Covid 19 Part XXVIII- 71,942 ROI(2,050 deaths) 51,824 NI (983 deaths) (28/11) Read OP

podgeandrodge

is there still talk of reducing the 1hr 45 even further?

xabi

podgeandrodge wrote: »

is there still talk of reducing the 1hr 45 even further?

What's the 1hr 45?

bennyl10

podgeandrodge wrote: »

is there still talk of reducing the 1hr 45 even further?

Almost certainly

Be Shocked if it’s over 99mins and anymore than 4 in a group

bennyl10

Rrrrrr2 wrote: »

Christ.who’s “everyone”?

Btw are you a gym user? You want them shut so you can explain why that’s the case? I assume you have the stats?

This “gym user” argument is baffling

No other section of society has “users” who have put themselves on a pedestal of “well my thing is more important than your thing, you just don’t understand as you’ve never used a gym”

Gyms, by design, are easy spread environments for Covid. Gyms have done well so far, it doesn’t change that fact.

We’ve all had to change how we exercise and cope. ‘Gym users’ are all that special.

stephenjmcd

Cabinet seemingly giving hospitality an extra trading weekend https://twitter.com/MichealLehane/status/1332246899999584257?s=19

seamus

paw patrol wrote: »

except the HSE stats, the offical figures, show that sports (of which gyms are a mere subset) have contributed no more than a handful of cases..
Remember we had 40000 active cases at one stage and the entire sports sector contributed : a handful.

There's no point in going over this old ground.

The primary reason to stop any of this is to minimise social contact. It's not solely about the people on the pitch, it's about the gathering and mixing before and after. Level 5 is supposed to aim for the absolute minimum of social contact; i.e. minimise non-essential contact. Of which, gyms would be one.

I agree that much of the restrictions make little sense; why not allow golf or tennis, or individual gym training, for example. But when you get into that kind of stuff, you dilute the message, make it harder to know what is and isn't allowed, and therefore make it less likely that people will stick to it.

There is also a political element to it; allowing certain sports and not others will be attacked as elitism regardless of the facts.

KrustyUCC

Brave from them

I hope they won't reduce restaurants/gastro pubs to less than 90 mins as 1.30 for a meal can be tight if they're busy

is_that_so

bennyl10 wrote: »

This “gym user” argument is baffling

No other section of society has “users” who have put themselves on a pedestal of “well my thing is more important than your thing, you just don’t understand as you’ve never used a gym”

Gyms, by design, are easy spread environments for Covid. Gyms have done well so far, it doesn’t change that fact.

We’ve all had to change how we exercise and cope. ‘Gym users’ are all that special.

It was the blanket approach to all activities. Gyms classes are more likely culprits as they tend to take place in very small spaces. The attention to gyms is down to their being a very popular indoor activity and indoor options are a more prominent factor in exercise at this time of year. As for cases here, I believe there was 1 case.

caveat emptor

While the vaccine news is great. (it really is) the hurdles left are not significant. The work involved in getting enough people inoculated is immense and on a scale never before seen in human history. Luckily the effort towards this is on the same scale.

seamus

https://www.rte.ie/news/education/2020/1127/1180776-coronavirus-schools/

Positivity rates in schools over the last week is about half that of the national total. Overall, it's 2.4% compared to 3.9% nationally.

2,384 tests seems very low though. As raind points out, 20% of the population are in school every day, surely we would expect to see 20% of our mass testing capacity focussed there?

is_that_so

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Brave from them

I hope they won't reduce restaurants/gastro pubs to less than 90 mins as 1.30 for a meal can be tight if they're busy

Restaurants can adjust their menus - COVID 90! Alternatively they can encourage people to book their food ahead of time.

seamus

is_that_so wrote: »

Restaurants can adjust their menus - COVID 90! Alternatively they can encourage people to book their food ahead.

"Reduced menus", isn't that what they're all doing?

They also can't be that busy anyway, it's not like other years where they can shift tables around and jam people into the corners to increase capacity.

CIARAN_BOYLE

seamus wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/education/2020/1127/1180776-coronavirus-schools/

Positivity rates in schools over the last week is about half that of the national total. Overall, it's 2.4% compared to 3.9% nationally.

2,384 tests seems very low though. As raind points out, 20% of the population are in school every day, surely we would expect to see 20% of our mass testing capacity focussed there?

If the positivity rate is so low should they be testing their as much?

I dont know.

KrustyUCC

True

The current suggestion is an hour though which is almost halved from last time restaurants were open

1.30 is still down from the 1.45

seamus

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

If the positivity rate is so low should they be testing their as much?

I dont know.

