicitly recognises and endorses compliance with the IHR at Articles (6), (12) and (26).

Both the IHR and Decision 1082/13 require signatory states to develop national plans for pandemic preparedness and response [1], [2]. Many countries do now have plans in place, which can include controversial, but sometimes necessary, measures such as rationing of resources, enforced isolation or quarantine, or seizure of goods and property. However, given the magnitude of a pandemic threat, both the WHO [3] and the EU (through the ECDC) [4] also encourage the use of legal frameworks to support those plans. “Legal frameworks” may be “legislation, laws, regulation, administrative requirements, policies or other government instruments” [5]. National legislation is “hard law”, the strongest and most formal mode of governance.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851017302221

Father Hernandez

Father Hernandez wrote: »

There are already multiple exemptions so why wouldn't they challenge it?

Government officials are exempt, elite sportspeople maybe too, the virus doesn't differentiate between those exempt or not.

Good on them for challenging it, they'll most likely win as there are too many holes in MHQ as seen by cases thrown out already.

You're right that there are too many holes. Als9 that everyone is entitled to challenge it and have a good chance of overturning it in its current form. It will be good to get these holes plugged and come out the other side with something more water tight. This will make us better prepared when this false sense of security as a result of the vaccines blows over and the mother fcuker of all variants sweeps the globe.

Larbre34

[Deleted User] wrote: »

this false sense of security as a result of the vaccines blows over.

Explain?

Larbre34

Larbre34 wrote: »

Explain?

Astrazenica is 10% effective against the South African variant. Useless in other words. Pfizer and moderna are working on a new vaccine already that will be required next year as existing vaccines are expected to become less effective.

Jizique

Father Hernandez wrote: »

There are already multiple exemptions so why wouldn't they challenge it?

Government officials are exempt, elite sportspeople maybe too, the virus doesn't differentiate between those exempt or not.

Good on them for challenging it, they'll most likely win as there are too many holes in MHQ as seen by cases thrown out already.

Yes, what would we do if those elite sportspeople couldn’t play France at the weekend, the IRFU would be gutted.
I suspect the laws have to be changed to allow Leinster play

NSAman

Jizique wrote: »

Yes, what would we do if those elite sportspeople couldn’t play France at the weekend, the IRFU would be gutted.
I suspect the laws have to be changed to allow Leinster play

So elite sportspeople are more important than people who are vaccinated and have a parent/family member in crisis?

Hmmm that shows you what is important.

NSAman

NSAman wrote: »

So elite sportspeople are more important than people who are vaccinated and have a parent/family member in crisis?

Hmmm that shows you what is important.

There's no evidence to suggest vaccination prevents you both getting and spreading the virus. In fact I think its recently been proven the opposite is true. Certainly that vaccinated people still test positive for the virus. There is nothing in the vaccine that would stop these people spreading the virus. The vaccine just makes their immune system capable of fighting it off. Meanwhile, while its in their system they are spreading it.

Sports has many positive benefits for a large percentage of the population. I know it has kept.me sane through all this thats for sure and millions, maybe billions, of other people.

1 couple going to collect their new born child. Of course there is nothing more important in their eyes but I'm sorry its harsh but it has no benefit for the wider population.

Father Hernandez

Deleted User wrote: »

There's no evidence to suggest vaccination prevents you both getting and spreading the virus. In fact I think its recently been proven the opposite is true. Certainly that vaccinated people still test positive for the virus. There is nothing in the vaccine that would stop these people spreading the virus. The vaccine just makes their immune system capable of fighting it off. Meanwhile, while its in their system they are spreading it.

Not disagreeing with you but if they were so concerned about carrying the virus, surely vaccinated people would not be exempt?

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1382767864852189188?s=20

Father Hernandez

Father Hernandez wrote: »

Not disagreeing with you but if they were so concerned about carrying the virus, surely vaccinated people would not be exempt?

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1382767864852189188?s=20

Right, well here we go the government is starting to capitulate. I hope this doesn't end up being a big mistake. The data and evidence is constantly changing so I really do hope there is a scientific reason for this change.

Father Hernandez

Deleted User wrote: »

Right, well here we go the government is starting to capitulate. I hope this doesn't end up being a big mistake. The data and evidence is constantly changing so I really do hope there is a scientific reason for this.

As do I, I think we're on different sides of the fence here but I'm fully convinced there is no scientific reason for it and they do make it up as they go along.

NSAman

Deleted User wrote: »

There's no evidence to suggest vaccination prevents you both getting and spreading the virus. In fact I think its recently been proven the opposite is true. Certainly that vaccinated people still test positive for the virus. There is nothing in the vaccine that would stop these people spreading the virus. The vaccine just makes their immune system capable of fighting it off. Meanwhile, while its in their system they are spreading it.

Sports has many positive benefits for a large percentage of the population. I know it has kept.me sane through all this thats for sure and millions, maybe billions, of other people.

1 couple going to collect their new born child. Of course there is nothing more important in their eyes but I'm sorry its harsh but it has no benefit for the wider population.

So a group of men, being in close contact to each other is MORE safe than a vaccinated person who has been isolating at home.... that makes sense ok...

I also like film, but have to watch re-runs on TV as the new stuff is all postponed at the end of the day..... can you not just watch old Sport clips?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Astrazenica is 10% effective against the South African variant. Useless in other words. Pfizer and moderna are working on a new vaccine already that will be required next year as existing vaccines are expected to become less effective.

