Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VI - **Read OP for Mod Warnings**

_Kaiser_

Random but I just saw the Supervalu ad there with the young lad getting ready for Christmas and asking if "he" will still come this year.

You think he means Santy of course but turns out it's his grandad - nice ad really but what was my next thought..?

"not if Tony gets his way"

normanoffside

Stheno wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous, the party line is that hospitals are safe

UHL have 160 staff self isolating either due to having the virus or being a close contact

I think that since the outset 25% of cases have been health care workers

Yet when questions about how this issue is being managed was asked today there was a pile of mumbo jumbo about response processes in hospitals

How in the name of Christ have the HSE etc not gotten a grip on the level of infections in hospital environments?

I thought that the HSE, NPHET and HIQA were all doing a great job.
That's all we have been hearing for the last 8 months.

The people not doing a great job are those going to the pubs, going on holidays or trying to buy clothes.

_Kaiser_

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Random but I just saw the Supervalu ad there with the young lad getting ready for Christmas and asking if "he" will still come this year.

You think he means Santy of course but turns out it's his grandad - nice ad really but what was my next thought..?

"not if Tony gets his way"

Saw it and sadly thought the exact same thing.
People on here will be labelling the kid a grandad killer!

MelbourneMan

normanoffside wrote: »

I thought that the HSE, NPHET and HIQA were all doing a great job.
That's all we have been hearing for the last 8 months.

The people not doing a great job are those going to the pubs, going on holidays or trying to buy clothes.

In a nutshell, this is quite correct, and I have given you one of those thumbs up thanks notes.

On the upside, the virus must be looked at and dealt with on a macro level. While those not following guidelines display a selfishness and antisocial spirit, the majority following the restrictions are sufficient for an overall curtailing, controlling, and suppression of the virus.

bush

MelbourneMan wrote: »

In a nutshell, this is quite correct, and I have given you one of those thumbs up thanks notes.

On the upside, the virus must be looked at and dealt with on a macro level. While those not following guidelines display a selfishness and antisocial spirit, the majority following the restrictions are sufficient for an overall curtailing, controlling, and suppression of the virus.

What is this man uses the Internet for the first time routine?

_Kaiser_

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Saw it and sadly thought the exact same thing.
People on here will be labelling the kid a grandad killer!

And not a mask to be seen and he wasn't socially distancing with his mate :eek: :rolleyes:

Given Leo's comments today and Michael aiming high for level 3, I'm afraid grandad might be skyping this year

normanoffside

MelbourneMan wrote: »

In a nutshell, this is quite correct, and I have given you one of those thumbs up thanks notes.

On the upside, the virus must be looked at and dealt with on a macro level. While those not following guidelines display a selfishness and antisocial spirit, the majority following the restrictions are sufficient for an overall curtailing, controlling, and suppression of the virus.

Got it now, you're actually paddygreen.
Gas Man

I'll mentally note your future posts accordingly.

MelbourneMan

MelbourneMan wrote: »

In a nutshell, this is quite correct, and I have given you one of those thumbs up thanks notes.

On the upside, the virus must be looked at and dealt with on a macro level. While those not following guidelines display a selfishness and antisocial spirit, the majority following the restrictions are sufficient for an overall curtailing, controlling, and suppression of the virus.

Indubitably sire, excuse me now while I retrieve my monocle and dust off the telegram machine.

"Macro" you say, in line with your sweeping generalisations. No grasp of the damage inflicted at micro level, the retailers and publicans down to their last savings...abandoned by government. People unable to visit loved ones more than a few kilometres down the road. Stifled every which way, exacerbated by dark and dreary November.

If I may be cordially so bold as to suggesting you plant your face in the nearest manure pile, an ideal metaphor for the sheer tonnage you have deposited here in recent weeks.

Dr. Bre

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Random but I just saw the Supervalu ad there with the young lad getting ready for Christmas and asking if "he" will still come this year.

You think he means Santy of course but turns out it's his grandad - nice ad really but what was my next thought..?

"not if Tony gets his way"

Tony is watching if you are naughty or nice this Christmas

patnor1011

MelbourneMan wrote: »

In a nutshell, this is quite correct, and I have given you one of those thumbs up thanks notes.

On the upside, the virus must be looked at and dealt with on a macro level. While those not following guidelines display a selfishness and antisocial spirit, the majority following the restrictions are sufficient for an overall curtailing, controlling, and suppression of the virus.

The only majority who follow restrictions are businesses as they have no choice. State can easily control and coerce them to do so.
As for the people, you only need to open your eyes to see that majority of the people simply do not follow them. Nothing to do with selfishness or antisocial spirit. Everyone is just tired of them it is that simple.

