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

Boggles

suicide_circus wrote: »

We (righlty) consult and rely on data regarding vaccine trials from other countries but we won't do the same for outdoor events. Hmmm

How do you know they are not consulting? Why are the UK holding a test event at the racing, why not just completely rely on data from Spain or Texas?

Re vaccines, we have our own grouping that formulates policy on several key issues whilst consulting with other bodies.

VinLieger

TomSweeney wrote: »

If people are that close together I don't think masks will do much, earlier you mentioned you don't think masks should ever be scrapped - why not ?

imagine 100% of pop are vaccinated, why wouldn't you want them scrapped?
edit - sorry different user..

Because it might mean less colds and flus being passed around among other potential viruses that granted arent as serious as covid but do put a strain on our health services especially during the winter months so If we can reduce that strain why wouldn't we?

Ill be wearing a mask on public transport for the foreseeable future.

Theres some great visual representations of how much masks stop even in a close environment. They deffinitely still work in situations like this.

charlie14

TomSweeney wrote: »

https://english.elpais.com/society/2021-05-28/is-it-time-for-spain-to-end-the-mandatory-use-of-face-masks-outdoors.html


Oh lordy lordy lordy ... we have some serious sociopathic control freaks out there

Some of the "Experts" that don't want mandatory outdoor mask use removed :



Again remember this fool said the above talking about outdoor mask wearing !!

Irresponsible to not wear a mask whilst alone in a field ... yeah sure ...



below 25/100k - again this will never happen as it's endemic, and even when 100% of pop is vaccinated the case rate will always be higher.

So this "expert" wants people to be forced to wear a mask outside when covid won't be an issue for the health service.


These people aren't good people, they are control freaks, drunk on power.
I'd imagine NPHET would do the same regarding outdoor use if they could.

As Boggles pointed out as an ex director of the World Health Organisation this lad has the sum total of zero power to be intoxicated on.
Johan Giesecke on the other hand was promoted to vice chair of WHO Strategic and Technical Advisory Group on Infectious Hazards in September where he will advise the Director-General on pandemic response.

When it comes down to the two of them where power is concerned. I would be more inclined to keep an eye on Giesecke rather than Lopez-Acuna.

VinLieger

VinLieger wrote: »

Because it might mean less colds and flus being passed around among other potential viruses that granted arent as serious as covid but do put a strain on our health services especially during the winter months so If we can reduce that strain why wouldn't we?

Ill be wearing a mask on public transport for the foreseeable future.

Theres some great visual representations of how much masks stop even in a close environment. They deffinitely still work in situations like this.

Much like South east Asia post hong kong flu, it may well be a personal choice some people make. But it will neither be mandated nor all that common in the long term

gozunda

MOH wrote: »

...


Yeah, here we just kept repeating the lie that schools are perfectly safe and kept them open

Are we? Thought were talking about graph ...

So your saying close the schools? I can't imagine that's going to go down too well hereabouts

VinLieger

Deleted User wrote: »

Much like South east Asia post hong kong flu, it may well be a personal choice some people make. But it will neither be mandated nor all that common in the long term

It shouldn't be mandated but it definitely should be encouraged. But I do unfortunately agree that even if it was encouraged many are too ignorantly selfish and lazy to continue doing it in the long term regardless of the obvious personal and overall public health benefits.

JRant

[Deleted User] wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/sport/other-sport/2021/0527/1224355-government-to-consider-return-of-fans-from-june/




HATS FLAGS AND HEADBANDS - ANYONE BUYING OR SELLING TICKETS

No way the GAA will reopen CP at 10,000 spectators. It wouldn't even break even for them at those numbers.

Multipass

Boggles wrote: »

You'll be wearing a mask on a plane for some time to come I reckon.

Airlines brought it in before governments did.

Unless you buy drinks and snacks, eat really slowly :pac:

JRant

JRant wrote: »

No way the GAA will reopen CP at 10,000 spectators. It wouldn't even break even for them at those numbers.

10k is better than zero. And I am sure government subventions will still be in place while at restricted capacity

charlie14

JRant wrote: »

No way the GAA will reopen CP at 10,000 spectators. It wouldn't even break even for them at those numbers.

Croke Park has hosted matches in the past where there were less than 10,000 spectators so I doubt the GAA will make much of a deal on that figure for a test event.
No Covid and they would probably have done well to get that many attending this years Leinster football final anyway.

JRant

[Deleted User] wrote: »

10k is better than zero. And I am sure government subventions will still be in place while at restricted capacity

It would have to be subsidised alright. It costs a lot of money to open CP.

