nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Relaxation of restrictions

Red Alert

Simon Harris curiously made a comment that there was a limit to how long people could put up with extreme level of restrictions as we currently have. Already we’re seeing in Italy that people are starting to get restless. So two big questions:

1) on Easter Sunday, do you think there will be further restrictions, no change with just an extension or some relaxation?

2) what will be the first thing rolled back?

My own guess would be: extension for at least 1 week. Then to allow some businesses like DIY shops to reopen, perhaps allow gatherings of 2/3 people, maybe a token increase on 2km.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

FloatingVoter wrote: »

My guess(timate) assuming we peak this week or early next week. And based on sweet FA.

It's only been a week of heavy(ish) restrictions.

First lifted is the 2 km ban. (early May)

Then non-essential workplaces re-open. There'll be less of them unfortunately. (early May).

Social distancing will probably never be officially rescinded, it'll just happen by osmosis - a government edict cannot undo a million years of evolution.

Lastly, the pubs (mid June to catch what's left(if any) of the tourist season ) and hairdressers (essential but understandably closed)

Come December, the ship will have settled. We can do another election then for the craic.

....and that's me being optimistic with a few beers in.

you were doing well until you mentioned hairdressers! :eek::eek:

growleaves

During the 39-45 war, and including during the London Blitz, everything carried on as normal: schools, theatres, opera, live sports, churches etc. even though it would've saved lives to have people hiding in air-raid shelters all the time. There's no question that less lives would have been lost by hiding from danger but it would have killed the spiritedness which helped to win the war.

All the war metaphors being thrown around here are an inversion of the truth because forced passivity isn't the same kind of hardship as faced by wartime generations. Mandatory isolation is more akin to the hardship faced by prisoners in Soviet jails. Its hardly a small thing either since observers believe it leads to psychological disintegration.

The people on here claiming that prolonged isolation 'isn't hard' aren't helping and should stop saying that if they want to be taken seriously.

Die Hard 2019

growleaves wrote: »

During the 39-45 war, and including during the London Blitz, everything carried on as normal: schools, theatres, opera, live sports, churches etc. even though it would've saved lives to have people hiding in air-raid shelters all the time. There's no question that less lives would have been lost by hiding from danger but it would have killed the spiritedness which helped to win the war.

All the war metaphors being thrown around here are an inversion of the truth because forced passivity isn't the same kind of hardship as faced by wartime generations. Mandatory isolation is more akin to the hardship faced by prisoners in Soviet jails. Its hardly a small thing either since observers believe it leads to psychological disintegration.

The people on here claiming that prolonged isolation 'isn't hard' aren't helping and should stop saying that if they want to be taken seriously.

Volunteer to the HSE you will then be helping and will love being home.

growleaves

Volunteer to the HSE you will then be helping and will love being home.

Good advice. I'm in an essential-services job which gets me out of the house five days a week. I was moreso thinking of other people who are house-bound.

Die Hard 2019

growleaves wrote: »

Good advice. I'm in an essential-services job which gets me out of the house five days a week. I was moreso thinking of other people who are house-bound.

Yeah I'm also front line. But my advice is to those that aren't .

KiKi III

growleaves wrote: »

During the 39-45 war, and including during the London Blitz, everything carried on as normal: schools, theatres, opera, live sports, churches etc. even though it would've saved lives to have people hiding in air-raid shelters all the time. There's no question that less lives would have been lost by hiding from danger but it would have killed the spiritedness which helped to win the war.

All the war metaphors being thrown around here are an inversion of the truth because forced passivity isn't the same kind of hardship as faced by wartime generations. Mandatory isolation is more akin to the hardship faced by prisoners in Soviet jails. Its hardly a small thing either since observers believe it leads to psychological disintegration.

The people on here claiming that prolonged isolation 'isn't hard' aren't helping and should stop saying that if they want to be taken seriously.

I didn't know prisoners in Soviet jails had unlimited access to Netflix, porn, video chats with their loved ones, news, movies, books, exercise programs, education etc.

oceanman

growleaves wrote: »

During the 39-45 war, and including during the London Blitz, everything carried on as normal: schools, theatres, opera, live sports, churches etc. even though it would've saved lives to have people hiding in air-raid shelters all the time. There's no question that less lives would have been lost by hiding from danger but it would have killed the spiritedness which helped to win the war.

All the war metaphors being thrown around here are an inversion of the truth because forced passivity isn't the same kind of hardship as faced by wartime generations. Mandatory isolation is more akin to the hardship faced by prisoners in Soviet jails. Its hardly a small thing either since observers believe it leads to psychological disintegration.

