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

prunudo

niallo27 wrote: »

Would it not be better than the alternative of none of them open.

Looking at the takeaway pints and the general outdoor gatherings situation I don't quite get why outdoor dining isn't allowed now let alone 3 ½ weeks away. Even at a minimum, why aren't coffee shops and cafes allowed have outdoor seating now during daytime hours.

corcaigh07

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Might want to look at the date of that article.

And also at the fact that inter county travel is already back

No worries, raind.

That was for the troll who needs his citations earlier and then ignores it when it's been provided.

niallo27

niallo27 wrote: »

Would it not be better than the alternative of none of them open.

I answered you yesterday, that in my view indoor dining is not a huge risk now.

I am not for one minute buying that the thread would not go into complete meltdown if there was a proposal to re-open restaurants and instead impose a curfew

Boggles

paddyisreal wrote: »

Don't be so pedantic.

Why do some people on this thread always label facts pedantic, especially when they are to posted to correct blatant falsehoods?

Is the Director of the construction federation being pedantic?

Mr Parlon said that builders would say they have built about 4,000 houses during the first quarter of this year and there is a potential to build 12,000-14,000 before the end of the year, bringing the total to 18,000 or 20,000 at a push

Again none of this is my opinion, if you think domestic construction was completely closed for Q1 you'll have to take it up with others.

I imagine If I got the eircodes of all 4,000 homes and brought you on a tour of all them, you'd still be shaking your head telling me they weren't built.

ArthurDayne

charlie14 wrote: »

What metric are these countries using for indoor dining start of June.?
Vaccination numbers, new case numbers, hospitalised, ICU numbers, or just take a punt ?
Reason I`m asking is Germany and France tried the take a punt route earlier and it didn`t work well.

What metric are you working off though Charlie to base your view?

Is it still that we should minimise Covid outright, in which case we should be remaining in Level 5 until a critical mass is reached on vaccination? Or are you back to saying it's about keeping Covid at a level which is manageable for the health service ?

If you don't want to go back to full restrictions, in a context where people are still dying of Covid, then I can only assume you have some metric of Covid prevalence in mind which makes you opposed to opening pubs?

Silentcorner

Chivito550 wrote: »

Covid 19 is a very intelligent virus. It knows if you're staying the night in a hotel, so will leave you alone if you have a meal and pint in the hotel restaurant. It prefers to attack those who like to have a meal and pint in a non-hotel restaurant and go home to their own beds after.

It's just the science...

You see if you open up restaurants people will travel to those in their cars and that's where the danger is....

Unless they are travelling to a hotel...then the science suggests that people who are travelling do so with the windows open in their cars....and the virus gives up after a few miles so that makes it safe.

Or if the are going to a cafe in a HSE Primary Health Care facility, there they can eat indoors all they want which is why they were never closed because that's the last place the virus would show up!!!

The virus has mutated since last summer when it's couldn't penetrate the immune system of someone eating a €9 meal.

And on and on the Covid Hoaky Coaky goes!!

You can't argue with science....

Boggles

All Hotels, B&Bs and Guesthouses are opening in a couple of weeks.

But of course that has been spun into a massive negative.

'But shure why can't pubs open, I'm not going to any of them anyway because some lad on Joe Duffy tried to book a 5 star and it cost loads, the economy is devastated but I'm off to Spain as soon as I can'

Addicted to misery.

bear1

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/health/holidays-abroad-for-fully-vaccinated-on-the-cards-from-july-40421029.html

Like a flag in the wind.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

The rationale is basic stuff

Silentcorner wrote: »

It's just the science...

You see if you open up restaurants people will travel to those in their cars and that's where the danger is....

Unless they are travelling to a hotel...then the science suggests that people who are travelling do so with the windows open in their cars....and the virus gives up after a few miles so that makes it safe.

Or if the are going to a cafe in a HSE Primary Health Care facility, there they can eat indoors all they want which is why they were never closed because that's the last place the virus would show up!!!

The virus has mutated since last summer when it's couldn't penetrate the immune system of someone eating a €9 meal.

And on and on the Covid Hoaky Coaky goes!!

You can't argue with science....

Not so basic so I guess.

Hotels - Residents are recorded, have no other option to get food and numbers are small
Health Centre Cafe - again, no other option for someone in a potentially vulnerable condition to get food while fulfilling appointments and staff also use these and staff canteens remain open in multiple environments.

