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

Pepsirebel

Penfailed wrote: »

If they open construction and shift the travel limit, they will be lifting restrictions.

Would be an easy win for them...yet, somehow I don't think they can/want to see it

growleaves

Covid blanket ban on church worship in Scotland ruled unlawful

He said: “The court has understood the essential need to protect not only the physical and material health of our society, but also it’s spiritual needs and therefore overturned the disproportionate, unnecessary and now deemed illegal blanket ban on public worship.”

Rev. Dr William Philip, senior minister at the Tron Church in Glasgow, said: “We are very pleased that Lord Braid has recognised how essential gathered church worship is to our communities and to Scotland as a whole.

“From the outset we have recognised the serious decisions the Scottish ministers had to take in response to the pandemic. However, its approach to banning and criminalising gathered church worship was clearly an over-reach and disproportionate and if this had gone unchallenged it would have set a very dangerous precedent.

“However well-intentioned, criminalising corporate worship has been both damaging and dangerous for Scotland, and must never happen again."

I agree with the Scottish religious leaders who took this case and I'm glad they won in time for Easter.

Its worth reading the whole article to see how the judge, Lord Braid, considers and weighs a number of important factors - religious freedom, proportionality, the dearth of evidence that the measures are strictly necessary, the qualitative difference between the real and the virtual and despite all that he doesn't downplay the dangerousness of covid as such.

FintanMcluskey

jusvi2001 wrote: »

In Melbourne people don't have to wear the mask in supermarkets anymore. Here we are still discussing about ridiculous restrictions like 5 km rule. People in Australia are enjoying normal life because their government closed boarder and any one who is entering Australia has to go mandatory hotel quarantine and series of covid test.

Here our boarder is open for people to come and go as they like even from high risk countries but government want to keep whole country in harsh prolonged lock down. after 3 months of lock down and 3 months since first vaccine.. we are no where near to normal life. people are so obliged to what ever non sense NPHET and government says.

I often wonder how that’s going to work out for Australia and NZ.

Can they their borders and expect to remain Covid free some time in the future?

How’s the vaccination programme going down there?

Neagra

i was at a till today in a local store
i then had a very short conversation that sums up where we are at the moment
woman serving me was 60 ish
she says to me, as i was wearing my tipp mask
- there will hardly be gaa this year?
i reply
- i hope so but unless there are supporters allowed i have no interest, its pointless without a crowd
she replies
- they cannot open things up as the numbers are way too high, she looked very grave
i reply
- well arent you working here, you cant be too bothered about the virus. what if it was your job that was deemed non essential and you were denied your right to make a living.

she looked at me as if i was the second coming of cromwell
i will never understand her level thinking , the me feiner, the i am alright, fcuk the lot of ye and let them eat bread mindset
i believe we are all essential not just the usual loud mouths.

Graham

growleaves wrote: »

Its worth reading the whole article to see how the judge, Lord Braid, considers and weighs a number of important factors - religious freedom, proportionality, the dearth of evidence that the measures are strictly necessary, the qualitative difference between the real and the virtual and despite all that he doesn't downplay the dangerousness of covid as such.

You missed a bit

but this did not mean churches should “reopen immediately or that no restrictions are required”

Boggles

Neagra wrote: »

i was at a till today in a local store
i then had a very short conversation that sums up where we are at the moment
woman serving me was 60 ish
she says to me, as i was wearing my tipp mask
- there will hardly be gaa this year?
i reply
- i hope so but unless there are supporters allowed i have no interest, its pointless without a crowd
she replies
- they cannot open things up as the numbers are way too high, she looked very grave
i reply
- well arent you working here, you cant be too bothered about the virus. what if it was your job that was deemed non essential and you were denied your right to make a living.

she looked at me as if i was the second coming of cromwell
i will never understand her level thinking , the me feiner, the i am alright, fcuk the lot of ye and let them eat bread mindset
i believe we are all essential not just the usual loud mouths.

It's cake, but did you just compare a woman in her 60s working in a local shop with an 18th century French Queen?

