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

charlie14

Corholio wrote: »

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?

As I have said earlier from previous experience on these Covid thread pretty much so I`m afraid where some posters are concerned.

ArthurDayne

charlie14 wrote: »

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.

Absolutely not solely due to lockdown preceding it, nor did I say it was — but it is folly to pretend that the suppression of the virus by way of lockdown does not come with the risk that the inability to sustain lockdown indefinitely carries the risk of infection bottlenecks. What happened at Christmas was not solely due to lockdown, but denying the contribution of lockdown both in terms of creating the infection “dam” and fostering a desperation for people to see friends and family (especially where people were expecting a January lockdown) after being stuck indoors in the long nights of winter is simply disowning realism and how human nature works.

You are sick and tired of hearing the alternatives to lockdown because, as your post itself proves, you will happily amend the justification for lockdown — therefore there can never be an alternative. One day it was “Covid is going to collapse the health service and cause tens of thousands of Irish people to die and that is why we must lock down” ....and then somewhere along the line it became “Covid has killed more people in Sweden per capita than it has in Norway and therefore its strategy is a failure”. Over time, the justification for lockdown moved from ‘healthcare collapse + many thousands dying’ to ‘comparative exercise of which countries have less deaths’ to ‘minimise Covid deaths entirely’.

You talk about Sweden while blissfully ignoring the fact that the numbers you quote are not the vista on which lockdown was justified. The numbers are a tragedy, they would be worthy of action, heads rolling and sweeping reform, but if they were the numbers being predicted originally they would have been much harder to hold up as being so utterly extreme that a shutdown of society for around a year would have been viewed as the justifiable and proportionate remedy.

As for vague mumblings — perhaps you can educate me on specifics — if hairdressers and retail were opened this week, would our health service be unable to cope? Yes or no, oh mighty arbiter of definitives.

Corholio

charlie14 wrote: »

As I have said earlier from previous experience on these Covid thread pretty much so I`m afraid where some posters are concerned.

A high proportion =/= 'some posters'

As I said, just an excuse to put anyone who disagrees into a 'what they think should be disregarded' group.

paddyisreal

gozunda wrote: »

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 for yourself

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

I would hate to play football with you because the goalposts change more than your underwear.

Probably the most ridiculous statements I have seen here. How you can coorelate my original statement to the below takes some imagination or just plain auld bull****tery.


The absolute feking majority do. About 85 % of them. Those who say they are going to get vaccinated

gozunda

Whatsisname wrote: »

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

Well I didn't say you said it. But from the general subtext of your comment and especially the last bit.

Whatsisname wrote:

The goalpost beginning to be moved again. It was once all the vulnerable are vaccinated, to once all the over 50s are, to all adults, and now it's making its way down to children. Nothing is ever enough.

What did you actually think the goalposts marked btw?

As to the ownership of that phrase. Nope not mine. And whilst it may not be quoted directly - there's plenty here who seem to have the general idea very close to the heart tbf.

So now you know there were no goalpost moving for when the vulnerable and elderly are vaccinated - have you still got a problem with "goalposts" in general or ?

gozunda

paddyisreal wrote: »

I would hate to play football with you because the goalposts change more than your underwear. Probably the most ridiculous statements I have seen here. How you can coorelate my original statement to the below takes some imagination or just plain auld bull****tery.

The absolute feking majority do. About 85 % of them. Those who say they are going to get vaccinated

So you know about my underwear now do you?lol Jaysus we have a psychic else I should be worried...

But yup agreed - The bit in bold is my statement not yours. And yes we were discussing "vaccination" And its exactly what I was referring to regarding the absolute majority giving a fuq *about vaccines* Sorry that does not suit some of the more ardent the sceptics on this thread

But yeah the "bull****tery" in this thread is something else to be sure...

paddyisreal

gozunda wrote: »

So you know about my underwear now do you?lol Jaysus we have a psychic

But yup agreed - The bit in bold is my statement not yours. And its exactly what I was referring to regarding the *absolute majority giving a fuq about vaccines* Sorry that does not suit.

But yeah the "bull****tery" in this thread is something else to be sure...

So 85 percent of people want the vaccine and you interpret that as people want to keep restrictions till the majority are vaccinated.

your logic is as questionable at best

daydorunrun

Have the numbered levels been done away with? No mention of going to level 3 or 4 at all, just leaks and speculation on what will and won't open.

gozunda

paddyisreal wrote: »

So 85 percent of people want the vaccine and you interpret that as people want to keep restrictions till the majority are vaccinated. ...

Ahem and where was that stated? The word "restrictions" was never mentioned in the original exchange if you remember.

paddyisreal wrote:

once the elderly and vulnerable are vaccinated who gives a **** ?

gozunda wrote:

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

Apparently another poster came up with that bizarre idea that the discussion referred to "restrictions" and asked for a source on the "majority". So I provided a source to what I referred to. They weren't happy funnily enough. And there we are.

