Relaxation of Restrictions, Part IX *Read OP For Mod Warnings*

copeyhagen

Ace2007 wrote: »

No Nphet stated that restaurants should only be allowed to do takeaways, however the cabinet sub committee gave the green light to open the restaurants given the huge pressure in the media and public looking for it..

Donnelly: “The government has been following public health advice from day one.”

Chambers: “It went against public health advice.”

Donnelly: “No, it didn’t.”

Chambers: “In what way did it follow health advice if NPHET said don’t open pubs and restaurants at the same time as allowing household visits and the government did it anyway?”

Donnelly: “So the advice was a six-week Level Five period for October-November. That was brought into play. The advice then was to move out of that – which we did – and the advice was to relax things around the Christmas period.

daydorunrun

I caught the tail end of a conversation on the radio this morning- I think It was saying that the 5k restriction is linked to the eviction moratorium and can't be changed because of the effect it may have on evictions. Is this correct does anybody know?

Sobit1964

richardkeiths wrote: »

tough shlt JimBob, if you put me or my family at risk to suit yourself you are part of the problem.

You seem to think you are owed your life back. Nothing is guaranteed in life. If this virus had a higher death rate we would be in a far more terrifying scenario.

Most people see it as an inconvenience rather than a threat.

I know a nurse who holds the hands of people as they gasp for air. Youre doing alright if thats not you!

This is what the flipside of the coin see:

Tough **** richardkeiths, if you put me of my families prosperity, education, roof over our heads, mental well being or ANY OTHER health concern other than covid at risk - you are part of the problem.

You seem to think your fears over something of dramatically decreasing danger means you get to shut everyone down. Your peace of mind is not guaranteed in life. If this had a higher death rate we might have reason to be more terrified.

Most people agree with me because i'm self important and think everyone thinks the same as me.

I know people who have lost everything and committed suicide. You're doing alright if thats not you!

copeyhagen

daydorunrun wrote: »

I caught the tail end of a conversation on the radio this morning- I think It was saying that the 5k restriction is linked to the eviction moratorium and can't be changed because of the effect it may have on evictions. Is this correct does anybody know?

they said that alright, Gavin Reilly tweeted it, its floated on ehre a few times

Father Hernandez

It's comical how tone deaf our 'leaders' are with regards to reading the room, if you don't laugh you'll cry.

Micheal Martin was defending the communication from the government - https://www.thejournal.ie/taoiseach-defends-government-communications-5363173-Feb2021/

“No, the message is the clearest message of all: we all have to be careful with the virus, especially with the new variant which is more dangerous and does more damage to people. The basic message is we have to be careful going forward. Eventually we will open the schools and we will be able to do more week after week.”

For any Simpsons fans, this is all I could think off, replace children with Joe Public.

Graham

daydorunrun wrote: »

I caught the tail end of a conversation on the radio this morning- I think It was saying that the 5k restriction is linked to the eviction moratorium and can't be changed because of the effect it may have on evictions. Is this correct does anybody know?

From the RTB

any time there is a 5km restriction imposed on people’s movements in line with public health restrictions, the moratorium on evictions (with limited exceptions) will automatically kick-in.

Xaniaj

copeyhagen wrote: »

they said that alright, Gavin Reilly tweeted it, its floated on ehre a few times

Can someone explain how these are connected?

copeyhagen

Xaniaj wrote: »

Can someone explain how these are connected?

Graham just commented above ya.

funnt how Ace dissapears everytime hes found talking sh1te. same as yesterdays lies from him

timmyntc

copeyhagen wrote: »

Graham just commented above ya.

funnt how Ace dissapears everytime hes found talking sh1te. same as yesterdays lies from him

Still doesnt make sense why they tied it to the 5km rule - or why the 5km rule is a legal justification for an eviction moratorium

Graham

timmyntc wrote: »

Still doesnt make sense why they tied it to the 5km rule - or why the 5km rule is a legal justification for an eviction moratorium

I guess so people are protected from eviction when the restrictions are at the highest levels.

copeyhagen

timmyntc wrote: »

Still doesnt make sense why they tied it to the 5km rule - or why the 5km rule is a legal justification for an eviction moratorium

ill try find the tweet

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1362142113513631746

timmyntc

Graham wrote: »

I guess so people are protected from eviction when the restrictions are at the highest levels.

copeyhagen wrote: »

ill try find the tweet

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1362142113513631746

I get that - it still doesnt explain why.

They said they had to tie to 5km restriction because it was unconstitutional to tie the eviction moratorium to some economic circumstances (such as forced closures of businesses), but how could it be legally enforceable/constitutional to have an eviction moratorium tied to an arbitrary 5km travel limit?

It's still violating people's property rights over something totally arbitrary (and government caused)

copeyhagen

timmyntc wrote: »

I get that - it still doesnt explain why.

They said they had to tie to 5km restriction because it was unconstitutional to tie the eviction moratorium to some economic circumstances (such as forced closures of businesses), but how could it be legally enforceable/constitutional to have an eviction moratorium tied to an arbitrary 5km travel limit?

