What is the actual rationale for keeping people inside their counties?

a148pro

I can understand it if there is a disparity in infection rates between two different counties

If there isn't I don't see it as being justified

It is also highly arbitrary

I hated the 2k, 5k thing during the first lockdown. I could never figure it why it was there. Weeks after it ended I heard someone, Simon Harris I think, saying it was really there to keep people in their homes. That if there was no-where to go they'd just stay in their homes.

Is this really to prevent people going to hotels?

[Deleted User]

Are you actually serious?
It was to stop people travelling around the country, thereby spreading the disease.
Would have thought that obvious

prunudo

a148pro wrote: »

I can understand it if there is a disparity in infection rates between two different counties

If there isn't I don't see it as being justified

It is also highly arbitrary

I hated the 2k, 5k thing during the first lockdown. I could never figure it why it was there. Weeks after it ended I heard someone, Simon Harris I think, saying it was really there to keep people in their homes. That if there was no-where to go they'd just stay in their homes.

Is this really to prevent people going to hotels?

Or why are the gardai only setting up checkpoints out of Dublin now and not 3 weeks ago when Dublin went to level 3. If they had, maybe the country cases might not have risen to what they are now.

a148pro

bubblypop wrote: »

Are you actually serious?
It was to stop people travelling around the country, thereby spreading the disease.
Would have thought that obvious

Right. So you're allowed travel around your own county, and spread the disease?

[Deleted User]

a148pro wrote: »

Right. So you're allowed travel around your own county, and spread the disease?

?
Within a small area. How else do you stop it spreading around the whole country?

Parabellum9

Without penalties there is **** all the gardai can do at these checkpoints, they can’t force you to turn back and the system is easily manipulated. Absolutely pointless

a148pro

Its already spread throughout the whole country. Absent a significant disparity in case numbers between different counties I don't see why people can't travel between counties. And it certainly isn't "living with the virus".

Now if the argument is we don't want you going to hotels, bnbs, fair enough. But then make it "no hotels, no bnbs". A decent number of people would have holiday homes, a decent number of hotels will be open anyway. And more importantly, loads of people live close enough to other counties that they can go in and out without having any interaction with people at all.

Parabellum9

a148pro wrote: »

Its already spread throughout the whole country. Absent a significant disparity in case numbers between different counties I don't see why people can't travel between counties. And it certainly isn't "living with the virus".

Now if the argument is we don't want you going to hotels, bnbs, fair enough. But then make it "no hotels, no bnbs". A decent number of people would have holiday homes, a decent number of hotels will be open anyway. And more importantly, loads of people live close enough to other counties that they can go in and out without having any interaction with people at all.

Yes and that is what’s missing from this whole excercise is logic of any sort - there’s no distinction on reasons, just a blunt where are you going and why. Personally I’m ignoring these this time, I live in limerick and parents live in clare and I will in my bollix not see them for x amount of time again. Been there done that and I’m not doing it again. Neither house has covid or symptoms and never had so these checkpoints can **** off, I have no intention of restricting travel for 2 months again

a148pro

I mean its ridiculous to say to someone who lives a hundred meters from a county boundary, you can't walk a hundred meters down the road. Its ridiculous, in general, let alone at a time of appalling stress and mental health pressures to say you can't go for a cycle in the county next door, can't visit a beauty spot, can't go for a walk in the hills.

Its totally arbitrary. I appreciate in March the government were in the thick of things fighting fires, but this has been coming for months and there's plenty of time to introduce something more nuanced now.

a148pro

Parabellum9 wrote: »

Yes and that is what’s missing from this whole excercise is logic of any sort - there’s no distinction on reasons, just a blunt where are you going and why. Personally I’m ignoring these this time, I live in limerick and parents live in clare and I will in my bollix not see them for x amount of time again. Been there done that and I’m not doing it again. Neither house has covid or symptoms and never had so these checkpoints can **** off, I have no intention of restricting travel for 2 months again

This is what is pissing me off. I've basically been living in level 5 for the last few months. I don't have people in the house, I only meet people outside, I've insisted on wearing a mask in work when no-one did. And I've been visiting beautiful places in Ireland to compensate.

I've basically being avoiding doing anything that might be a public health risk. Travelling into another county is not a public health risk. Meeting people at close quarters inside is.

Beasty

People will typically know where their county boundaries are. Yes to some extent arbitrary, but there is no better way to try and limit spread in a country like Ireland. If, for example, you went with cities, where would the Dublin boundary be? the M50? what about places like Blanchardstown?

And there are exemptions for essential travel (including grocery shopping), and education

What better way of restricting movement would you suggest OP?

Parabellum9

a148pro wrote: »

This is what is pissing me off. I've basically been living in level 5 for the last few months. I don't have people in the house, I only meet people outside, I've insisted on wearing a mask in work when no-one did. And I've been visiting beautiful places in Ireland to compensate.