Though fairly typical of this thread. You get a bunch of posters intent on pot stirring even where they have absolutly no clue what was being discussed and are quite happy to tell you - that they know what you are saying better than you do apparently. But hey they we are.

Stormyteacup

paddyisreal wrote: »

So 85 percent of people want the vaccine and you interpret that as people want to keep restrictions till the majority are vaccinated.

your logic is as questionable at best

I’d imagine the fact that vaccination has a bearing on lifting of restrictions, returning to earning a living, and on any future travel plans, that a good portion of that 85% wouldn’t give too much of a fuq and just want the nightmare to end.

paddyisreal

Stormyteacup wrote: »

I’d imagine the fact that vaccination has a bearing on lifting of restrictions, returning to earning a living, and on any future travel plans, that a good portion of that 85% wouldn’t give too much of a fuq and just want the nightmare to end.

Exactly that's what I would think also

paddyisreal

gozunda wrote: »

Ahem and where was that stated? The word "restrictions" was never mentioned in the original exchange if you remember.





Apparently another poster came up with that bizarre idea that the discussion referred to "restrictions" and asked for a source on the "majority". So I provided a source to what I referred to. They weren't happy funnily enough. And there we are.

Though fairly typical of this thread. You get a bunch of posters intent on pot stirring even where they have absolutly no clue what was being discussed and are quite happy to tell you - that they know what you are saying better than you do apparently. But hey they we are.

The context of the argument was that Spain lifting restrictions and there level of vaccinations so to turn around say you didn't mention the word restrictions is just back tracking.

charlie14

Corholio wrote: »

A high proportion =/= 'some posters'

As I said, just an excuse to put anyone who disagrees into a 'what they think should be disregarded' group.

Not at all.

Just the high proportion on this thread who do not feel opening up is happening fast enough who from past experience favoured no restrictions what-so-ever.

Hurrache

Regarding the previous 5km law, there was actually a law for that for which you could be fined with.

But with the current relaxation to county/20km, there's no actual law preventing people from travelling intercounty anyway is there, it's just an advisory.

Penfailed

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Yeah, it's hard to spend when so much is closed. I've had my eye on some garden chairs in argos. Apparently click and collect is still too dangerous though so I can't buy the fecking things.

We'll have mass before click and collect at this stage. Micheál Martin in a nutshell.

I work in the north and availed of the Argos click and collect this week. I didn't even enter the shop. Paid online. Walked to the barrier at the door, gave them the passcode and they had emailed me to say it was collected before I even had it in my hand. How is that not safe?!

Penfailed

gozunda wrote: »

Rflol

Roll floor laugh out loud?

Breaston Plants

Hurrache wrote: »

Regarding the previous 5km law, there was actually a law for that for which you could be fined with.

But with the current relaxation to county/20km, there's no actual law preventing people from travelling intercounty anyway is there, it's just an advisory.

So you can't be fined for traveling inter- county? Wasn't aware of that, good to know. Belfast or Derry June Bank holiday so.

funnydoggy

Penfailed wrote: »

I work in the north and availed of the Argos click and collect this week. I didn't even enter the shop. Paid online. Walked to the barrier at the door, gave them the passcode and they had emailed me to say it was collected before I even had it in my hand. How is that not safe?!

It makes even less sense than the 5km lark!

the kelt

Penfailed wrote: »

Roll floor laugh out loud?

I once put down carpet that ended up having that effect on the family!

Corholio

Hurrache wrote: »

Regarding the previous 5km law, there was actually a law for that for which you could be fined with.

But with the current relaxation to county/20km, there's no actual law preventing people from travelling intercounty anyway is there, it's just an advisory.

Is this actually true? Wouldn't they have just had the same law just with county/20km wording? I'm genuinely asking, have no idea of the finite law aspect.

gozunda

Penfailed wrote: »

Roll floor laugh out loud?

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=RFLOL

Yup I think that about sums it up...

Penfailed

[Deleted User] wrote: »

My position is "extreme" enough as it is compared to most here; you have absolutely no reason to misrepresent it unless you're being intentionally obtuse or disingenuous.

What I said was that I want all restrictions and legally enforced mandates lifted. I also said that I would personally still wear masks, wash hands, stay away from elderly relatives until they've their second jab, etc. and that people and businesses should make their own decisions about what risks they're willing to take.

It's actually not that "extreme" a position at all, really. You and others just keep conflating it with "let 'er rip" because you either cannot imagine making your own risk assessments and decisions without the assistance and enforcement of the government, or (and I suspect this applies to a lot of people in this thread) you (general) believe that you are responsible and reasonable enough to do without the restrictions but all those other eejits over there would immediately start licking doorknobs.

I just don't believe that the well-documented propensity of people to overestimate themselves is a good enough reason to keep everyone else restricted by mandate. And for people who really truly can't believe that their fellow citizens can handle life without "the rules", there's self-imposed restriction and home delivery.