Stheno

patnor1011 wrote: »

The only majority who follow restrictions are businesses as they have no choice. State can easily control and coerce them to do so.
As for the people, you only need to open your eyes to see that majority of the people simply do not follow them. Nothing to do with selfishness or antisocial spirit. Everyone is just tired of them it is that simple.

What do you believe people are not doing that they should?

charlie14

3xh wrote: »

You said this; ‘it would ensure no major outbreak of infections would be traced back to any of their events’

Vaccine e-certs and pre-tests will not ensure such, as per the example I gave.

The roll-out of such a program however, would further normalise this gross eHealth idea upon society. Beeping everywhere you go.

It’s simple; if governments said right now, ‘eHealth passports are coming now for all aspects of your life. Education, entertainment, travel, healthcare, sports, etc, there’d be rightly massive pushback.

But here we have eHealth passports ‘just’ for concerts arranged by one company in one country.

Frog in boiling water analogy.

You’re supporting a clear, needless, erosion of privacy and freedom of movement. You’ll regret it eventually as the means to implement this (Covid) won’t be why we’re still forced to use eHealth passports in years to come. It’ll be long gone but proving you’re healthy to do anything will be very much still enforced.

The point you are missing is this is not a proposal from a government. It is from Ticketmaster a savvy commercial enterprise.



If they didn`t see it in their business interest of selling tickets, or give them a greater degree of cover from bad publicity should there be an outbreak traced back to one of their events, do you seriously believe a hard nosed business are doing this for health reasons.
Ticketmaster could not give a toss for your health. They see a commercial advantage. Otherwise they would not even dream of it.

You may not like to hear this, but they are not the only company that I can see going down the same route. In business the bottom line is always the consideration above everything else.

growleaves

charlie14 wrote: »

The point you are missing is this is not a proposal from a government. It is from Ticketmaster a savvy commercial enterprise.



If they didn`t see it in their business interest of selling tickets, or give them a greater degree of cover from bad publicity should there be an outbreak traced back to one of their events, do you seriously believe a hard nosed business are doing this for health reasons.
Ticketmaster could not give a toss for your health. They see a commercial advantage. Otherwise they would not even dream of it.

You may not like to hear this, but they are not the only company that I can see going down the same route. In business the bottom line is always the consideration above everything else.

You're wrong.

That's not how things work in the world of mega-corporations. They could be directing their commercial policies to cater to governments, large investment companies like Blackrock/Vanguard, or even independent VCs.

In which case even in event of Tickemaster going under the CEO, CFO and others would be taken care of, given good positions at other companies, and the assets would be scooped up by another company.

That's why boycotts are often ineffective and companies like Gillette seemingly shoot themselves in the foot with their obnoxious advertising, Nike alienates a large share of its customer base by taking controversial culture-war positions etc.

Companies taking anti-commercial decisions has been a big focus of business analysis for the last decade.

charlie14

patnor1011 wrote: »

First - the vaccine thread is absolutely unbalanced and biased towards 4 particular companies/vaccines to the point of the thread being just an advertisement of certain products. They completely dismiss Chinese and Russian development even though the Chinese, for example, had a clear headstart in developing vaccines due to the pandemic and vaccine effort starting there a couple of months sooner than in the west. To me, Chinese vaccines or treatment looks to be working as we can clearly see that China moved on from lockdowns, masks, and hysteria in general.

I follow the vaccine thread. It give more coverage to the four vaccines that are nearing the end of Phase 3 development for obvious reasons, but there are also many posts on vaccines in Phase 1 and Phase 2.
I find that thread very informative and helpful. I`m sure if you have a question relating to any vaccine there are posters who will answer any queries you have.


Do you not see a contradiction in promoting Russian and Chinese vaccines, many of which have not gone through Phase 3 before being released or have applied for verification on safety or efficacy to the FDA or EMA, when so many on here are complaining about rushed vaccines on both those grounds ?

polesheep

charlie14 wrote: »

The point you are missing is this is not a proposal from a government. It is from Ticketmaster a savvy commercial enterprise.



If they didn`t see it in their business interest of selling tickets, or give them a greater degree of cover from bad publicity should there be an outbreak traced back to one of their events, do you seriously believe a hard nosed business are doing this for health reasons.
Ticketmaster could not give a toss for your health. They see a commercial advantage. Otherwise they would not even dream of it.

You may not like to hear this, but they are not the only company that I can see going down the same route. In business the bottom line is always the consideration above everything else.

Your line of reasoning is fundamentally flawed. If you are a Ticketmaster customer who has had the vaccine then you don't care who else is present. If you have to pay for a test, then you will have a negative perception of Ticketmaster.

From a business point of view, if Ticketmaster claim that all those attending the event are either vaccinated or tested and sell the tickets on that basis, then if there is a subsequent super spreader event their ass would be out the window for having failed to deliver on their promise.

