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

FloatingVoter

completedit wrote: »

Had a debate with my sister where she was like we should recognize this as a time to appreciate all the things in life that we take for granted that are luxuries. For example going out to a pub/bar and having a few drinks. I argued that these aren’t luxuries, and who says that we should feel grateful to be able to have the freedom to go out and hang with friends. I get having perspective but by same time, we should take freedom to be a given, no privilege.
What do people think?

Knocking back a few drinks in a pub is a luxury. So is fine dining / gambling / high street shoe shopping .....and nobody is stopping you talking to your friends - you have internet access - I'll assume most of them do too. Get in touch with them.

This is a global emergency, not some made-up domestic like bin charges or water charges.

KiKi III

ITman88 wrote: »

It may take the Attic Alan’s 12 months to realise that the impending recession will cost more life to be lost than Covid.

The budget cuts will mean less health care investment if restrictions are not eased as soon as possible

You've stated this opinion over and over again on the thread with no data or expert insight to back up your assertion. You're basically just making it up and acting like it's a fact.

If your best answer is "it's obvious, though", your argument hasn't a leg to stand on.

lainey_d_123

jmayo wrote: »

And then more and more people have the same idea and next thing you know the park is fooking full making social distancing impossible and the police then are having to try get muppets to fook off home.
Waste of police time and resources.
Creation of possible infection points.

How fooking hard is it for some people to grasp basic fooking concepts ?

Did you actually read anything I posted?

It's not as simple as 'shut the parks'. Where are those people supposed to go now? All the joggers who would have been in the parks are now on the streets, huffing and puffing into people's faces and making even going out for a pint of milk extremely unpleasant and dangerous.

Closing down large spaces just has the effect of making everywhere else busier. All those people who need to get outside aren't going to disappear in a puff of smoke.

This article explains why closing down outside spaces in London is a terrible idea. It hits the most vulnerable the hardest. Those with disabilities who can't jog or cycle are basically being told they're not allowed outside. People with disabilities have been verbally abused for sitting on a bench to rest while out for a walk.

Why is it OK for all of us to be on strict lockdown for weeks to protect the elderly and those vulnerable to covid, but all the people who will be really badly affected and even die from the effects of the lockdown are not important? I'm not saying we shouldn't do the lockdown, I'm saying have some bleeding compassion for the many, many people for whom this is a genuine and severe hardship rather than a minor inconvenience.

KiKi III

completedit wrote: »

Had a debate with my sister where she was like we should recognize this as a time to appreciate all the things in life that we take for granted that are luxuries. For example going out to a pub/bar and having a few drinks. I argued that these aren’t luxuries, and who says that we should feel grateful to be able to have the freedom to go out and hang with friends. I get having perspective but by same time, we should take freedom to be a given, no privilege.
What do people think?

These things are luxuries. Ask literally anyone who's genuinely poor.

You sound really entitled.

ITman88

KiKi III wrote: »

You've stated this opinion over and over again on the thread with no data or expert insight to back up your assertion. You're basically just making it up and acting like it's a fact.

If your best answer is "it's obvious, though", your argument hasn't a leg to stand on.

http://www.jvalue.co.uk/papers/J-value-assessment-of-combating-Covid-19.pdf

lainey_d_123

FloatingVoter wrote: »

Knocking back a few drinks in a pub is a luxury. So is fine dining / gambling / high street shoe shopping .....and nobody is stopping you talking to your friends - you have internet access - I'll assume most of them do too. Get in touch with them.

This is a global emergency, not some made-up domestic like bin charges or water charges.

Having a drink with friends is not a luxury. It's one of the basics of life that everyone should be able to do, otherwise what's the bloody point?

I lived in Spain during the worst years of the financial crisis and even then, when so many people were out of work and flat broke, it was considered normal to have a coffee or a beer out at a bar. Those little things are what kept people going, and why so many of them are finding this situation so much harder. At least then they had the fresh air, the outdoors, their friends, and little treats to enjoy.