The people on here claiming that prolonged isolation 'isn't hard' aren't helping and should stop saying that if they want to be taken seriously.

because prisoners in soviet jails had plenty of food, drink, mobile phones, tv, internet ect :rolleyes:

growleaves

I didn't know prisoners in Soviet jails had unlimited access to Netflix, porn, video chats with their loved ones, news, movies, books, exercise programs, education etc.

Now you know...

/jk

Video chats and phone chats aren't a substitute for real human contact. (Though obviously they are less bad than nothing at all.)

Endless entertainment and porn are not goods things in the context of mandatory isolation, in my opinion. They are spiritually deflating. Also it must be hard to switch off when your finances are going down the drain.

Jenbach110

growleaves wrote: »

During the 39-45 war, and including during the London Blitz, everything carried on as normal: schools, theatres, opera, live sports, churches etc. even though it would've saved lives to have people hiding in air-raid shelters all the time. There's no question that less lives would have been lost by hiding from danger but it would have killed the spiritedness which helped to win the war.

All the war metaphors being thrown around here are an inversion of the truth because forced passivity isn't the same kind of hardship as faced by wartime generations. Mandatory isolation is more akin to the hardship faced by prisoners in Soviet jails. Its hardly a small thing either since observers believe it leads to psychological disintegration.

The people on here claiming that prolonged isolation 'isn't hard' aren't helping and should stop saying that if they want to be taken seriously.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety

KiKi III

growleaves wrote: »

Now you know...

/jk

Video chats and phone chats aren't a substitute for real human contact. (Though obviously they are less bad than nothing at all.)

Endless entertainment and porn are not goods things in the context of mandatory isolation, in my opinion. They are spiritually deflating. Also it must be hard to switch off when your finances are going down the drain.

I think we can agree that while a video call is not the same as real human contact and worrying about finances is draining, the comparison with lying completely alone in a cold Soviet cell with none of the luxuries described above is quite the exaggeration.

growleaves

I think we can agree that while a video call is not the same as real human contact and worrying about finances is draining, the comparison with lying completely alone in a cold Soviet cell with none of the luxuries described above is quite the exaggeration.

No thats a bad comparison - its more like being a prisoner in a liberal country which treats prisoners very well and gives them lots of luxuries. But isolation is still bad for the human mind.

KiKi III

growleaves wrote: »

No thats a bad comparison - its more like being a prisoner in a liberal country which treats prisoners very well and gives them lots of luxuries. But isolation is still bad for the human mind.

I don't think anyone would suggest it's good for you. But for most of us it's doable for a few weeks. The vast, vast majority of people are not living alone; most people live with their family or housemates.

For those living entirely alone it's a very tough time indeed, but while no fun, for almost everyone it's manageable.

Thelonious Monk

KiKi III wrote: »

For those living entirely alone it's a very tough time indeed

I live alone and don't find it tough at all, I feel bad for people with flatmates etc, now that would suck.

KiKi III

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I live alone and don't find it tough at all, I feel bad for people with flatmates etc, now that would suck.

I have one flatmate and although we get on, this is probably too much time together. On balance though, I think I'd rather have his company than be totally alone.

And like you, a lot of people who already live on their own likely enjoy their own company.

I'd imagine most people are like myself, good days and bad days.

NH2013

FloatingVoter wrote: »

My guess(timate) assuming we peak this week or early next week. And based on sweet FA.

It's only been a week of heavy(ish) restrictions.

First lifted is the 2 km ban. (early May)

Then non-essential workplaces re-open. There'll be less of them unfortunately. (early May).

Social distancing will probably never be officially rescinded, it'll just happen by osmosis - a government edict cannot undo a million years of evolution.

Lastly, the pubs (mid June to catch what's left(if any) of the tourist season ) and hairdressers (essential but understandably closed)

Come December, the ship will have settled. We can do another election then for the craic.

....and that's me being optimistic with a few beers in.

Possibly an out there opinion but I actually think the 2km restriction will be one of the last to be lifted. The 2km restriction is basically there to stop everyone having the same bright idea of going to Glendalough or Portmarnock Beach etc, it forces everyone to go for a walk in their local park so I can see that one sticking around for most of the summer, it's not overly restrictive, might increase to 4km or something but basically stops large crowds flocking to the same locations as its primary purpose.

The first thing I can see being lifted is the semi essential shops, things like Woodies, Clothing and Homeware, Garden ware etc being allowed reopen with social distancing enforced, and open air building sites allowed to resume.

Then small social gatherings allowed, call around to a friends house, have a BBQ with the neighbours, no big events like weddings or that but smaller social gatherings where distancing can still be mostly maintained.

After that we can look back into and pubs reopening towards the later stages, but think schools are well and truly shut until September at this stage.

