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

MOR316

Im off to Belfast and Derry for a break on the first week of June.
Will send the Government and NPHET a postcard from each pub I visit

I'm in favour of the relaxations at this point in time given the number of people with first dose of the vaccine.

Corholio

Some reports of personal services not opening until 'late May'. That'd be disappointing if true.

stephenjmcd

Corholio wrote: »

Some reports of personal services not opening until 'late May'. That'd be disappointing if true.

Week of the 17th doing the rounds for hairdressers & barbers.

My mothers hairdresser is making provisional appointments now for week of 17th. Only 3 weeks from now

Construction & retail are going to be the first ones so going on the staggered basis that week sounds and looks most likely.

Corholio

'Late' may for personal services here. I guess the 17th could be considered 'late'.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/nphet-meeting-to-consider-next-phase-of-reopening-society-1118910.html

ArthurDayne

charlie14 wrote: »

So how does that make these European countries opening anything other than taking a chance and hope it works out ?
The only data on the control of this virus that shows a decline in cases and deaths is that of both the U.K. and Israel vaccination levels. Particularly in relation to Ireland where the U.K. did not open anything until they had reached 50% first dose. So yes, if we have reached the same level of vaccination as the U.K. on the basis of the known scientific data we should do the same. In step with the actual scientific data rather than conjecture.

As to the metric on lower Covid rates, was that not the arguement being put forward by some on here prior to Christmas with their "re-opening everything".
That worked well alright.

Yes but what is irritating here is that you seem to be making the assumption that the pro-lockdown school of thought, for want of a better term, does not bear any moral responsibility for what happened at Christmas.

I mean, what exactly made people so desperate to get out to the shops and restaurants with such vigour — what made them so desperate to try to get home to see friends and family again? What made people so desperate to taste some form of normality and freedom again, not knowing when they might be able to enjoy it anytime in the immediate future?

The pro-lockdowners have to accept that containing the transmission of Covid comes at a great price and a great risk — the risk being that if you cannot sustain lockdown for a long term then the virus has the potential to sweep through the country like the waters from a burst dam when you eventually break and people rush out to enjoy freedom. By locking people down, this has to come with an acceptance that relenting means a simultaneous explosion of pretty much everyone organising to see friends and family again. You only have to look at the former lockdown poster-child Portugal for confirmation of that.

It’s getting tiresome though that the people who advocate lockdown will not accept this weakness of their view (even if they still feel on balance that it is right) — instead preferring to simply say that the all-but-inevitable realistic outcomes of lockdown are instead the fault of the anti-restriction crowd who just couldn’t behave themselves. The pro-lockdown crowds wants to own the logic of its argument, but is forever disowning the realistic outcomes of that argument — and that is precisely what you are doing in the last paragraph of your post.

gozunda

lawred2 wrote: »

you've done the field work?
or you're a self appointed spokesperson?

Yeah even more feking nonsense no one ever said. :pac:

Well Lawred2 - unlike the dictate you highlighted and to quote "who gives a ***"

I clarified the statement "that "the absolute majority do give a "***" with "I reckon" So unlike the highlighted comment- nope I'm not holding out as an authority

But yeah its evident from surveys to date that support for vaccine uptake is very strong with 85% of the population now say they are prepared to or have already received a vaccine – an increase from 75 per cent in January according to The Irish Times. Other survey show similar

So yeah I guess from that - the majority absolutely do give a "****"

Deleted User wrote: »

Define this term.
And then stop using it incorrectly.

:rolleyes: See above. But yes boss. Right away boss. Will do boss.


*Mod Snip - no need for this*

11521323

gozunda wrote: »

Sorry bit of an aside but I have to have a laugh at the same thankers turning up on clockwork bit like a bad smell regardless

You and me both...