Survival, i.e. just existing on the bare minimum of food and water, no treats or hobbies, is not living. Most people would have no interest in that life and would rather be dead.

jmayo

ITman88 wrote: »

So your wife’s cousin on standby hasn’t been drafted in yet?
Point proven

So just ignore all the other points and hone in on one little snippet.
Your debating method reminds me of quite a few long term posters around here. :rolleyes:

housemouse wrote: »

The median age of those who die with the virus is c. 80, and the majority of those who die have an underlying condition.

And so ?
You posting ranks of "I am alright so who gives a fook about some others".
And you are not the only one around here.

polesheep wrote: »

Throughout history, in times of conflict and danger, the vulnerable were always protected while the strong defended. This millennium things changed in society. If the government had suggested a lockdown for the elderly and immunocompromised only, they would have been attacked for being discriminatory. The irony is that we will almost certainly end up in that situation, only we will have lost more lives than we should have and ruined our economy along the way.

Our economy is ruined anyway.
Hell the world's economy is ruined because this has affected everywhere.

The only things selling right now are medical related and basic foodstuffs.

And our medical related manufacturing companies are open.

Anyone reckon sales of other stuff is going to increase in the near future ?

If we open hospitality trade back up, do people actually think restaurants and pubs are going to be packed ?

Of course there would be a load of assholes in them, but thankfully not everyone is a me feiner who couldn't give a shyte what is happening to others just because they are old or have an existing health problem.

If we open dept stores will there be massive amounts of people in there ?
BTW you want people with money, not kids who have been stir crazy and just want to hang out.

A huge chunk of the Irish economy is tourist related, so do any of the bright sparks think that tourists will be flocking here or that loads of Irish people will head to Killarney of Galway for the weekend.

Yeah once again the deadheads and of course the young cool healthy "I'am alrights" will head off, but the vast majority of people will not.

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Do you believe Irish society and Italian society have the same social behaviour pattern?
I have been to Italy multiple times and have friends there. They are far more affectionate towards each other than their northern European counterparts. That is fact not opinion.

On the other hand the Italians don't pile into pubs, getting shyte faced slobbering all over each other as they fall out of the place.

KiKi III

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Did you actually read anything I posted?

It's not as simple as 'shut the parks'. Where are those people supposed to go now? All the joggers who would have been in the parks are now on the streets, huffing and puffing into people's faces and making even going out for a pint of milk extremely unpleasant and dangerous.

Closing down large spaces just has the effect of making everywhere else busier. All those people who need to get outside aren't going to disappear in a puff of smoke.

This article explains why closing down outside spaces in London is a terrible idea. It hits the most vulnerable the hardest. Those with disabilities who can't jog or cycle are basically being told they're not allowed outside. People with disabilities have been verbally abused for sitting on a bench to rest while out for a walk.

Why is it OK for all of us to be on strict lockdown for weeks to protect the elderly and those vulnerable to covid, but all the people who will be really badly affected and even die from the effects of the lockdown are not important? I'm not saying we shouldn't do the lockdown, I'm saying have some bleeding compassion for the many, many people for whom this is a genuine and severe hardship rather than a minor inconvenience.

You've been b1tching about not being able to read a book in the park for days while thousands of people in the country you're in died. Maybe get some perspective. This isn't a "severe hardship".

It's very hard to feel much sympathy for you. Oh no, there are joggers out when you go out for your milk - how do you cope?

It's possible for most people who aren't severely physically disabled to exercise indoors. Try Yoga with Adriene, free on YouTube, do some star jumps, put on your favourite songs and have a little dance in your bedroom.

Plumbthedepths

KiKi III wrote: »

These things are luxuries. Ask literally anyone who's genuinely poor.

You sound really entitled.

Having a pair of shoes other than a Sunday best was also once a luxury. Times change as does people's interpretation as to what is a luxury.

lainey_d_123

KiKi III wrote: »

These things are luxuries. Ask literally anyone who's genuinely poor.

You sound really entitled.

You sound like my Tory voting colleague who thinks poor people shouldn't be allowed to drink or get takeaway food. Let them live on gruel.

FloatingVoter

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Having a drink with friends is not a luxury. It's one of the basics of life that everyone should be able to do, otherwise what's the bloody point?

