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

hynesie08

Sobit1964 wrote: »

Makes sense - probably explains other posters issues which iirc related to first passports for children which would require more 'hands on' contact.

Yeah, they seem to be implying the majority of issues are first time applicants from the UK, which obviously requires a lot more effort.

Gael23

Allowing hotel restaurants to have indoor dining but not a standalone restaurant is not fair. I can see a climb down there

Stormyteacup

Graham wrote: »

This must be awkward

Okay so during the current restrictions 40,000 passports have been processed. The service resumed at some point in March after being paused on December 24th completely.

It’s a fact that passport renewals were paused completely for a period of time - this is not contrary to what you have posted.

Tenzor07

Gael23 wrote: »

Allowing hotel restaurants to have indoor dining but not a standalone restaurant is not fair. I can see a climb down there

Ha! Yea more crazy non-science, we should be used to it by now from this Govt. It makes as much sense as the €9 meal rule to have a beer....and the 2hr time limit..

They clear the difference between food and non food pubs, then allow dining indoors if you stay at a hotel but not if you don't!! :eek:

Lumen

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Ha! Yea more crazy non-science, we should be used to it by now from this Govt. It makes as much sense as the €9 meal rule to have a beer....

They clear the difference between food and non food pubs, then allow dining indoors if you stay at a hotel but not if you don't!! :eek:

Maybe the idea is that if people can only eat in the hotel they're staying in, there will be less mixing between households?

Tenzor07

Lumen wrote: »

Maybe the idea is that if people can only eat in the hotel they're staying in, there will be less mixing between households?

Nah sure the Virus doesn't know the difference between hotel and non-hotel guests at a restaurant...

...more like a ploy to have people book a room at a hotel just so they can have dinner and drinks indoors....

Gael23

Lumen wrote: »

Maybe the idea is that if people can only eat in the hotel they're staying in, there will be less mixing between households?

But it’s allowing certain restaurants to trade and not others. You can’t do that it’s anti competitive as well

Tenzor07

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Ha! Yea more crazy non-science, we should be used to it by now from this Govt. It makes as much sense as the €9 meal rule to have a beer....and the 2hr time limit..

They clear the difference between food and non food pubs, then allow dining indoors if you stay at a hotel but not if you don't!! :eek:

The difference is a resident in a hotel does not have the option to cook at home, therefore needs to eat in the hotel

gozunda

themacattack. wrote: »

heading the right direction now,lockdowns hopefully will never ever be considered as a way of managing covid...would not fully trust the government but confidant enough that no european country will impose level 5 style restrictions again if vaccines do their job which its more or less been demonstrated that they do.

why would any country need to close any industry again if there is a collapse in hospitlisations and deaths...there can be any amount of cases but its moot if the end result is largely a few days with a bit of a cough ..and will people still go for covid tests if they suspect they have it but they know passing it on is no biggy...obviously you will have to if you want to travel.

every day something is opened now is a good day moving forward as the theory is once they are open they will stay open...one negative is allowing hotels have indoor dining which of course they should but only allowing pubs and restaurants outdoor dining until july....if true its once again the irish government showing their lack of common sense..why in the name of christ is it ok to sit indoors in a hotel and drink and eat but not in a pub...hopefully they will face a backlash on that one...

travel within europe is now looking more and more likely with the green certificate and looks like dopey,sneaky and sleepy are making positive noises about that..the penny has dropped that we need an aviation industry.

still believe this was the biggest over-reaction in human history and people in the future will be wondering what we were all smoking but this is a positive day just to get moving forward now,no more dilly dallying

Funny there seems to be entire countries which disagree with you...

https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-germanys-emergency-brake-rules-take-effect/a-57321750

themacattack wrote:

...looks like dopey,sneaky and sleepy are making positive noises

Calling people stupid names - whether you like them or otherwise is puerile btw

mohawk

Gael23 wrote: »

Allowing hotel restaurants to have indoor dining but not a standalone restaurant is not fair. I can see a climb down there

I could swear that happened back in October or maybe December (can’t remember which). We had a weekend away and had to eat in hotel as restaurants were closed.

It’s not fair but most pubs outside Dublin got three weeks open last year while gastropubs got months.

Personally I can see their logic in trying to keep dining outdoors for as long as possible. The longer they leave it the more of us will be vaccinated. I would rather the current plan then keeping hotels closed until they bring in indoor dining to restaurants and pubs. I don’t think they will move date for indoor dining up to June.

corcaigh07

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Ha! Yea more crazy non-science, we should be used to it by now from this Govt. It makes as much sense as the €9 meal rule to have a beer....and the 2hr time limit..