Also ironic you giving out about thankers when I've probably seen maybe two people on this thread agree with any of the stuff you post. Does that not give you a little bit of an inclination that your opinions are off-base?

lawred2

gozunda wrote: »

Yeah even more feking nonsense no one ever said. :pac:

Well Lawred2 - unlike the dictate you highlighted and to quote "who gives a ***"

I clarified the statement "that "the absolute majority do give a "***" with "I reckon" So unlike the highlighted comment- nope I'm not holding out as an authority

But yeah its evident from surveys to date that support for vaccine uptake is very strong with 85% of the population now say they are prepared to or have already received a vaccine – an increase from 75 per cent in January according to The Irish Times. Other survey show similar

So yeah I guess from that - the majority absolutely do give a "****"


Sorry bit of an aside but I have to have a laugh at the same thankers turning up on clockwork bit like a bad smell regardless

more disingenuous posting from the master of it

that is no more the context within which you posted

I'm 100% getting the vaccine... but do I believe current restrictions are valid when the majority of those getting ill from this disease are vaccinated? No I don't. Not one bit.

You've just conflated support for a vaccination with support for restrictions.

I'll look forward to your next post... maybe we'll see another increase in asterisks.

Graham

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm in favour of the relaxations at this point in time given the number of people with first dose of the vaccine.

I think most are in favour of at least a measured relaxing of restrictions at this point.

At the same time there's still going to be a cohort that don't think it's happening fast enough.

charlie14

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Yes but what is irritating here is that you seem to be making the assumption that the pro-lockdown school of thought, for want of a better term, does not bear any moral responsibility for what happened at Christmas.

I mean, what exactly made people so desperate to get out to the shops and restaurants with such vigour — what made them so desperate to try to get home to see friends and family again? What made people so desperate to taste some form of normality and freedom again, not knowing when they might be able to enjoy it anytime in the immediate future?

The pro-lockdowners have to accept that containing the transmission of Covid comes at a great price and a great risk — the risk being that if you cannot sustain lockdown for a long term then the virus has the potential to sweep through the country like the waters from a burst dam when you eventually break and people rush out to enjoy freedom. By locking people down, this has to come with an acceptance that relenting means a simultaneous explosion of pretty much everyone organising to see friends and family again. You only have to look at the former lockdown poster-child Portugal for confirmation of that.

It’s getting tiresome though that the people who advocate lockdown will not accept this weakness of their view (even if they still feel on balance that it is right) — instead preferring to simply say that the all-but-inevitable realistic outcomes of lockdown are instead the fault of the anti-restriction crowd who just couldn’t behave themselves. The pro-lockdown crowds wants to own the logic of its argument, but is forever disowning the realistic outcomes of that argument — and that is precisely what you are doing in the last paragraph of your post.

So in your head the rise in numbers over Christmas was nothing other than due to lockdown prior to that. Rather bizarre imo. Especially as you have not mentioned any means you believe would have, in your opinion, controlled the spread of this virus other than lockdown.

Something, something..... lighter touch restrictions perhaps ?
Well the real poster child for that approach has been Sweden and that has not exactly been a roaring success has it.
Just twice our population, at the same level of vaccination that we are at, possibly a little higher even, and they are currently reporting over 7,000 new cases on a regular daily basis, they have over 2,000 in hospital beds due to Covid and close to 400 in I.C.U.

I`m getting sick and tired of this "I have the answer to the alternative of lockdown" but when it comes down to actually what that is, it`s nothing but vague mumblings.

bear1

gozunda wrote: »

Yeah even more feking nonsense no one ever said. :pac:

Well Lawred2 - unlike the dictate you highlighted and to quote "who gives a ***"

I clarified the statement "that "the absolute majority do give a "***" with "I reckon" So unlike the highlighted comment- nope I'm not holding out as an authority

But yeah its evident from surveys to date that support for vaccine uptake is very strong with 85% of the population now say they are prepared to or have already received a vaccine – an increase from 75 per cent in January according to The Irish Times. Other survey show similar

So yeah I guess from that - the majority absolutely do give a "****"



:rolleyes: See above. But yes boss. Right away boss. Will do boss.


Sorry bit of an aside but I have to have a laugh at the same thankers turning up on clockwork bit like a bad smell regardless

Putting "Do" and then "I reckon" invalidates your theory.
But then again, your posts don't make much sense anyway.

charlie14

Graham wrote: »

I think most are in favour of at least a measured relaxing of restrictions at this point.

At the same time there's still going to be a cohort that don't think it's happening fast enough.

With a high proportion of those believing there should never have been any restrictions what-so-ever which makes what they think redundant imho.