IAMAMORON

I reckon the Leaving Cert kids will get back to school and they will be sitting their exams as planned. The leaving cert is still 9 weeks away.

never_mind

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I reckon the Leaving Cert kids will get back to school and they will be sitting their exams as planned. The leaving cert is still 9 weeks away.

SEC have contingent exams apparently but if they aren’t held without a proper and legitimate or valid replacement we will have approx 70000 17-19 year olds sitting at home for a year. Something has to be done. And no, pushing the university calendar out by a few months isn’t an option.

Loafing Oaf

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I live alone and don't find it tough at all, I feel bad for people with flatmates etc, now that would suck.

I would find this much easier if I was living alone in Dublin like I did for long years. When this came on the horizon I would have bought a chest freezer and stocked up on three months of ready meals, then sealed myself in about Patricks Day...

never_mind

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I would find this much easier if I was living alone in Dublin like I did for long years. When this came on the horizon I would have bought a chest freezer and stocked up on three months of ready meals, then sealed myself in about Patricks Day...

The ‘restrictions have to last til 2024’ brigade are current redecorating their second spare room and drinking 2008 merlot that was put away for a good occasion.

The rest of us are balancing being responsible with trying to stay sane.

faceman

never_mind wrote: »

The ‘restrictions have to last til 2024’ brigade are current redecorating their second spare room and drinking 2008 merlot that was put away for a good occasion.

The rest of us are balancing being responsible with trying to stay sane.

If boards.ie did awards this post should win post of the year!

ITman88

faceman wrote: »

If boards.ie did awards this post should win post of the year!

It is a quality post to be fair!

Will cause such consternation the brigade mentioned may choke on their merlot!

Charles Babbage

ITman88 wrote: »

We can’t however continue restriction’s indefinitely, If we do continue restrictions for months the health system will be in tatters

I've seen posts here and there with this extraordinary type of comment.
People aren't doing this for the craic. There are restrictions to protect the health system. If there are no restrictions there will be more Covid19 and the health system will collapse.

You can make an argument, albeit a callous one, that the economy can be improved by ending restrictions. You cannot make the argument that the health service will be improved by ending restrictions and it is bizarre and irresponsible to do so.

Jurgen Klopp

Think a lot of people here are getting mixed up between lockdown conditions and pre lockdown restrictions to be fair

Nearly everyone in here here at this stage realizes restrictions are most likely on the cards for a long time

ITman88

Charles Babbage wrote: »

I've seen posts here and there with this extraordinary type of comment.
People aren't doing this for the craic. There are restrictions to protect the health system. If there are no restrictions there will be more Covid19 and the health system will collapse.

You can make an argument, albeit a callous one, that the economy can be improved by ending restrictions. You cannot make the argument that the health service will be improved by ending restrictions and it is bizarre and irresponsible to do so.

I’ve seen many responses like yours and it does go round in circles.

No one is suggesting ending the restrictions immediately, what is being suggested is they can not go on indefinitely.

A point exists where the economic catastrophe will kill more than covid. Not due to suicide but due to a collapse in revenue to run a successful healthcare system. It’s neither bizarre or irresponsible to suggest this.

Lockdown fanatics love words like callous to try to bolster an argument they are having only with themselves.

What is bizarre and callous is to suggest this will go on indefinitely. Some have suggested until a vaccine is introduced.

A lot of posts in this forum in the vein of yours, completely twist what’s being discussed to demonise those who are considering the complete effects of what’s happening, but it’s only serves to highlight selfish agendas.

Charles Babbage

ITman88 wrote: »

What is bizarre and callous is to suggest this will go on indefinitely. Some have suggested until a vaccine is introduced.

Who is suggesting that "this" go on indefinitely or until there is a vaccine?

People are suggesting that some restrictions, less economically damaging than the present will continue.

ITman88

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Who is suggesting that "this" go on indefinitely or until there is a vaccine?

People are suggesting that some restrictions, less economically damaging than the present will continue.

You have both disagreed and agreed with my post.

It’s a long thread, some posters were suggesting months of current/stricter restrictions in place. Its a discussion forum, many arguments took place.

Other’s suggested they could not continue for months with the current restrictions.

You have mentioned less economically damaging restriction’s continuing which is what my and many other posts suggested

con___manx1

average_runner wrote: »

Still wont be able to go abroad

Courtown maybe? 😊☀️

lillycakes2

What about restrictions for the elderly? I feel so sorry for them , what way are the restrictive life looking for them, **** sake

[Deleted User]

Jenbach110 wrote: »

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety

He was actually speaking about taxes

Jurgen Klopp

You know something I've been thinking of after reading Italy talking of lockdown exit and phase 2

What happens if we leave lockdown to old restrictions and the numbers climb so much again we'll be guaranteed to overwhelm the hospital's again?