I've basically being avoiding doing anything that might be a public health risk. Travelling into another county is not a public health risk. Meeting people at close quarters inside is.

Yes and I’ve been the same, I’ve followed all the advice and I spent nearly 3 months from March to June without seeing any of my family. I’ve been there and done that and I am not doing it again, couldn’t give a **** if they invent level 17 restrictions.

cython

prunudo wrote: »

Or why are the gardai only setting up checkpoints out of Dublin now and not 3 weeks ago when Dublin went to level 3. If they had, maybe the country cases might not have risen to what they are now.

Even the dog in the street knew the problem with putting Dublin only under Level 3 and that checkpoints would not be a feature. The hub and spoke nature of the national road network centred on Dublin meant that checkpoints on Dublin were impossible without impacting either or both of intra county or through traffic. Blockading the county would disrupt all through traffic, and plenty of local journeys use the same roads, precluding checkpoints at local access to the same roads.

Now with the whole country expected to stay local, through traffic should be minimised and limited to freight and essential journeys, so checkpoints at county edges are a lot more justifiable.

Uncle Pierre

For an extreme example of how a blanket "don't leave your own county" rule doesn't make sense, there are sportsgrounds in Clonegal, with a couple of soccer pitches and a GAA pitch, that are said to straddle three counties - Carlow, Wicklow, and Wexford. I've heard it said that you can literally kick a ball out in one county, and have it land in another.

There might not be any matches going on at the moment anyway, but even the walking track around the perimeter spans three counties in the space of a few hundred metres. Should there be checkpoints set up there, I wonder?

a148pro

Beasty wrote: »

Yes to some extent arbitrary, but there is no better way to try and limit spread in a country like Ireland.

But it doesn't limit the spread. At all. If two counties have the same levels, and the people in them continue to mix only within their counties then the same number of people will be infected.

I suppose what I'd do is actually target where the virus is spreading, which is people's houses. There was a report in the Irish times, I think they pointed to 400 outbreaks in houses and like 23 in hotels and restaurants.

So instead they stop people going for a walk in a different county. They won't tackle the house because, and I mean this seriously, our post Catholic hangover that what happens in the home stays in the home. I know its in the Constitution but that's really where it comes from, an idea that its indecent to interfere with what people do in their own homes.

But that is apparently where its spreading. So target that.

I am totally fcked off with the arbitrary distinctions and failure to do some of the most basic and obvious things, from the off, because of some shibboleth type principle that can't be called into question (closing the borders in February / March, going for elimination, restricting foreign visits).

a148pro

I mean you can make an argument that there will be more people using petrol stations / public transport / toilets / cafes if they're allowed travel out of their county. But is it suggested that these are causes of infection? If they are they should probably be closed or operated in a way that's safe? Is there not something more nuanced than a county boundary.

Much like the other poster I can't subscribe to stuff that's crap, particularly at a time when real issues are not being tackled.

a148pro

Beasty wrote: »

What better way of restricting movement would you suggest OP?

Sorry to come back a second time, but why are we looking to restrict movement? Movement doesn't cause infection, close contact does.

Am I missing something?

I wonder should I just tweet one of the NPHET guys? Would they reply I wonder/

Parabellum9

a148pro wrote: »

I mean you can make an argument that there will be more people using petrol stations / public transport / toilets / cafes if they're allowed travel out of their county. But is it suggested that these are causes of infection? If they are they should probably be closed or operated in a way that's safe? Is there not something more nuanced than a county boundary.

Much like the other poster I can't subscribe to stuff that's crap, particularly at a time when real issues are not being tackled.

Phil Hogan can travel acrosss Europe to attend a dinner and the other golfgate pricks can do whatever they want but Joe Soap better stay in your county cos the gardai are doing checkpoints? **** outta that, it might have been accepted in March/April but they can go jump at this stage.

Uncle Pierre

Beasty wrote: »

What better way of restricting movement would you suggest OP?

Am not the OP but would suggest myself that a better way would be to put an overall limit on the distance you can travel from home. Would hazard a guess that in even the most remote part of the country, something like a 40km limit would still allow you access to all essentials such as a supermarket, doctor, etc.

Doing it purely by county boundaries is far too inconsistent. Driving from the end of West Cork to somewhere like Youghal in East Cork is something like 175km.

Even in my own county of Wexford, a trip like Duncannon to Gorey is about 85km, and that's perfectly permissible too.

But next door to us in County Carlow, it's only about 25km to go the full length of the county from Kildavin at one end to Carlow town at the other.

So, you could start in Kildavin, drive just 30km, and be breaking the rules. Yet if you started from somewhere else in a larger county, you could drive up to six times that distance, and be doing nothing wrong. That makes no sense.