They clear the difference between food and non food pubs, then allow dining indoors if you stay at a hotel but not if you don't!! :eek:

TBF, any hotel that has been open this year (for essential guests) has been serving food and drink in their bar or restaurant, nothing new here at all bar the fact that there will be more guests staying from June 2nd.

pc7

Looked up hotel that's good for families for 11th June that we have stayed in before, 1 night b&b €364! they are looking to make up lost revenue. Can't blame them, but it is a killer price, won't be happening.

themacattack.

gozunda wrote: »

Funny there seems to be entire countries which disagree with you...

https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-germanys-emergency-brake-rules-take-effect/a-57321750



Calling people stupid names - whether you like them or otherwise is puerile btw

Stupid is as stupid does....
im looking forward to oktoberfest in september? do you think ill make it?prost!!!

darconio

timmyntc wrote: »

Passport applications were never closed, sure Boggles saw them being issued all over the place on his walk!

Along with construction and building sites

Tenzor07

Deleted User wrote: »

The difference is a resident in a hotel does not have the option to cook at home, therefore needs to eat in the hotel

What's that got to do with the Virus? LOL!

SAMTALK

Fandymo wrote: »

There was literally a statement on the front page of the DFA website stating that no passports, except emergency passports, were being processed during level 5, i provided the link. Do you think they were hacked? :rolleyes:

https://twitter.com/PassportIRL/status/1370414426730430466 Here's their Twitter hacked too. :rolleyes:


I worked in the passport office for 2 years when I was younger. I never seen Brian Cowen in the office. Met him at the Christmas party though.

Sorry I can't put up link but maybe look at tweet on 23rd march as well where it says 1600 urgent passports and 150 emergency passports this year. also adult renewals of 20,000 .


Cherry picking ?

hynesie08

Fandymo wrote: »

430,000 passports issued DURING the pandemic, we've been in pandemic since Feb 2020, not since January 2021, when they ceased operations

Except obviously they didn't.

gozunda

themacattack. wrote: »

Stupid is as stupid does....
im looking forward to oktoberfest in september? do you think ill make it?prost!!!

Yes unfortunately stupidity does exist.
Unless you are saying that the German Government are stupid too?

As for oktoberfest maybe ask the people here

https://m.dw.com/en/coronavirus-germanys-emergency-brake-rules-take-effect/a-57321750

As you said its all just a big overreaction or wtte ..

prunudo

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Anyone know where the restrictions thread went? I seem to have ended up on the passport office thread.

I don't know, but its reminded me to check the application status (didn't know this was possible) of my renewed passport which I applied and paid for at the end of Feb and have yet to receive.

Edit; turns out the estimated time if delivery was 11/3/21. And as of 29/4/21 it just says processing application.

Stormyteacup

hynesie08 wrote: »

Why did it take mine 4 days? Maybe they made a mistake on the application?

https://twitter.com/PassportIRL/status/1374330212725428229?s=20

Because services have been resumed? You applied in the middle of April.

Stormyteacup

Corholio wrote: »

Any chance could give this passport childishness a rest?

It’s not really about the passport issue though - it’s more that some posters are absolutely insistent that passport renewals were not paused completely apart from essential reasons, for a period of time.

It’s absolutely true they were paused - with tweets from DFA, a notice on their website and personal and anecdotal experiences re passport renewals.

It’s odd that posters are claiming that never happened tbh.

Tenzor07

Tenzor07 wrote: »

What's that got to do with the Virus? LOL!

Huh?

LineOfBeauty

I'm excited to have these things back, to have something near normality again. It's a good day. The key to this now has to be that the things they've given back should never be taken away again.

ArthurDayne

gozunda wrote: »

Arthur hate to break it to you but you're tying yourself in knots with endless spliting of what posters have said ito minutiae

But yes something can be both minimised and manageable. They are not incompatible

The strategy has also changed over time. Something you seen unaware of.

The endless essay why every else is wrong is a bit boring at this stage tbf.

Yes, it would be fairly stupid to say that something cannot be both minimised and manageable. It would be equally stupid to say they are incompatible. Thankfully however, that is not what I said or suggested at all — whether you are just misinterpreting or deliberately just misrepresenting it.