This is most likely nothing more than a publicity stunt by Ticketmaster at a time when their business is on its knees. It's likely that it will never see the light of day.

charlie14

growleaves wrote: »

You're wrong.

That's not how things work in the world of mega-corporations. They could be directing their commercial policies to cater to governments, large investment companies like Blackrock/Vanguard, or even independent VCs.

In which case even in event of Tickemaster going under the CEO, CFO and others would be taken care of, given good positions at other companies, and the assets would be scooped up by another company.

That's why boycotts are often ineffective and companies like Gillette seemingly shoot themselves in the foot with their obnoxious advertising, Nike alienates a large share of its customer base by taking controversial culture-war positions etc.

Companies taking anti-commercial decisions has been a big focus of business analysis for the last decade.

In business the bottom line is what counts. Always has, always will be

Companies may get their approach wrong at times, but the policy regardless is still focused on the bottom line.


Nike does not seem to be doing too badly. For the last four years the have generated revenue of over 30 Billion U.S. each year, and Gillette, along with being the most profitable wing of Proctor and Gamble, is valued by Forbes at 14.5 Billion.

charlie14

polesheep wrote: »

Your line of reasoning is fundamentally flawed. If you are a Ticketmaster customer who has had the vaccine then you don't care who else is present. If you have to pay for a test, then you will have a negative perception of Ticketmaster.

From a business point of view, if Ticketmaster claim that all those attending the event are either vaccinated or tested and sell the tickets on that basis, then if there is a subsequent super spreader event their ass would be out the window for having failed to deliver on their promise.

This is most likely nothing more than a publicity stunt by Ticketmaster at a time when their business is on its knees. It's likely that it will never see the light of day.

Is your thinking not clouded by your anti test anti vaccine view on this issue.

Is there not the possibility that the demand is there from people wishing to attend events where they know all others present will either have passed a test or been vaccinated ?

growleaves

charlie14 wrote: »

In business the bottom line is what counts. Always has, always will be

Companies may get their approach wrong at times, but the policy regardless is still focused on the bottom line.

Wrong. That is a 12 year old's idea of how large corporations work. In reality they are often used as exploitable resources by their investors and governments in ways both public and hidden. The bigger they are the more they can f- around. Even in the worst case scenario of total failure they could dump the stock before enough people copped it and then asset-strip later.

I'm aware that Nike turn a huge profit and Gillette have a good valuation. The question is whether they always and only do what is motivated by profit. They don't.

patnor1011

Stheno wrote: »

What do you believe people are not doing that they should?

People are doing pretty much everything other than visiting closed businesses. Businesses cant open without risking the wrath of the government so it is a case of 'If the mountain will not come to Muhammad...'
People adapt quickly. We have hairdressers going around from house to house, small shop owners having moved a selection of "forbidden fruit stuff" to their sheds, garages, or spare bedrooms, pubs where you can get through back...
And if you think anyone is bothered with 5km limit...

It is not what I believe but what I can see.
What I believe is we should move on.
This lockdown is a lockdown of a business, most of the people do not care much anymore.

patnor1011

charlie14 wrote: »

I follow the vaccine thread. It give more coverage to the four vaccines that are nearing the end of Phase 3 development for obvious reasons, but there are also many posts on vaccines in Phase 1 and Phase 2.
I find that thread very informative and helpful. I`m sure if you have a question relating to any vaccine there are posters who will answer any queries you have.


Do you not see a contradiction in promoting Russian and Chinese vaccines, many of which have not gone through Phase 3 before being released or have applied for verification on safety or efficacy to the FDA or EMA, when so many on here are complaining about rushed vaccines on both those grounds ?

There is nothing on that thread that you cant find yourself on the internet. One of the highly regarded self educated vaccine expert guru on that thread proclaimed that "after spending 10 years working on issues like vaccines and preventative healthcare, spending billions on research and employing some of the best scientists in the world, Gates can be called a "medical expert""

I do not promote anything. I thought we are in it together and that politics should get out of a way in order to save mankind but I was wrong. Russians released phase 3 testing data while ago and it show 92% efficiency. Their vaccine however will not be approved by EMA simply because of politics and business issues. Hungary was recently threatened by EU for trying to make use of Russian vaccine.

Always follow the money.

charlie14

patnor1011 wrote: »

There is nothing on that thread that you cant find yourself on the internet. One of the highly regarded self educated vaccine expert guru on that thread proclaimed that "after spending 10 years working on issues like vaccines and preventative healthcare, spending billions on research and employing some of the best scientists in the world, Gates can be called a "medical expert""

I do not promote anything. I thought we are in it together and that politics should get out of a way in order to save mankind but I was wrong. Russians released phase 3 testing data while ago and it show 92% efficiency. Their vaccine however will not be approved by EMA simply because of politics and business issues. Hungary was recently threatened by EU for trying to make use of Russian vaccine.

Always follow the money.