JRant

charlie14 wrote: »

Croke Park has hosted matches in the past where there were less than 10,000 spectators so I doubt the GAA will make much of a deal on that figure for a test event.
No Covid and they would probably have done well to get that many attending this years Leinster football final anyway.

They really haven't outside of some of the league campaigns they tried there over the years. For regular championship games in CP even with 30,000 at them it looks empty.

Boggles

JRant wrote: »

No way the GAA will reopen CP at 10,000 spectators. It wouldn't even break even for them at those numbers.

United had 10,000 for the Fulham match a couple of weeks ago all reduced price tickets.

Capacity 76,000.

Moyglish

So is outdoors dining open in restaurants for 7th of June?

VinLieger

VinLieger wrote: »

It shouldn't be mandated but it definitely should be encouraged. But I do unfortunately agree that even if it was encouraged many are too ignorantly selfish and lazy to continue doing it in the long term regardless of the obvious personal and overall public health benefits.

I fear you are going to find yourself getting very stressed when you head out and about in the future. Make sure to point and shout "unclean" at every opportunity

hynesie08

Moyglish wrote: »

So is outdoors dining open in restaurants for 7th of June?

Yes, announced weeks ago.

charlie14

JRant wrote: »

They really haven't outside of some of the league campaigns they tried there over the years. For regular championship games in CP even with 30,000 at them it looks empty.

Admittedly 10,000 would make it look empty, but I have been to All Ireland club finals over the years where it looked empty, and they have played league games there where the crowds were small as well.
I really cannot see the GAA making a big deal of 10,000 at a trial event. Especially when they are presently playing league games in empty stadiums.

charlie14

charlie14 wrote: »

Admittedly 10,000 would make it look empty, but I have been to All Ireland club finals over the years where it looked empty, and they have played league games there where the crowds were small as well.
I really cannot see the GAA making a big deal of 10,000 at a trial event. Especially when they are presently playing league games in empty stadiums.

I wont look quite as empty with distancing strangely enough. When expected attendance is low the crowd mainly congregates in the centre blocks of the Lower Hogan. Vast swathes of the ground would be deserted. With distancing measures they will be scattered evenly

JRant

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I wont look quite as empty with distancing strangely enough. When expected attendance is low the crowd mainly congregates in the centre blocks of the Lower Hogan. Vast swathes of the ground would be deserted. With distancing measures they will be scattered evenly

Yeah, they'll limit it to lower Cusack and lower Hogan stands only. Still, will be great to see supporters back in some capacity.

VinLieger

Deleted User wrote: »

I fear you are going to find yourself getting very stressed when you head out and about in the future. Make sure to point and shout "unclean" at every opportunity

I wont say or do anything because as i said it shouldn't be mandated and if someone doesnt want to wear a mask no matter how maliciously ignorant it is thats their decision. Im fully expecting to be mocked by people like yourself which im fine with because im comfortable with how pathetic it will make them look.

VinLieger

VinLieger wrote: »

I wont say or do anything because as i said it shouldn't be mandated and if someone doesnt want to wear a mask no matter how maliciously ignorant it is thats their decision. Im fully expecting to be mocked by people like yourself which im fine with because im comfortable with how pathetic it will make them look.

SO you reakon the 90%+ of people who will dispense of masks as soon as they can are maliciously ignorant?

And As I said, its a personal choice should anyone continue to wear masks after the pandemic is passed and they should not be mocked for it. However, to suggest malevolent intent in those who wont choose to wear masks when risk is gone is patently ridiculous

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

I wont look quite as empty with distancing strangely enough. When expected attendance is low the crowd mainly congregates in the centre blocks of the Lower Hogan. Vast swathes of the ground would be deserted. With distancing measures they will be scattered evenly

Good point. Just using the lower levels of the Cusack and Hogan would make it look less empty even for tv coverage.
If there is one thing I have really missed during this it`s not being able to attend club and county games.

VinLieger

Deleted User wrote: »

SO you reakon the 90%+ of people who will dispense of masks as soon as they can are maliciously ignorant?

And As I said, its a personal choice should anyone continue to wear masks after the pandemic is passed and they should not be mocked for it. However, to suggest malevolent intent in those who wont choose to wear masks when risk is gone is patently ridiculous

It is maliciously ignorant, claiming otherwise after the last year where everyone has been shown the efficacy of wearing masks in public enclosed spaces like public transport is absurd.

Im not saying we should wear them on the street or in public open spaces like a sport event or concert but on any form of public transport its a no brainer. And anyone who chooses not to in my honest opinion is being maliciously ignorant.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

10k is better than zero. And I am sure government subventions will still be in place while at restricted capacity

Thing about Croker is that they open it in phases. So if they only have 10k spectators, they are restricted to certain stands, which means they only need enough staff (stewards, bar staff, food staff) to cover those open stands. So in general no matter the size of the crowd, they can cover the costs.