ThunbergsAreGo

My wifes grandparent died.

Is that sufficient to travel outside the 5km?

LessOutragePlz

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

My wifes grandparent died.

Is that sufficient to travel outside the 5km?

Yes 100%

Boggles

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

My wifes grandparent died.

Is that sufficient to travel outside the 5km?

5km is for exercise, there is no travel limit on funerals.

Sorry for yer loss.

ThunbergsAreGo

Thanks that's the question answered.

We will likely go with her for support.

Baggly

Mod

Cymro's threadban lifted after discussion with user via PM.

Neagra

Boggles wrote: »

It's cake, but did you just compare a woman in her 60s working in a local shop with an 18th century French Queen?

its well known the queen was referring to bread. the cake bit was added to get the french all jacked up.
my main point still stands:
those in favour of lockdowns are because it suits them.
you will find that the university educated backers of lockdowns are now working from home and are dreading this lockdown ending and the return to normality because they might have to return to the office.

i just wish we could all be honest on here.

Boggles

Neagra wrote: »

its well known the queen was referring to bread. the cake bit was added to get the french all jacked up.

It probably wasn't said at all, but what you were inferring it's the cake version that should be used.

Neagra wrote: »

my main point still stands:
those in favour of lockdowns are because it suits them.
you will find that the university educated backers of lockdowns are now working from home and are dreading this lockdown ending and the return to normality because they might have to return to the office.

i just wish we could all be honest on here.

You came to that conclusion after being belligerent with a poor woman working in a shop trying to make polite conversation?

Graham

Neagra wrote: »

you will find that the university educated backers of lockdowns are now working from home and are dreading this lockdown ending and the return to normality because they might have to return to the office

I doubt that's even close to accurate.

It's just a lazy argument. Anyone that disagrees with me is XXXX.

growleaves

Graham wrote: »

You missed a bit

No I didn't miss a bit Graham.

I encouraged people to read the whole article since I had no intention of including every detail and qualification in a 2-sentence forum post.

Boggles

Graham wrote: »

I doubt that's even close to accurate.

It's just a lazy argument. Anyone that disagrees with me is XXXX.

Strange begrudgery towards people who dare got themselves a third level education.

It's like something you'd hear in the 80s.

jusvi2001

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

I often wonder how that’s going to work out for Australia and NZ.

Can they their borders and expect to remain Covid free some time in the future?

How’s the vaccination programme going down there?

Political will and no experts like NPHET whose only expert advise is 'lock down everything' since last March.

They are preventing new infections by controlling border. anyone including Australian citizens entering Australia has to undergo mandatory hotel quarantine and should be covid negative before going home. they are only allowing limited international flights. now they started producing vaccine and vaccinating health care workers.

Neagra

Boggles wrote: »

Strange begrudgery towards people who dare got themselves a third level education.

It's like something you'd hear in the 80s.

thanks for being honest = thats all we ask.

Neagra

Graham wrote: »

I doubt that's even close to accurate.

It's just a lazy argument. Anyone that disagrees with me is XXXX.

thanks graham
its best to be open about these things

Graham

Neagra wrote: »

thanks graham
its best to be open about these things

Open about inaccurate sweeping generalisations. Fair enough.

It doesn't advance your cause but anyway.

Neagra

Graham wrote: »

Open about inaccurate sweeping generalisations. Fair enough.

It doesn't advance your cause but anyway.

let me prove my point
what do you do for work?
are you currently working from home?

Russman

Neagra wrote: »

those in favour of lockdowns are because it suits them.
you will find that the university educated backers of lockdowns are now working from home and are dreading this lockdown ending and the return to normality because they might have to return to the office.

i just wish we could all be honest on here.

Ahh I dunno, I doubt that’s true tbh. Maybe a few outliers. Lockdowns are sh1t for everyone, but granted they’re less sh1t for some. I doubt anyone working from home, while they might count themselves lucky and be grateful for it, enjoys not seeing family and friends and not being able to do stuff. Lockdowns don’t suit anyone (including governments).