I have been following that thread and I have seen anti-vaxxers having all kinds of conspiracy theories as regards Bill Gates, but I have yet to see any of the posters there who post information on vaccine in development pushing any particular vaccine over another.



The Russian vaccine may or may not be 92% efficient, but it`s not going to get EMA approval until they submit their data to the EMA to verify its safety and efficiency. Same as any other vaccine seeking approval for distribution in Europe.


As regards Hungary, would you be happy to see the the E.U. agency, the EMA, charged with the evaluation and supervision of medicinal products, allow any Tom Dick or Harry to sell any medical product, let alone a vaccine, that hasn`t been reviewed for safety and efficiency first ?

Always follow the certification of safety and efficiency to be sure you are getting what it says on the lid.

charlie14

growleaves wrote: »

Wrong. That is a 12 year old's idea of how large corporations work. In reality they are often used as exploitable resources by their investors and governments in ways both public and hidden. The bigger they are the more they can f- around. Even in the worst case scenario of total failure they could dump the stock before enough people copped it and then asset-strip later.

I'm aware that Nike turn a huge profit and Gillette have a good valuation. The question is whether they always and only do what is motivated by profit. They don't.

They may be no angels, but don`t kid yourself their motive is and always has been profit. They are not in it for the fun of f-ing around.

_Kaiser_

So one of the headlines on R1 this morning mentions that Holohan said yesterday that people coming home for Christmas will be considered non-essential travel.

The arrogance of the man is astounding, never mind that virtually all of the "rules" are advisory anyway but being treated as though they're actual law.

I'm sure if Tony had his way we'd have Gardai randomly stopping people and asking "your papers please" like something out of a Cold War era KGB officer.

suicide_circus

It's a tough one for Tony.

On the one hand, he'd like to keep us at level 5 throughout Christmas.

But on the other hand, if he lifts level 5 and numbers go up, he gets to instigate another lockdown and tell us he told us so.

normanoffside

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

So one of the headlines on R1 this morning mentions that Holohan said yesterday that people coming home for Christmas will be considered non-essential travel.

The arrogance of the man is astounding, never mind that virtually all of the "rules" are advisory anyway but being treated as though they're actual law.

I'm sure if Tony had his way we'd have Gardai randomly stopping people and asking "your papers please" like something out of a Cold War era KGB officer.

The best thing is just to ignore him at this point.

brisan

bush wrote: »

What is this man uses the Internet for the first time routine?

I missed the Hello at the beginning
Bit sad when I realised it was not there
Recognition of sarcasm is obviously not one of his strengths

pconn062

normanoffside wrote: »

The best thing is just to ignore him at this point.

Yes, that's my line of thinking too. Ignore and live your life as normal as possible. I have had to close my business due to level 5 but still working away a bit on the side and apart from not being able to go to shops that are closed, everything else is pretty much as normal.

I've seen people saying they haven't seen their parents, partners or even their kids (!) in months! I mean, unless they are extremely high risk then fair enough, but even at that, sit outside maybe?

bush

pconn062 wrote: »

Yes, that's my line of thinking too. Ignore and live your life as normal as possible. I have had to close my business due to level 5 but still working away a bit on the side and apart from not being able to go to shops that are closed, everything else is pretty much as normal.

I've seen people saying they haven't seen their parents, partners or even their kids (!) in months! I mean, unless they are extremely high risk then fair enough, but even at that, sit outside maybe?

My theory is these people don't want to see those people.

bucketybuck

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

The arrogance of the man is astounding

It is simply astounding that Tony Holohan continues to be left in charge of the states response to Coronavirus, we are putting our faith in a man who has already shown huge errors of judgement with regards to this virus. A reminder that this is the man who could not see what was obvious to everybody else at the time, that older people in nursing homes were at huge risk from coronavirus:

However, when asked on March 10th about the visiting restrictions, the chief medical officer, Dr Tony Holohan, said they should be lifted because they were premature and impacted on residents’ social interactions.

Healthcare workers were advised they were not required to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) if they could avoid physical contact and stay at least 1m from the patient.

I am confident in stating that if the nursing homes had been properly addressed and protected that Irelands covid death rate would be less than half than it currently is. It is a national disgrace what happened there, yet instead of him being sacked and censured like he would have been in any other industry, instead we still have people listening to his words as if he knows what he is talking about.

Tony Holohan says we need more restrictions. I say that there is a pile of bodies that show that the words of Tony Holohan shouldn't be gospel.

polesheep

charlie14 wrote: »

Is your thinking not clouded by your anti test anti vaccine view on this issue.

Is there not the possibility that the demand is there from people wishing to attend events where they know all others present will either have passed a test or been vaccinated ?

Way to go for reading my mind and getting it wrong. I have been tested and have no issue being tested at any time. And I am absolutely pro-vaccine.