But with these restrictions, they need to open enough stands for 40k, but still only get ticket receipts for 10k. And they may not be permitted to sell alcohol or food (though they probably will).

Like you say, there will probably be some government support available, but the GAA will be sticky about it.

suicide_circus wrote: »

We (righlty) consult and rely on data regarding vaccine trials from other countries but we won't do the same for outdoor events. Hmmm

One thing we can be reasonably confident of now is that cultural variations make a surprisingly large difference. Some countries saw numbers go mad when schools were opened. We didn't.
Some countries were able to keep indoor hospitality open and keep a lid on numbers. We weren't.

Event norms and ettiquette vary across the world. It would be irresponsible to say, "It worked over there, therefore it will work over here".

And I'd be especially wary of following the UK's lead when it comes to any aspect of this pandemic.

Lucas Hood

Do you have to leave the cinema after 105 mins when they open ?

celt262

Lucas Hood wrote: »

Do you have to leave the cinema after 105 mins when they open ?

Only if you are within 1m of the closest person.

charlie14

seamus wrote: »

Thing about Croker is that they open it in phases. So if they only have 10k spectators, they are restricted to certain stands, which means they only need enough staff (stewards, bar staff, food staff) to cover those open stands. So in general no matter the size of the crowd, they can cover the costs.

But with these restrictions, they need to open enough stands for 40k, but still only get ticket receipts for 10k. And they may not be permitted to sell alcohol or food (though they probably will).

Like you say, there will probably be some government support available, but the GAA will be sticky about it.

One thing we can be reasonably confident of now is that cultural variations make a surprisingly large difference. Some countries saw numbers go mad when schools were opened. We didn't.
Some countries were able to keep indoor hospitality open and keep a lid on numbers. We weren't.

Event norms and ettiquette vary across the world. It would be irresponsible to say, "It worked over there, therefore it will work over here".

And I'd be especially wary of following the UK's lead when it comes to any aspect of this pandemic.

This may be incorrect, and from wherever it came from, I seem to recall a figure of around 30,000 for the lower sections of the Hogan and Cusack combined.
Leaving every second seat empty, if that figure is correct, then both would hold 15,000 between them and plenty to play around with for seating 10,000.
FAIK aren`t the food and beverage outlets in Croke Park operated under franchise?
If they are then if they were not open the GAA would not be missing out on revenue from them, but they would be minus the days rent.

MOH

gozunda wrote: »

Are we? Thought were talking about graph ...

That's a bit incoherent, try again

So your saying close the schools? I can't imagine that's going to go down too well hereabouts

Did I say close the schools? Stop putting words in my mouth.

I'm saying schools kickstarted the second wave in September and reversed the slight decrease that had started before they opened this time.

I'm also saying NPHET members have repeatedly made misleading statements about the safety of schools. They've evolved along the way.

- There is no evidence that schools are spreading Covid (difficult when you don't believe in contact tracing and thus have no actual idea how 80% of cases are transmitted

- Schools are fine but activities around them such as dropping off or picking up children might spread covid (equivalent to "pubs are fine but drunk people hugging each other might spread covid")

- Schools are fine. There has been an increase in cases since schools went back but this correlation can't be taken as an indication that schools are the cause (yet a 10% increase in cases in one county where pubs were open vs another where they were closed was cited as "unambiguous evidence" that pubs were the cause, despite other factors being noted in the report)

- There has been an increase in cases due to schools, but this is transient (Philip Nolan finally gives up any pretence of credibility and buys a snake oil bottling plant)


There may be an argument that despite the serious effect schools have had on the trajectory of covid cases, that's outweighed by the education benefit and economic benefit of keeping them open and freeing up parents to return to work. But given the amount of effort that's been put into maintaining the fiction that schools are perfectly safe, and blaming everything else instead, I suspect it's an argument the government don't think they can win, or more likely would find politically untenable.

VinLieger

VinLieger wrote: »

It is maliciously ignorant, claiming otherwise after the last year where everyone has been shown the efficacy of wearing masks in public enclosed spaces like public transport is absurd.

Im not saying we should wear them on the street or in public open spaces like a sport event or concert but on any form of public transport its a no brainer. And anyone who chooses not to in my honest opinion is being maliciously ignorant.

Does one need to wear a helmet out walking.? Because there is a risk you may fall and hit your head. Not the same at that when rock climbing though. Just like there is a risk of catching and spreading a highly infectious virus at any time. Not the same as during a pandemic though

hynesie08

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1398258440103940097?s=20