Hang on. You said you wanted everything open now. I asked about masks, social distancing and restrictions on numbers. You replied, "No, no and no." That equates to 'let 'er rip' no matter how you try to spin it.

charlie14

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Absolutely not solely due to lockdown preceding it, nor did I say it was — but it is folly to pretend that the suppression of the virus by way of lockdown does not come with the risk that the inability to sustain lockdown indefinitely carries the risk of infection bottlenecks. What happened at Christmas was not solely due to lockdown, but denying the contribution of lockdown both in terms of creating the infection “dam” and fostering a desperation for people to see friends and family (especially where people were expecting a January lockdown) after being stuck indoors in the long nights of winter is simply disowning realism and how human nature works.

You are sick and tired of hearing the alternatives to lockdown because, as your post itself proves, you will happily amend the justification for lockdown — therefore there can never be an alternative. One day it was “Covid is going to collapse the health service and cause tens of thousands of Irish people to die and that is why we must lock down” ....and then somewhere along the line it became “Covid has killed more people in Sweden per capita than it has in Norway and therefore its strategy is a failure”. Over time, the justification for lockdown moved from ‘healthcare collapse + many thousands dying’ to ‘comparative exercise of which countries have less deaths’ to ‘minimise Covid deaths entirely’.

You talk about Sweden while blissfully ignoring the fact that the numbers you quote are not the vista on which lockdown was justified. The numbers are a tragedy, they would be worthy of action, heads rolling and sweeping reform, but if they were the numbers being predicted originally they would have been much harder to hold up as being so utterly extreme that a shutdown of society for around a year would have been viewed as the justifiable and proportionate remedy.

As for vague mumblings — perhaps you can educate me on specifics — if hairdressers and retail were opened this week, would our health service be unable to cope? Yes or no, oh mighty arbiter of definitives.

Did you read what I posted or just imagine I posted something you are replying too
I did not say I was sick and tired of hearing the alternative to lockdown. I said
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. Something that pretty much covers your reply.
If you have an alternative as to what should have been done other than using lockdown then what is it ?

Where in Sweden`s numbers of 7,000 daily reported new cases, over 2,000 in Covid hospital beds and almost 400 in I.C.U. for a country with just twice the population of Ireland with the same vaccination % is it "Not the vista on which lockdown was justified" on protecting health services from being over-run.

gozunda

paddyisreal wrote: »

The context of the argument was that Spain lifting restrictions and there level of vaccinations so to turn around say you didn't mention the word restrictions is just back tracking.

Nope. My original reply to another poster who referred to digital vaccinations certs and the need for vaccination where I stated

gozunda wrote:

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

and to which you replied.

paddyisreal wrote: »

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explorer

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

Spain are obviously not adverse to risk like our over paid, conservative government whom seem intent in dragging this out as long as possible.

But specifically this from that post and my reply regarding vaccinations (which was picked by another poster who bizarrely ran off with it)

paddyisreal wrote:

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

gozunda wrote:

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

I even got blamed for your asteriskses :pac:

But if you like we can continue what was discussed there between us about vaccinations with regard to 'restrictions'. I've no problem with that. Thanks

suicide_circus

Hurrache wrote: »

Regarding the previous 5km law, there was actually a law for that for which you could be fined with.

But with the current relaxation to county/20km, there's no actual law preventing people from travelling intercounty anyway is there, it's just an advisory.

Is this 100% confirmed?

Hurrache

Breaston Plants wrote: »

So you can't be fined for traveling inter- county? Wasn't aware of that, good to know. Belfast or Derry June Bank holiday so.

I don't think so, but just wondering if anyone else knows differently. The 5km is no longer enforced by the gardai as it's not in force anymore, and I don't believe the current restrictions were signed into law.

However upon checking the previous SI seemed to be pretty broad and the current restrictions are likely covered by the following

Movement of Persons (Summary)
On the {DATE OF OFFENCE} at {PLACE OF OFFENCE} in [SAID DISTRICT], without
reasonable excuse, did leave your county of residence in contravention of Regulation 3(1) of
Health Act 1947 (Section 31A - Temporary Restrictions) (Covid-19) (No. 9) Regulations 2020
as amended.
Contrary to Section 31A(6)(a) of the Health Act 1947 as amended by Section 10 of the Health
(Preservation and Protection and other Emergency Measures in the Public Interest) Act 2020
and contrary to section 31A(12) of the Health Act 1947 as substituted by Section 3 of the Health
(Amendment) Act 2020

The statute is here
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2020/si/121/made/en/print
but it's the original one and I haven't yet found the latest relevant amendments which cover county/20km, if there's any, but I suppose you can be fined if the Gardai believe you don't have a reasonable excuse for traveling.

Corholio

Inter-county travel being considered 'before June'

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0428/1212493-coronavirus-ireland/

Stheno

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1387462571985448960?s=19

MerlinSouthDub

Stheno wrote: »

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1387462571985448960?s=19

Wow, things are looking up!

Stheno

MerlinSouthDub wrote: »

Wow, things are looking up!

Apparently Tony is in a good mood

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1387463388104642563?s=19