Silentcorner

Deleted User wrote: »

Not so basic so I guess.

Hotels - Residents are recorded, have no other option to get food and numbers are small
Health Centre Cafe - again, no other option for someone in a potentially vulnerable condition to get food while fulfilling appointments and staff also use these and staff canteens remain open in multiple environments.

So let me guess, Nphet have got it spot on again!!

Is there anything those guys can't do!!!

ArthurDayne

Deleted User wrote: »

I think indoor dining and pubs could open safely now with table service. I'm not going to lose my sh*t over it though because a) its only going to be a few weeks either way b)I dont have access to all the data and c)like everyone on this thread I am not qualified to make decisions on this matter

Raind, I like your posts but, without trying to attack you, I don’t think I have ever seen a post that so neatly sums up the utter insipidness of both the Irish strategy and the popular view of its correctness. It’s more or less ...“I don’t mind the restriction of these particular liberties too much because in good time they’ll be back but I don’t really particularly know why they are still being restricted but anyway what would I know?”

It’s just depressing to read really — all the more so because it’s coming from someone who, from what I’ve seen, is a good poster who thinks rationally.

Can we not just call a spade a spade here? You are literally saying, or at least you seem to be saying, that indoor dining and pubs could open safely — which means (logically, even if you aren’t saying it outright) that you find this particular facet of the restrictions to no longer be proportionate. If it is no longer proportionate, then it’s not a matter of just staring aimlessly into our navels while contenting ourselves in the assumption that some higher power of intelligent life forms knows what it’s doing — it’s a matter of actually questioning the fact that rights, liberty and that nebulous concept of the general joy of living are being disproportionately restricted.

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

So let me guess, Nphet have got it spot on again!!

Is there anything those guys can't do!!!

Argue the necessity of various restrictions but infantile comparisons do no argument any good. The failure to grasp how two activities can carry similar risk yet are treated differently because one is a necessity while the other not is beyond bizarre.

ArthurDayne

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Raind, I like your posts but, without trying to attack you, I don’t think I have ever seen a post that so neatly sums up the utter insipidness of both the Irish strategy and the popular view of its correctness. It’s more or less ...“I don’t mind the restriction of these particular liberties too much because in good time they’ll be back but I don’t really particularly know why they are still being restricted but anyway what would I know?”

It’s just depressing to read really — all the more so because it’s coming from someone who, from what I’ve seen, is a good poster who thinks rationally.

Can we not just call a spade a spade here? You are literally saying, or at least you seem to be saying, that indoor dining and pubs could open safely — which means (logically, even if you aren’t saying it outright) that you find this particular facet of the restrictions to no longer be proportionate. If it is no longer proportionate, then it’s not a matter of just staring aimlessly into our navels while contenting ourselves in the assumption that some higher power of intelligent life forms knows what it’s doing — it’s a matter of actually questioning the fact that rights, liberty and that nebulous concept of the general joy of living are being disproportionately restricted.

Why I was saying is in my view indoor dining could open safely while admittedly not having all the data that plays into these decisions and also with the knowledge that there is no date where it suddenly switches from safe to unsafe. So therefore I don't view decisions not to relax these types of restrictions as being some power trip or bizarre conspiracy, but rather due to a more risk averse outlook, access to more information or a combination of both.

Silentcorner

Deleted User wrote: »

Argue the necessity of various restrictions but infantile comparisons do no argument any good. The failure to grasp how two activities can carry similar risk yet are treated differently because one is a necessity while the other not is beyond bizarre.

Too many people have been placed out of work, too many businesses have been forced to close...that is the effect of policies that do not make any sense...this is no joke, there is a consequence for all these actions.

ArthurDayne

Deleted User wrote: »

Why I was saying is in my view indoor dining could open safely while admittedly not having all the data that plays into these decisions and also with the knowledge that there is no date where it suddenly switches from safe to unsafe. So therefore I don't view decisions not to relax these types of restrictions as being some power trip or bizarre conspiracy, but rather due to a more risk averse outlook, access to more information or a combination of both.

Of course they aren’t a power trip or bizarre conspiracy — I don’t think they are either. Personally, I think you are correct in your post that it’s a risk averse outlook (I don’t really believe it’s access to more information because there would be no reason to withhold supporting data), but we all know that there is a point where risk aversion becomes disproportionate.