Whatsisname

gozunda wrote: »

I think you're been a tad dramatic there. The priority was always to get the elderly and medically vulnerable vaccinated first - then other groups by age. Plus the WHO does not recommend vaccination of children below 16 years of age atm.

I don't ever remember being told we could let it rip once the first groups were vaccinated.

I don't ever remember posting "let it rip" either but you must get paid commission on that phrase at this rate.

timmyntc

charlie14 wrote: »

With a high proportion of those believing there should never have been any restrictions what-so-ever which makes what they think redundant imho.

Source on this?

Or are you just mudslinging to try to discredit opinions you dont agree with?

lawred2

Whatsisname wrote: »

I don't ever remember posting "let it rip" either but you must get paid commission on that phrase at this rate.

that and "hey pints" or whatever it is

TrangiaCoffee

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

What if kids need vaccines for traveling?

Or countries that require both vaccine doses and not just one and a historical positive.

Boggles

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I do not believe in just opening everything up,

Really?

ArthurDayne wrote:

do not believe that opening things hairdressers and retail are standing between us and a healthcare collapse — so on a basis of proportionality they should be opened immediately. Pubs and restaurants should be given the chance to reopen with measures

Probably easier ask what you would keep restricted so?

I think even the most fervent anti restriction-er who is at least honest would think opening the pubs now would be potentially one of the most dangerously stupid moves of this whole pandemic.

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I mean, where have your posts about the 5km rule gone? Why aren’t you calling for it to be reinstated? You will of course say that the 5km rule was necessary and that it was simply lifted at the right time — and the right time for you is simply whenever you are told it is the right time, whereby anyone who dared argue that it should have been lifted quicker is merely a contrarian. I of course am a complete contrarian fool for daring to say that the government’s appreciation for when the 5km rule should have been lifted (even if one thinks it never should have been imposed) was later than it should have been — and even more so for believing that they are being too slow on other measures too.

And like the 5km rule, you will quietly pack up your goalposts at each juncture and move them to wherever they need to be so you can keep equating critical thought, and the horrendous audacity of mere silly civilians to question State policy, with contrarianism.

I see, you still can't get your head around it.

Our mitigation measure was a stay at home recommendation, you could freely move around if you had a pertinent reason to do so. Other countries used permission slips and curfews.

5KM was for exercise.

It was a population measure that worked.

Unless you are trying to claim it didn't?

charlie14

timmyntc wrote: »

Source on this?

Or are you just mudslinging to try to discredit opinions you dont agree with?

It`s nothing to do with disagreeing with or discrediting opinions. It`s to do with me being long enough on these Covid threads to recognise the opinions of certain posters from past experience.

timmyntc

charlie14 wrote: »

It`s nothing to do with disagreeing with or discrediting opinions. It`s to do with me being long enough on these Covid threads to recognise the opinions of certain posters from past experience.

Open to interpretation whether the OP was about sentiment on boards or nationally - regardless its just a strawman from you.

OwenM

Boggles wrote: »

Really?



Probably easier ask what you would keep restricted so?

I think even the most fervent anti restriction-er who is at least honest would think opening the pubs now would be potentially one of the most dangerously stupid moves of this whole pandemic.

Not really, with the cohorts vaccinated to date, seasonality and forecast vaccinations, opening the pubs to 50% capacity now doesn't seem irrational.

Boggles

Corholio wrote: »

'Late' may for personal services here. I guess the 17th could be considered 'late'.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/nphet-meeting-to-consider-next-phase-of-reopening-society-1118910.html

with the opening of garden centres also under considerationn.

This always makes me chuckle.

gozunda

lawred2 wrote: »

more disingenuous posting from the master of it
that is no more the context within which you posted. I'm 100% getting the vaccine... but do I believe current restrictions are valid when the majority of those getting ill from this disease are vaccinated? No I don't. Not one bit.You've just conflated support for a vaccination with support for restrictions. I'll look forward to your next post... maybe we'll see another increase in asterisks.

Ah I see just trying to start some agro by substituting your personal interpretation of what you want to talk about?