The vaccine was shown to protect against against servere illness/death despite lower levels of observed effectivity in the research you refer to which was not peer reviewed...but that is not the narrative that you are trying to push, is it.

Valhallapt

Sono Topolino wrote: »

The European Commission is examining our mandatory hotel quarantine regulations with a view to initiating infringement procedings if they aren't amended to make them more transparent and less arbitrary. In addition, the Commission has requested the Government outline other policy avenues it examined which do not breach the fundamental freedoms of EU citizens, and explain why they were rejected.

Austria, Belgium, France, Luxembourg and Italy have lodged complaints regarding the mistreatment of their nationals and will raise it jointly at EU Council level.

I hope the government are forced into a humiliating climb down. MHQ is repugnant to the Irish constitution, EU freedom of movement and is bananas.

normanoffside

Deleted User wrote: »

There's no evidence to suggest vaccination prevents you both getting and spreading the virus. In fact I think its recently been proven the opposite is true. Certainly that vaccinated people still test positive for the virus. There is nothing in the vaccine that would stop these people spreading the virus. The vaccine just makes their immune system capable of fighting it off. Meanwhile, while its in their system they are spreading it.

Sports has many positive benefits for a large percentage of the population. I know it has kept.me sane through all this thats for sure and millions, maybe billions, of other people.

1 couple going to collect their new born child. Of course there is nothing more important in their eyes but I'm sorry its harsh but it has no benefit for the wider population.

Of course vaccinated people are less likely to spread the virus. The sicker you are the more infectious you are generally, This has always been 'common knowledge'.

Hence why Asymptomatics are 25 times less likely to spread the infection than Symptomatics.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The vaccine was shown to protect against against servere illness/death despite lower levels of observed effectivity in the research you refer to which was not peer reviewed...but that is not the narrative that you are trying to push, is it.

I think I'm being very clear what "narrative im trying to push". Everyone coming into the county should have to quarantine in order to stop the spread of the virus. You seem to be suggesting there is some sort of hidden message in my argument? Come on so lets have it. Let me guess, I'm a racist trump loving Nazi?

normanoffside

normanoffside wrote: »

Of course vaccinated people are less likely to spread the virus. The sicker you are the more infectious you are generally, This has always been 'common knowledge'.

Hence why Asymptomatics are 25 times less likely to spread the infection than Symptomatics.

Surely you can identify agenda driven posting when you see it.

Baggly

Deleted User wrote: »

Astrazenica is 10% effective against the South African variant. Useless in other words. Pfizer and moderna are working on a new vaccine already that will be required next year as existing vaccines are expected to become less effective.

Mod

This is, at best, misleading. Back up this opinion to me via PM and dont post here in the meantime.

Baggly

Baggly wrote: »

Mod

This is, at best, misleading. Back up this opinion to me via PM and dont post here in the meantime.

He even rounded down from 10.9% to 10 rather than up to 11.

suicide_circus

Sono Topolino wrote: »

The European Commission is examining our mandatory hotel quarantine regulations with a view to initiating infringement procedings if they aren't amended to make them more transparent and less arbitrary. In addition, the Commission has requested the Government outline other policy avenues it examined which do not breach the fundamental freedoms of EU citizens, and explain why they were rejected.

Austria, Belgium, France, Luxembourg and Italy have lodged complaints regarding the mistreatment of their nationals and will raise it jointly at EU Council level.

Hilarious

Corholio

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think I'm being very clear what "narrative im trying to push". Everyone coming into the county should have to quarantine in order to stop the spread of the virus. You seem to be suggesting there is some sort of hidden message in my argument? Come on so lets have it. Let me guess, I'm a racist trump loving Nazi?

Part of it is the 'AZ only offers 10% protection against the SA variant' is from very tiny research and loose methods, but yet is said with such sureness it's almost made out to be fully true? It's not.

saabsaab

Deleted User wrote: »

The vaccine was shown to protect against against servere illness/death despite lower levels of observed effectivity in the research you refer to which was not peer reviewed...but that is not the narrative that you are trying to push, is it.

Its not clear either way. Vaccinations are likely to provide protection and make it less likely to pass it on (if it works like other vaccines). It doesn't mean someone couldn't carry it into the country.

saabsaab

saabsaab wrote: »

Its not clear either way. Vaccinations are likely to provide protection and make it less likely to pass it on (if it works like other vaccines). It doesn't mean someone couldn't carry it into the country.

I don't know how many times this has to be said but if the infected aren't shedding, they aren't transmitting.
"it's not clear either way"; seed doubt, seed fear. I see the tactic.

NSAman

Deleted User wrote: »

I think I'm being very clear what "narrative im trying to push". Everyone coming into the county should have to quarantine

except:

People travelling for urgent medical reasons
People arriving who have a mandatory legal obligation, for example, an arrest warrant or an extradition order
Gardaí or defence forces carrying out their duties
Diplomats or elected representatives carrying out essential functions
Transit passenger who do not leave the port or airport
International transport workers in defined essential supply chain roles
Elite Sports Individuals (because they have a match coming up)

in order to stop the spread of the virus. You seem to be suggesting there is some sort of hidden message in my argument? Come on so lets have it. Let me guess, I'm a racist trump loving Nazi?

Fixed that for you correctly.