For whatever reason, you seem highly reluctant to just say what you are actually tying to say (i.e. that pubs and restaurants being closed right now is a disproportionate restriction of liberty) — and personally I’m getting a slight impression that you feel like you will be descending into the pit of the Gemma O’Dohertys of this world if you do say it. But you wouldn’t be — it’s just that Irish society has been presented with a black and white narrative of restrictions that to agree wholeheartedly with them is to be a man of science, and to disagree with them (even in part) is to be an eccentric. The very fact that you’ve responded using terms like “power trip” and “conspiracy” suggest to me that maybe you’ve been swayed by that dichotomy.

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

Too many people have been placed out of work, too many businesses have been forced to close...that is the effect of policies that do not make any sense...this is no joke, there is a consequence for all these actions.

See, you can argue it makes no sense to have any restrictions, or some particular restrictions that you dont like. That is your right. But one activity being allowed while another is not even though they have similar risks is perfectly logical once you add necessity into the calculation.

ArthurDayne

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Of course they aren’t a power trip or bizarre conspiracy — I don’t think they are either. Personally, I think you are correct in your post that it’s a risk averse outlook (I don’t really believe it’s access to more information because there would be no reason to withhold supporting data), but we all know that there is a point where risk aversion becomes disproportionate.

For whatever reason, you seem highly reluctant to just say what you are actually tying to say (i.e. that pubs and restaurants being closed right now is a disproportionate restriction of liberty) — and personally I’m getting a slight impression that you feel like you will be descending into the pit of the Gemma O’Dohertys of this world if you do say it. But you wouldn’t be — it’s just that Irish society has been presented with a black and white narrative of restrictions that to agree wholeheartedly with them is to be a man of science, and to disagree with them (even in part) is to be an eccentric. The very fact that you’ve responded using terms like “power trip” and “conspiracy” suggest to me that maybe you’ve been swayed by that dichotomy.

My issue is not with those who question restrictions, its with the bizarre mental gymnastics and questionable sources employed by some.

gozunda

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Raind, I like your posts but, without trying to attack you, I don’t think I have ever seen a post that so neatly sums up the utter insipidness of both the Irish strategy and the popular view of its correctness. It’s more or less ...“I don’t mind the restriction of these particular liberties too much because in good time they’ll be back but I don’t really particularly know why they are still being restricted but anyway what would I know?”

It’s just depressing to read really — all the more so because it’s coming from someone who, from what I’ve seen, is a good poster who thinks rationally.

Can we not just call a spade a spade here? You are literally saying, or at least you seem to be saying, that indoor dining and pubs could open safely — which means (logically, even if you aren’t saying it outright) that you find this particular facet of the restrictions to no longer be proportionate. If it is no longer proportionate, then it’s not a matter of just staring aimlessly into our navels while contenting ourselves in the assumption that some higher power of intelligent life forms knows what it’s doing — it’s a matter of actually questioning the fact that rights, liberty and that nebulous concept of the general joy of living are being disproportionately restricted.

I'd agree that there's certainly been those who have been practising said convoluted navel gazing - where that (and to quote the definition of same) equates to evident self-indulgent and excessive contemplation of a single issue and that at the expense of a wider view. However to be fair - Raind hasn't been one of them.

charlie14

Penfailed wrote: »

I wasn't actually interested. I just thought it was a bit childish to dance around the question.

Perhaps, but as the childish retort goes "He started it"
He consistently refused, in a discussion of a policy based on naturally acquired herd immunity, if "the science" he kept referring to was naturally acquired herd immunity and you didn`t have a problem with that.

ArthurDayne

gozunda wrote: »

I'd agree that there's certainly been those who have been practising said convoluted navel gazing - where that (and to quote the definition of same) equates to evident self-indulgent and excessive contemplation of a single issue and that at the expense of a wider view. However to be fair - Raind hasn't been one of them.

Good to see you’re back to definitions — thought we had lost you on the definition of “compare”!

But anyway, I was merely pointing out to Raind that he/she and I both agree that pubs and restaurants could be opened safely (i.e. that opening them will not cause the thing that closing them was designed to prevent). What I took issue with is the fact that Raind seemed unwilling to go one step further and call that opinion precisely what it is — a belief that those particular restrictions are a disproportionate restriction of liberty (even if they believe that they were proportionate at some point in the past).

How about you? Do you agree with him that pubs and restaurants could be opened safely now?

ArthurDayne

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Good to see you’re back to definitions — thought we had lost you on the definition of “compare”!