But as there seems to be some hard of understanding. Let me reiterate that slowly.

gozunda wrote:

..Fingers crossed they manage to keep up with their vaccination schedule

paddyisreal wrote:

Doing a bit better than us in their vaccine rollout and also once the elderly and vulnerable are vaccinated who gives a **** ?

gozunda wrote:

Who gives a "****" once the "elderly and vulnerable are vaccinated"???

The absolute majority give a "****" I'd reckon.

So indeed that bit of the discussion was centered on vaccinations. Not "restrictions"

But indeed. More disingenuous posting from the master of it.

Cheers. No worries. I know it can be hard sometimes to keep up.

Btw am I allowed to use question marks or?!

lawred2

gozunda wrote: »

Ah I see just trying to start some agro by substituting your personal interpretation of what you want to talk about?

But as there seems to be some hard of understanding. Let me reiterate that slowly.







So indeed that bit of the discussion was centered on vaccinations. Not "restrictions"

But indeed. More disingenuous posting from the master of it. Lawred2.

Cheers. No worries. I know it can be hard sometimes to keep up.

Btw am I allowed to use question marks or?!

Apologies. I strayed offside there. Picked up the exchange incorrectly.

Boggles

OwenM wrote: »

Not really, with the cohorts vaccinated to date, seasonality and forecast vaccinations, opening the pubs to 50% capacity now doesn't seem irrational.

Long long flu season in large parts of Europe. Never ending. :rolleyes:

Opening the pubs now for at least indoor use would be suicide.

timmyntc

gozunda wrote: »

Ah I see just trying to start some agro by substituting your personal interpretation of what you want to talk about?

But as there seems to be some hard of understanding. Let me reiterate that slowly.







So indeed that bit of the discussion was centered on vaccinations. Not "restrictions"

But indeed. More disingenuous posting from the master of it. Lawred2.

Cheers. No worries. I know it can be hard sometimes to keep up.

Btw am I allowed to use question marks or?!

Yikes.

The OP was about Spain opening to tourism despite being not much farther ahead of us in their vaccine rollout. Why are they opening ahead of us? Because once the vulnerable and elderly are vaccinated, who cares!

Doing a bit better than us in their vaccine rollout and also once the elderly and vulnerable are vaccinated who gives a **** ?

Any attempt to link back to public sentiment about vaccines is grasping at straws. But sure, grasp away

charlie14

timmyntc wrote: »

Open to interpretation whether the OP was about sentiment on boards or nationally - regardless its just a strawman from you.

My opinion was based on the opinions I am aware of from previous experience on these threads.
What is strawman about that ?
Do you believe posters should get the opinions of everyone nationally before posting ?

Regardless- just petty nit-picking from you.

gozunda

timmyntc wrote: »

Yikes.
The OP was about Spain opening to tourism despite being not much farther ahead of us in their vaccine rollout. Why are they opening ahead of us? Because once the vulnerable and elderly are vaccinated, who cares!. Any attempt to link back to public sentiment about vaccines is grasping at straws. But sure, grasp away

Well done you've answered your own questions unintentionally yourself :pac:

But you may want to drop the shovel now before you fall head first into that big ol' smelly hole you're digging

But back to the question who gives a fuk about vaccines after the old and vulnerable are done? The absolute feking majority do. About 85 % of them. Those who say they are going to get vaccinated. Sorry that bothers you!

If you would likec to have a discussion about something else then by all means do so my friend.

I borrowed this lad he looks better here

Corholio

charlie14 wrote: »

With a high proportion of those believing there should never have been any restrictions what-so-ever which makes what they think redundant imho.

A high proportion of people who think that restrictions could be eased quicker are people who thought there should be no restrictions at all? Are you actually serious?

It's nonsense just to be able to shoehorn people who might have a different opinion into those who believed in no restrictions whatsoever to dismiss them all in one group. Very sad.

charlie14

timmyntc wrote: »

Yikes.

The OP was about Spain opening to tourism despite being not much farther ahead of us in their vaccine rollout. Why are they opening ahead of us? Because once the vulnerable and elderly are vaccinated, who cares!



Any attempt to link back to public sentiment about vaccines is grasping at straws. But sure, grasp away

Even though both words begin with the letter s you do know don`t you the difference between sentiment and science