Damien360

Parabellum9 wrote: »

Phil Hogan can travel acrosss Europe to attend a dinner and the other golfgate pricks can do whatever they want but Joe Soap better stay in your county cos the gardai are doing checkpoints? **** outta that, it might have been accepted in March/April but they can go jump at this stage.

Don’t forget the funeral in the north

As long as every single fine handed out can be argued in court in front of a judge, it is unenforceable. All it takes is one judge ignoring the fine and the whole thing falls apart

Thierry12

Parabellum9 wrote: »

Phil Hogan can travel acrosss Europe to attend a dinner and the other golfgate pricks can do whatever they want but Joe Soap better stay in your county cos the gardai are doing checkpoints? **** outta that, it might have been accepted in March/April but they can go jump at this stage.

You'll be given the vaccine first if you keep up that attitude

Parabellum9

Thierry12 wrote: »

You'll be given the vaccine first if you keep up that attitude

I’ll be first in line for a vaccine for this bull****, I’m sick of it. Sick of the double standards, the fear mongering by both NPHET and our media and all the other nonsense. **** the “new normal”, I want our normal back ASAP

Beasty

Uncle Pierre wrote: »

Am not the OP but would suggest myself that a better way would be to put an overall limit on the distance you can travel from home. Would hazard a guess that in even the most remote part of the country, something like a 40km limit would still allow you access to all essentials such as a supermarket, doctor, etc.

And how could this be policed? They have to be pragmatic.

Parabellum9

Beasty wrote: »

And how could this be policed? They have to be pragmatic.

It’s a simple question they are asking already - where are you coming from and where are you going?

Beasty

Parabellum9 wrote: »

It’s a simple question they are asking already - where are you coming from and where are you going?

And that's at county boundaries

There is no question of where the "boundary" is, and the boundaries can be policed. Otherwise it would be random checkpoints with little "intelligence" over whether a particular traveller is within their "limit" or not. This way it's quite straighforward (even if there are no enforcement powers at present)

Simply much more pragmatic than a distance restriction

Parabellum9

Beasty wrote: »

And that's at county boundaries

There is no question of where the "boundary" is, and the boundaries can be policed. Otherwise it would be random checkpoints with little "intelligence" over whether a particular traveller is within their "limit" or not. This way it's quite straighforward (even if there are no enforcement powers at present)

Simply much more pragmatic than a distance restriction

Yes but look at this way (and you’d expect to have gardai with the competency of geography to understand) - I live in Limerick, my parents are approx 25-30 km away on the clare side. With a 40 restriction, they should be able to easily deduce that me visiting my parents is not breaking any distance rules etc. However if I get stopped at limerick tunnel and say I’m going to Galway, then I can be forced to turn back or face penalties. At the moment the system is nothing but nonsense, a person coming from the far end of Corbally (far end of limerick city/determined to be under clare) can’t cross the line to visit Caherdavin (which is essentially a 10 min drive from there because it’s in Limerick). It is nothing but nonsense.

completedit

Parabellum9 wrote: »

Yes but look at this way (and you’d expect to have gardai with the competency of geography to understand) - I live in Limerick, my parents are approx 25-30 km away on the clare side. With a 40 restriction, they should be able to easily deduce that me visiting my parents is not breaking any distance rules etc. However if I get stopped at limerick tunnel and say I’m going to Galway, then I can be forced to turn back or face penalties. At the moment the system is nothing but nonsense, a person coming from the far end of Corbally (far end of limerick city/determined to be under clare) can’t cross the line to visit Caherdavin (which is essentially a 10 min drive from there because it’s in Limerick). It is nothing but nonsense.

I think these restrictions are always to hopefully get the highest number of people on board. Like the way some people were happy to go abroad while others complied fully. In your scenario, nobody is going to do anything to the person circumventing the rules. They just want to create a stigma to doing it and hope people comply

Sleeper12

Nah mate. Country rates shot up 2 weeks after the "wet" pubs opened. 70 cases can be traced to pubs in Cork alone

LAZYIRISH

Does it not worry anyone how money is wasted on this pandemic or on these pointless checkpoints. Can anyone explain to me What is the actual point of these checkpoints and why only in Dublin?

alentejo

I suspect any law to impose fines for breaches of the county rule will be open to legal challenge. Very difficult to legislate for.

a148pro

Well the first question should be is this a reasonable restriction that is actually going to reduce virus numbers, not can it be policed

And the reality is the existing boundary restrictions cannot be policed either in that anyone can given an excuse that would bring them within the exemptions. Its very hard to investigate that / disprove it.

I mean this was implicit in the Garda approach this week. It wasn't you are going to be caught breaching the guidelines. It was we are going to make it so inconvenient you won't want to.

I actually thought it was astonishing. A public servant saying that they were going to block the roads to make people's lives difficult. I really wish someone brought a court challenge or something. And the media didn't bat an eyelid, in fact, some cheerleaded it. And all the while actual front line workers are sitting in 8k tailbacks.

And no-one bats an eyelid