But anyway, I was merely pointing out to Raind that he/she and I both agree that pubs and restaurants could be opened safely (i.e. that opening them will not cause the thing that closing them was designed to prevent). What I took issue with is the fact that Raind seemed unwilling to go one step further and call that opinion precisely what it is — a belief that those particular restrictions are a disproportionate restriction of liberty (even if they believe that they were proportionate at some point in the past).

How about you? Do you agree with him that pubs and restaurants could be opened safely now?

I dont agree its a disproportionate restriction of liberty currently as even though I do believe they could be opened safely, I also believe we are within the transition period where the roll back of whet were necessary public health measures is ongoing and therefore the argument as to proportionality on any individual activity is essentially individual preference while the relaxation plays through. To me, without an unforseen deterioration, in another few weeks, if clear movement was not flagged in this area in particular, I could see how continuation of restrictions could be considered disproportionate.

timmyntc

Deleted User wrote: »

I dont agree its a disproportionate restriction of liberty currently as even though I do believe they could be opened safely, I also believe we are within the transition period where the roll back of whet were necessary public health measures is ongoing and therefore the argument as to proportionality on any individual activity is essentially individual preference while the relaxation plays through. To me, without an unforseen deterioration, in another few weeks, if clear movement was not flagged in this area in particular, I could see how continuation of restrictions could be considered disproportionate.

But if you think its safe then you are at odds with public health advice - as at this time they do not consider them safe hence they are closed.

If NPHET/Govt deemed them safe surely they would be open by now?

charlie14

niallo27 wrote: »

Ok, we are getting somewhere. So by your reckoning when we reach nearly 70% we should open up indoor dining in line with the UK.

We might get somewhere if you were to spend less time rushing around all over Europe looking for something to moan about and more on vaccination levels and what we now know from them.

Even the basics would be a start. You talk about France and Germany opening some sectors before us, as if they were some gold standard we should follow, while believing that when both had to do an about-face on restriction in April was pre vaccines.

The principle of opening based on vaccine is not that difficult to understand.
The U.K. were way ahead of the rest of Europe in first doses of vaccines administered. At a certain level they began their first stage of reopening with the caveat that if that was successful after a period of time if four tests were passed, (2 in relation to vaccines and 2 in relation to hospital numbers and I.C.U.) they would move to the next stage of reopening.
After the minimum time of 14 days the data looked very good and we announced that we were following their lead and doing the same on the 7th June when our vaccination level would be the same all things considered.
That looks a sensible approach to me based on available data.

If this "all of Europe" you keep talking about are doing otherwise, then I cannot see what data they are using, and when asked neither did you. If it is other than the U.K.s and re-opening at different stages, then good luck to them, but far as I`m concerned they are chancing their arms.

As to opening indoor dining in line with the U.K. using the same criterion, I would not see why we wouldn`t and as far as I can see that is the plan.

ArthurDayne

Deleted User wrote: »

I dont agree its a disproportionate restriction of liberty currently as even though I do believe they could be opened safely, I also believe we are within the transition period where the roll back of whet were necessary public health measures is ongoing and therefore the argument as to proportionality on any individual activity is essentially individual preference while the relaxation plays through. To me, without an unforseen deterioration, in another few weeks, if clear movement was not flagged in this area in particular, I could see how continuation of restrictions could be considered disproportionate.

To me, it sounds like you are arguing two different conflicting things at once. I don’t see how you can reconcile the view that you think pubs and restaurants could open safely now with a view that their continued closure is not disproportionate. Personally it seems like what you are saying is that you agree with the risk averse approach but you also don’t consider that the risk remains existent insofar as pubs and restaurants are concerned (at least to the extent where their premises should remain fully closed — we aren’t talking about completely ending restrictions such as capacity limits, social distancing etc).

So essentially, and please correct me if I am misrepresenting you here: (1) you think pubs and restaurants could open safely now; but also (2) there is a transition going on and you kinda just accept that pubs/restaurants will open somewhere along that transition as part of a risk averse process.

That just seems extremely arbitrary to me — or at least just being apathetic towards the arbitrariness of it all. You don’t see the risk now of letting pubs and restaurants open (with the certain aforementioned restrictive measures in place) but you go along with the view that it’s fine that we are being averse to the risk ...even if you don’t think the risk is there?

timmyntc

timmyntc wrote: »

But if you think its safe then you are at odds with public health advice - as at this time they do not consider them safe hence they are closed.