How you are contriving to see this as being “tied up in knots” is beyond me. It’s quite simple, the government did not pursue a strategy of minimising Covid infections. You only have to look at the strategy and by any objective measure this would be obvious — there would be a strict lockdown followed by a period of reopening. You don’t have to be epidemiologist to understand that when you reopen things, in a context where the virus is already endemic, there is likely to be a rise in infection. So if that’s a policy of minimising Covid infection outright, then I’m Harry Potter.

I don’t understand how this isn’t clear by just looking at the pattern of how the approach unfolded: cases rise > lockdown > cases drop > reopen > cases inevitably rise from reopening > lockdown > repeat. Saying that this is a policy of minimising infections outright is like saying that piano means fish. It was a policy aimed at controlling the level of infection to thresholds where the health service would be able to cope.

Bit cynical

charlie14 wrote: »

Why do you believe people making up for lost time will increase numbers to the extent that lockdown will be imposed ?
At 50% first dose vaccination in the U.K. it hasn`t happened. Nor does it look likely to from their data plus more people being vaccinated.

But that is the effect of the vaccine which will have the effect of reducing the R number regardless of whether they are in lockdown or how long they have had restrictions.

PTH2009

D Day as was mentioned before there will always be a lingering thought of another big lockdown looming over us and the media will be all over it

When places reopen let them stay open. Indoor Hospitality is the worry as they could easily string them along like last summer. 100% clarity needs to be given to those establishments and all industries including entertainment/sport etc

Graham

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

I'm excited to have these things back, to have something near normality again. It's a good day. The key to this now has to be that the things they've given back should never be taken away again.

+1

and I think we stand a very good chance of that being the case.

Stormyteacup

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Yes, it would be fairly stupid to say that something cannot be both minimised and manageable. It would be equally stupid to say they are incompatible. Thankfully however, that is not what I said or suggested at all — whether you are just misinterpreting or deliberately just misrepresenting it.

How you are contriving to see this as being “tied up in knots” is beyond me. It’s quite simple, the government did not pursue a strategy of minimising Covid infections. You only have to look at the strategy and by any objective measure this would be obvious — there would be a strict lockdown followed by a period of reopening. You don’t have to be epidemiologist to understand that when you reopen things, in a context where the virus is already endemic, there is likely to be a rise in infection. So if that’s a policy of minimising Covid infection outright, then I’m Harry Potter.

I don’t understand how this isn’t clear by just looking at the pattern of how the approach unfolded: cases rise > lockdown > cases drop > reopen > cases inevitably rise from reopening > lockdown > repeat. Saying that this is a policy of minimising infections outright is like saying that piano means fish. It was a policy aimed at controlling the level of infection to thresholds where the health service would be able to cope.

Precisely. A prime example of this was Christmas and the easing of restrictions that were sanctioned, in full acknowledgement of an expected rise in cases that would translate to hospitalisations and deaths.

The judgment was that the health services would be able to cope with these increases. The extent of the rise in cases was under-predicted, but if the overall goal was to minimise deaths and hospitalisations without consideration for capicity, then there would have been no sanctioned lifting of restrictions during the Christmas period.

Pandiculation

Hopefully they manage to smoothly match the removal of spending with an increase in economic activity. Austerity economics into a massive recession is the one thing Christine Lagarde is warning countries not to do, as it will potentially trip into an economic crisis situation.

A lot of the next few years is going to depend on how impactful stimulus packages are and not just here, but in in the EU as a whole and in our key trading partners.

Consumer confidence will also be a big deal. If people begin to spend into the reopening economy it will make a huge difference. I’m just hoping the last few months hasn’t created a massive Amazon habit that won’t be weaned off.

There’s a lot of very unprecedented economics, the likes of which we haven’t really experienced. It’s not comparable to WWII, but it’s right up there with the biggest economic impacts in modern history.

I still think we’re very much underestimating it and it’s being compounded in these islands by the U.K. having decided to turn everything upside down and inside out with Brexit in the middle of a global pandemic. A lot of that impact has been clouded in the distortions of COVID supports, so we will begin to see a lot of that crystallise in both the U.K. and here as the summer rolls on and normality restores.

Bumpy roads could be ahead. We don’t have any model that we can base assumptions on as there hasn’t been anything like this before.

Graham

Stormyteacup wrote: »

Precisely. A prime example of this was Christmas and the easing of restrictions that were sanctioned, in full acknowledgement of in spite of the warnings of an expected rise in cases that would translate to hospitalisations and deaths.

FYP