It's a good point. I've always said though that we should be maxing out our testing capacity every day. Since we can't really mass test households (though we could expand the definition of "close contact"), the next logical places to focus mass testing are schools and workplaces, focussing on the counties with the worst infection rates and working down.

If nothing else, it would give more peace of mind to people that we're not sitting idly by and waiting for cases to come forward.

eagle eye

Deleted User wrote:

is not contained anywhere in the study. It concludes that super spreading causes 80% of cases, and kids can be superspreaders. Not anymore so than adults

That's incorrect, it's kids and adults over 65.

is_that_so

seamus wrote: »

"Reduced menus", isn't that what they're all doing?

They also can't be that busy anyway, it's not like other years where they can shift tables around and jam people into the corners to increase capacity.

Not sure. On my one and only venture for a sitdown meal in a restaurant, it was a full menu. Spacing as you say should take care of it and if news reports of full bookings follows for all restaurants, they'll know the demand in advance. There will be an appetite for meals out, having been starved of the opportunity for so long!

eagle eye

MOR316 wrote:

I think this is out of order and bonkers really, blaming people on here for the deaths of other people.

There's hysterical and then there is absolute stupidity. This being the latter.

So who are you going to blame if the virus runs wild?
Nobody? Give everybody who doesn't care about staying safe a free pass?

ixoy

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Cabinet seemingly giving hospitality an extra trading weekend

The logic here presumably being that it spreads the number of people meeting up over a longer period, allowing for quieter restaurants and/or more restrict enforcement of a 2m rule or even 4-per-table.
I can't see the time being reduced as it would impact restaurants a lot if people were restricted to something like an hour.

KrustyUCC

They will reduce the time limit according to the Indo

Just remains to be seem by how much

Whilst the Vintners are complaining the government definitely won't open wet pubs imo

AdamD

Reducing the time limit just increases turnover and the likelihood of more people catching it?

KrustyUCC

Yes but I suppose it also reduces the amount of time people are in the restaurant

Interesting trade off

podgeandrodge

Reducing the time any more would mean a lot of people won't bother. You might think that's good for Covid, but if they are opening up to give business a chance, they need to make it realistic.

What's different now to the summer anyway? What's wrong with the original rules?

We seem to be more nervous about cases now than a few months ago. Perhaps it's down to this mentality that Irish people can't contain themselves with alcohol at Christmas.

is_that_so

AdamD wrote: »

Reducing the time limit just increases turnover and the likelihood of more people catching it?

Not if there are fewer people per sitting. Numbers can be adjusted, a change to the length of time has far more limited scope.

seamus

AdamD wrote: »

Reducing the time limit just increases turnover and the likelihood of more people catching it?

Or reduces the amount of time people spend in eachother's company, and the amount of alcohol they can consume, making it less risky.

If they do this, they will have to explain why, clearly.

I see sheep

Reducing the time of a sitting won't help anything or won't stop people getting drunk.
All that will happen is people will be rushing to drink as much as they can.
It's counter productive.
It's all a load of nonsense.

stephenjmcd

KrustyUCC wrote: »

They will reduce the time limit according to the Indo

Just remains to be seem by how much

Whilst the Vintners are complaining the government definitely won't open wet pubs imo

We'll see, some might come to their senses on the time limit, 105mins is tight as it is, reducing it is pretty counter productive.

But we all know its loosely applied

ixoy

Fewer people per sitting (down to 4 from 6) makes a lot more sense to stop mingling of different households plus ensuring people wear a mask when entering / exiting / going to the bathroom.
Ensuring also certain slots, which I think many are doing, would help there too - one group at 6, next set of bookings at 8 for example would reduce spread.

A time limit might cut right into restaurant profits if they can only give you a main and not a 3-course meal where the profits would stack up better. 1hr 15 isn't going to make much of a difference to 1hr 45.

What Username Guidelines

I see sheep wrote: »

Reducing the time of a sitting won't help anything or won't stop people getting drunk.
All that will happen is people will be rushing to drink as much as they can.
It's counter productive.
It's all a load of nonsense.

Time limit = less time exposed to others, perhaps more turnover as more covers, but riskier for staff interacting with more groups per day.
No Time limit = more time exposed to others, perhaps less turnover with less covers, safer for staff interacting with lower number of possible infections.

Like everything in these restrictions, there's no correct answer, only balance with many variables.

Busi_Girl08

The last time round my understanding was the time limit was only for places that couldn't maintain a 2m (or 1m) distance between tables. Most pubs I was in which were well spaced out we were able to stay to the end of the night (after having food).

This time round is the time limit going to apply regardless?