It's still violating people's property rights over something totally arbitrary (and government caused)

my guess is they just picked it from the sky to justify the 5km rule?

Graham

timmyntc wrote: »

I get that - it still doesnt explain why.

They said they had to tie to 5km restriction because it was unconstitutional to tie the eviction moratorium to some economic circumstances (such as forced closures of businesses), but how could it be legally enforceable/constitutional to have an eviction moratorium tied to an arbitrary 5km travel limit?

It's still violating people's property rights over something totally arbitrary (and government caused)

You'd need to ask someone with a much greater knowledge of constitutional law than I have.

I do know most rights granted under the constitution are not absolute and as RPZs already demonstrate those rights can be limited. I assume under the common good/health provisos.

timmyntc

copeyhagen wrote: »

my guess is they just picked it from the sky to justify the 5km rule?

I would love to see if it holds up in court - it looks like in lieu of passing a straight up eviction ban (unconstitutional) they made on based on some external factor - however that external factor (5km travel limit) is directly put in place by the government.

Seems like an attempt to circumvent private property rights but is it valid?

timmyntc

Graham wrote: »

You'd need to ask someone with a much greater knowledge of constitutional law than I have.

I do know most rights granted under the constitution are not absolute and as RPZs already demonstrate those rights can be limited. I assume under the common good/health provisos.

Didn't think about RPZs, food for thought.

Would 5km limit come under health/common good though?
It just seems very arbitrary, especially since you could argue the 5km rule makes very little impact to transmission anyways

Idbatterim

Klonker wrote: »

Why is Ireland the special case in Europe when it comes to reopening? Why when we have one of the best trends on infection, one of the lowest rates of infection, one of the youngest populations, one of the most efficient vaccination rates so far that we have by far, not in any way close to anyone else, the slowest reopening in the EU from a position when we already have the tightest restrictions? It makes no sense at all.

And what makes even less sense is that none of this is questioned at all by our media or journalists. All they seem to be interesting in is the red herring that is variants and mandatory quarentining.

I wrote on the first few pages of this thread nearly a year ago. We are ruled by hyper conservative, hyper incompetence and hyper populism. This is mind blowing, yet so expected...

ArthurDayne

copeyhagen wrote: »

ill try find the tweet

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1362142113513631746

Thanks for sharing — I’m sure he is just passing the info on — but on the the point (and if it actually is genuinely one of the concerns about removing the limit) have you ever heard such extraordinarily weak intellectual rationale?

Are we really to believe that the same government that smashed through fundamental civil liberties with the full force of the State’s strength for the supposed greater good is now utterly hamstrung by a legal technicality that they simply cannot do anything to get around?

Beasty

richardkeiths wrote: »

are you stupid?

Sweden enforces stricter restrictions after light touch policies lead to higher death tolls. Its in black and white and you still come back with some nonsense.

A number of other posts deleted

If posters cannot be civil they will be banned from the discussion. Please heed this warning, and indeed read the warnings in the Opening post

Compo82

It's absolutely pathetic that some restrictions weren't eased, construction should have been allowed and outdoor sports should have been given the green light. We have tightest restrictions in Europe now and no end in sight to this madness. I hope people are delighted that called for all these tougher restrictions when all these businesses go bust, 25% unemployment, huge tax increased to pay for all this, loss of connectivity etc. The only way out of this now is when people will see the Brits and North go back to normality.

Graham

timmyntc wrote: »

Didn't think about RPZs, food for thought.

Would 5km limit come under health/common good though?
It just seems very arbitrary, especially since you could argue the 5km rule makes very little impact to transmission anyways

The 5km isn't really connected other than as an indicator that the highest level of restrictions are in play which triggers the additional protection for tenants.

Assume it is constitutional until someone takes a case to a court that decides it's not.

Thelonious Monk

Silentcorner wrote: »

I hope your dad recovers, it's been one of my criticisms of this whole charade, why were the over 70s not encouraged to get out an exercise, the state has done massive damage to our elderly population, this could have been done very safely...

I would love to see media outlet count lockdown related illnesses and deaths, I won't hold my breath!!!

I don't get this, my folks have been out for walks most days unless it's lashing rain, my dad is 70. It's not like many people that age go to gyms anyway, so what's stopping older people from getting out for a bit of exercise?
Not having the gym sucks but local parks are packed with joggers etc where I live anyway.

Windmill100000

Compo82 wrote: »

It's absolutely pathetic that some restrictions weren't eased, construction should have been allowed and outdoor sports should have been given the green light. We have tightest restrictions in Europe now and no end in sight to this madness. I hope people are delighted that called for all these tougher restrictions when all these businesses go bust, 25% unemployment, huge tax increased to pay for all this, loss of connectivity etc. The only way out of this now is when people will see the Brits and North go back to normality.

By people that called for them who exactly do you mean? People that abided by the rules?

Graham

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Thanks for sharing — I’m sure he is just passing the info on — but on the the point (and if it actually is genuinely one of the concerns about removing the limit) have you ever heard such extraordinarily weak intellectual rationale?