I’m not being confrontational, I get your point about honesty, but if you’re suggesting people thinking lockdowns are the way to go because it suits them, couldn’t the same honesty principle be applied to the anti restrictions people in that they’re really only against them because they’re personally inconvenienced and out of pocket ?
I don’t believe either arguments are fully true tbh.

Idbatterim

775 vulnerable a year die prematurely from air pollution in dublin EVERY YEAR... shut down the city....

Neagra

Russman wrote: »

Ahh I dunno, I doubt that’s true tbh. Maybe a few outliers. Lockdowns are sh1t for everyone, but granted they’re less sh1t for some. I doubt anyone working from home, while they might count themselves lucky and be grateful for it, enjoys not seeing family and friends and not being able to do stuff. Lockdowns don’t suit anyone (including governments).

I’m not being confrontational, I get your point about honesty, but if you’re suggesting people thinking lockdowns are the way to go because it suits them, couldn’t the same honesty principle be applied to the anti restrictions people in that they’re really only against them because they’re personally inconvenienced and out of pocket ?
I don’t believe either arguments are fully true tbh.

fair enough

but we must all admit to having bias on this topic.
the lockdown brings advantages and disadvantages
its a trade off
those who want to continue lockdown see the advantages as too good to give up
those who want the lockdown over are mostly affected by the disadvantages

for me i am a tax accountant and a director of some companies.
i want lockdown gone because :
i can see whats coming for the economy in 2022 as can many many others
its not good, its building to the biggest world crash ever
also i hate any restrictions on my movement in my own country.

M_Murphy57

Boggles wrote: »

You came to that conclusion after being belligerent with a poor woman working in a shop trying to make polite conversation?

+1

That poor woman, trying to make polite chit chat and getting a bollicking for her troubles. As if working in retail wasnt bad enough.

What a horrible story to brag about on a public forum.

Graham

Neagra wrote: »

let me prove my point
what do you do for work?
are you currently working from home?

Sorry to blow your theory out of the water.

While I can do a very small part of my work from home, I will be considerably better off when the restrictions are lifted and retail can re-open. As will my family and my extended family when hospitality reopens.

I have a vested interest in seeing the restriction end in the quickest, safest, most permanent manner.

Neagra

Graham wrote: »

Sorry to blow your theory out of the water.

While I can do a very small part of my work from home, I will be considerably better off when the restrictions are lifted and retail can re-open. As will my family and my extended family when hospitality reopens.

I have a vested interest in seeing the restriction end in the quickest, safest, most permanent manner.

thats great
to finish this up whats your job?
we get that and we are all done here .

Graham

Neagra wrote: »

thats great
to finish this up whats your job?

None of your business.

Neagra

Neagra wrote: »

its well known the queen was referring to bread. the cake bit was added to get the french all jacked up.
my main point still stands:
those in favour of lockdowns are because it suits them.
you will find that the university educated backers of lockdowns are now working from home and are dreading this lockdown ending and the return to normality because they might have to return to the office.

i just wish we could all be honest on here.

Ye talk some horsesh*t. There is no on the one hand or the other when faced with this tripe. It not genuine debate, but the demonisation of an other as is the standard with most baseless populist nonsense. Find an enemy, demonise the enemy and make the conversation about them, because the base argument is vacuous.

Stormyteacup

Graham wrote: »

Sorry to blow your theory out of the water.

While I can do a very small part of my work from home, I will be considerably better off when the restrictions are lifted and retail can re-open. As will my family and my extended family when hospitality reopens.

I have a vested interest in seeing the restriction end in the quickest, safest, most permanent manner.

Fair enough in that no one wants to reopen anything for it to down again shortly afterwards.

The problem lies in the ‘quickest, safest’ bit. Is it based on your own leanings as to what’s quickest and safest, or wholly according to what government will sanction?

Isn’t it your position that more movement equals greater spread of Covid? Why will there be more movement sanctioned by government on 5th April, what will make it safer, and not add to the spread of Covid then?