If NPHET/Govt deemed them safe surely they would be open by now?

When viewed the the prism of everything being a black and white issues

ArthurDayne

ArthurDayne wrote: »

To me, it sounds like you are arguing two different conflicting things at once. I don’t see how you can reconcile the view that you think pubs and restaurants could open safely now with a view that their continued closure is not disproportionate. Personally it seems like what you are saying is that you agree with the risk averse approach but you also don’t consider that the risk remains existent insofar as pubs and restaurants are concerned (at least to the extent where their premises should remain fully closed — we aren’t talking about completely ending restrictions such as capacity limits, social distancing etc).

So essentially, and please correct me if I am misrepresenting you here: (1) you think pubs and restaurants could open safely now; but also (2) there is a transition going on and you kinda just accept that pubs/restaurants will open somewhere along that transition as part of a risk averse process.

That just seems extremely arbitrary to me — or at least just being apathetic towards the arbitrariness of it all. You don’t see the risk now of letting pubs and restaurants open (with the certain aforementioned restrictive measures in place) but you go along with the view that it’s fine that we are being averse to the risk ...even if you don’t think the risk is there?

An analogy: I believe driving faster than 120kph on a motor in good driving conditions is safe. I also believe that having a defined speed limit is correct. Therefore while I dont agree that someone driving at 135kph should be done for speeding, issuing penalties for speeding is not disproportionate, even if the limit for motorway driving is too low in my opinion.

Penfailed

charlie14 wrote: »

Perhaps, but as the childish retort goes "He started it"
He consistently refused, in a discussion of a policy based on naturally acquired herd immunity, if "the science" he kept referring to was naturally acquired herd immunity and you didn`t have a problem with that.

Honestly, I didn't have a problem with you either. The difference being, the question directed at you only required a one word answer...but you dug the heels in. It's no big deal either way. You aren't the first and won't be the last to swerve questions put to them in the thread.

Boggles

Opening the pubs now and throwing the shackles off, because it wouldn't just be the pubs would be a dangerously stupid risk with 30% first dosed. i.e the vast majority of the populous not inoculated.

There is a reason public health here and in the UK are not doing it.

I very much doubt if I could magically give any of ye the power to do it, ye would. Heavy is the crown and all that. Great craic whittling shít on the internet anonymously with zero consequences. (I include myself in that).

Health, Education, Child Care and safer social meetups have been prioritized for May, you may not realize it listening to this thread but a whole heap of shít is opening this week. Including all Retail. But of course we are onto pubs.

Next month a limited but not insignificant return to hospitality. Huge in fact when you consider all hotels, hostels, B&Bs, guest houses can reopen, along with outdoor dining.

It's quite clear they are waiting until 60,000 kids finish their leaving cert and the schools to close before a full return to hospitality. i.e. a million un-vaccinated humans.

TBH it is pretty hard to argue with that plan, you can get contrary over a week or 2 for contrary sake.

Unless anyone has data that hypothesizes the negative effects of a full return to hospitality today, because I imagine no one is stating that their wouldn't be negative effects?

And how those negative effects would be negated by the positive effects.

Personally I'd be up for cancelling the leaving cert to get pints faster, but I can see why a whole lot of people may take issue with that.

FintanMcluskey

Deleted User wrote: »

An analogy: I believe driving faster than 120kph on a motor in good driving conditions is safe. I also believe that having a defined speed limit is correct. Therefore while I dont agree that someone driving at 135kph should be done for speeding, issuing penalties for speeding is not disproportionate, even if the limit for motorway driving is too low in my opinion.

I don’t believe driving above any determined speed limit is safe, especially so as the risk involves the reaction and driving ability of others, elevated speeds increase the likelihood of error both on yourself and others behalf as your vehicle approaches much faster.

I must say I’m surprised, that someone so risk averse regarding Covid and it’s effects or relative lack of on healthy people, believes travelling at 33 metres per second is not adequate in some instances

JeffKenna

[Deleted User] wrote: »

An analogy: I believe driving faster than 120kph on a motor in good driving conditions is safe. I also believe that having a defined speed limit is correct. Therefore while I dont agree that someone driving at 135kph should be done for speeding, issuing penalties for speeding is not disproportionate, even if the limit for motorway driving is too low in my opinion.

I'm not sure about that, the amount of people who pull into the overtaking lane without looking or caring can be scary. An extra 15 or 20kms an hour would impact on braking distances big time.