Are we really to believe that the same government that smashed through fundamental civil liberties with the full force of the State’s strength for the supposed greater good is now utterly hamstrung by a legal technicality that they simply cannot do anything to get around?

I don't think anyone has suggested that the 5km restriction should remain solely to protect tenants from eviction/rent increases. The connection was just highlighted.

Ferris_Bueller

Looking at the document with the levels etc. from yesterday and reading between the lines of government saying things like compliance drops when we approach restrictions being lifted, staying in certain levels for 4 weeks at a time, etc. I think that the re-opening might look something like this.

Level 5 for March and until after Easter.

Level 4 - April 5th: Gyms, outdoor dining, county wide travel, sports training up to 15 people.

Level 3 - May 5th (just after BH weekend): restricted indoor dining, hotels, retail.

Level 2 - early June (prob after BH weekend): bars & restaurants indoors with restrictions, nationwide travel, allowed visit people again.

Level 1 - early July: most things reopened with restrictions still in place.


That plan to me doesn't look too unrealistic but a few problems with it obviously. Having to wait until May for a haircut or to be able to go into a non-supermarket shop seems like complete overkill for a start. But the biggest problem IMO is that I don't think many have faith in the government to move to Level 4 in April, all messages so far sound like it could be 4.5 or something in April, which if so could push everything else out a month which makes a huge difference.

If we knew that June onwards meant staycations, restaurants, pubs, sports, retail all being options in some shape or form it would give a bit of optimism. But if that was to be delayed until July and Level 1 until August then it feels like another summer nearly gone again and before we know it we are coming into winter again. The above seems very much like a 'best case scenario' as I cannot see them jumping more than one level at a time.

timmyntc

Graham wrote: »

The 5km isn't really connected other than as an indicator that the highest level of restrictions are in play which triggers the additional protection for tenants.

Assume it is constitutional until someone takes a case to a court that decides it's not.

Gavan Reilly tweet makes it sound like even if the level 5 travel limits were changed to 10k (still the highest level of restrictions) the eviction ban will be gone.

Graham

timmyntc wrote: »

Gavan Reilly tweet makes it sound like even if the level 5 travel limits were changed to 10k (still the highest level of restrictions) the eviction ban will be gone.

I think he's right. The increase in the travel limits would indicate we're no longer at the highest level of restriction triggering the removal of the protections.

I think that's exactly the point he was making. I don't think there has ever been any suggestion the 5km restriction should be kept when not needed solely to keep the protections in place.

Irish Aris

Ferris_Bueller wrote: »

Looking at the document with the levels etc. from yesterday and reading between the lines of government saying things like compliance drops when we approach restrictions being lifted, staying in certain levels for 4 weeks at a time, etc. I think that the re-opening might look something like this.

Level 5 for March and until after Easter.

Level 4 - April 5th: Gyms, outdoor dining, county wide travel, sports training up to 15 people.

Level 3 - May 5th (just after BH weekend): restricted indoor dining, hotels, retail.

Level 2 - early June (prob after BH weekend): bars & restaurants indoors with restrictions, nationwide travel, allowed visit people again.

Level 1 - early July: most things reopened with restrictions still in place.


That plan to me doesn't look too unrealistic but a few problems with it obviously. Having to wait until May for a haircut or to be able to go into a non-supermarket shop seems like complete overkill for a start. But the biggest problem IMO is that I don't think many have faith in the government to move to Level 4 in April, all messages so far sound like it could be 4.5 or something in April, which if so could push everything else out a month which makes a huge difference.

If we knew that June onwards meant staycations, restaurants, pubs, sports, retail all being options in some shape or form it would give a bit of optimism. But if that was to be delayed until July and Level 1 until August then it feels like another summer nearly gone again and before we know it we are coming into winter again. The above seems very much like a 'best case scenario' as I cannot see them jumping more than one level at a time.

I wouldn't be too optimistic about this. There were quite a few caveats included and the important one for NPHET would be number of cases. At the moment the number of daily cases isn't falling fast enough. Hopefully the reduction of cases would speed up in the coming weeks, frankly though I expect level 5 until the May bank holiday.
The key thing for me in yesterday's announcement is the vaccination schedule. If they are able to stick to it and distribution doesn't become a bottleneck I can see some restrictions lifted after the May bank holiday and more after the June bank holiday.

timmyntc

Graham wrote: »

I think he's right. The increase in the travel limits would indicate we're no longer at the highest level of restriction triggering the removal of the protections.

I think that's exactly the point he was making. I don't think there has ever been any suggestion the 5km restriction should be kept when not needed solely to keep the protections in place.

That was the justification coming from Govt - I think MM or similar alluded to it. The only real benefit on the 5km limit is the eviction ban - the limit itself on people's freedom to move seems to be just "collateral damage".

Coillte_Bhoy

timmyntc wrote: »

That was the justification coming from Govt - I think MM or similar alluded to it. The only real benefit on the 5km limit is the eviction ban - the limit itself on people's freedom to move seems to be just "collateral damage".

Im a bit lost on this, is there actual legislation underpinning this?