I lived in Spain during the worst years of the financial crisis and even then, when so many people were out of work and flat broke, it was considered normal to have a coffee or a beer out at a bar. Those little things are what kept people going, and why so many of them are finding this situation so much harder. At least then they had the fresh air, the outdoors, their friends, and little treats to enjoy.

Survival, i.e. just existing on the bare minimum of food and water, no treats or hobbies, is not living. Most people would have no interest in that life and would rather be dead.

The whole point of being asked to "survive" for a few weeks is so that people will not wind up dead.

C__MC

RIP to those who have passed
Genuine question though?
If numbers are still as high late next week, where are we going with all this?

KiKi III

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

You sound like my Tory voting colleague who thinks poor people shouldn't be allowed to drink or get takeaway food. Let them live on gruel.

That comment says a lot more about you than it does about me. I said nothing of the sort.

Plumbthedepths

C__MC wrote: »

RIP to those who have passed
Genuine question though?
If numbers are still as late next week, where are we going with all this?

We have no idea as to what the true data really is. The testing vrs results are abysmal. The first positive case for the virus was in February. It's a nonsense that this case is still counted in today's figures.

niallo27

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

We have no idea as to what the true data really is. The testing vrs results are abysmal. The first positive case for the virus was in February. It's a nonsense that this case is still counted in today's figures.

Death rate and ICU numbers are all that matters.

lainey_d_123

KiKi III wrote: »

You've been b1tching about not being able to read a book in the park for days while thousands of people in the country you're in died. Maybe get some perspective. This isn't a "severe hardship".

It's very hard to feel much sympathy for you. Oh no, there are joggers out when you go out for your milk - how do you cope?

It's possible for most people who aren't severely physically disabled to exercise indoors. Try Yoga with Adriene, free on YouTube, do some star jumps, put on your favourite songs and have a little dance in your bedroom.

I know it's hard for you to grasp, but these things are not mutually exclusive. Thousands of people are going to die of this virus whatever we do. That's a fact. People are going to die indirectly because of the restrictions. That's a fact. People are going to experience extreme financial hardship, relationship breakdowns and other awful things. That's a fact. The question is at what point does the collateral damage of this lockdown start to outweigh the benefits of it? Funny how you're so very concerned about every single life lost by covid-19 but have absolutely no compassion for the people who are going to die or be harmed by the lockdown.

You're saying the parks should be closed because it's risky to have groups of people in them, but you think there's no risk to the public of having sweaty joggers breathing in their face? Lots of elderly and at-risk people are forced to go out for food because they can't get deliveries, but you think it's fine for them to be at greater risk, just as long as there aren't people, God forbid, sitting for a rest on a park bench, nowhere near anyone else?

Yes, it is possible to exercise indoors, but that's not the point, is it? Lots of people are told by their doctor that they need to get outside, and they're potentially facing months of not being able to do so. But that's just grand, is it? As long as you're not the one affected, like.

FloatingVoter

C__MC wrote: »

RIP to those who have passed
Genuine question though?
If numbers are still as high late next week, where are we going with all this?

They will be (and probably higher given the holiday attitude of today and the coming weekend). Lockdown until early May is my best guess - remember everyone who's got this thing and recovered (which could be you and me for all we know) is immune for the short-term at least. For the sake of all our sanity and the beloved economy they'll have to start easing off by late May at the very latest.
That doesn't mean a Mardi Gras down the pub, but maybe some workplaces re-opening.

lainey_d_123

KiKi III wrote: »

That comment says a lot more about you than it does about me. I said nothing of the sort.

Actually, you're very wrong.

You're literally saying right here that if disabled people want to go outside for some fresh air, that's too bad, they can just stay in.

You're completely dismissing the needs of people with mental health issues and telling them to just suck it up and read a nice book.

You think having a drink in a pub once in a while is a luxury and not something anyone has a right to do.

Do you know what kind of people say those kind of things?

Tories.

Plumbthedepths

niallo27 wrote: »

Death rate and ICU numbers are all that matters.

What a clueless response.

Stheno

C__MC wrote: »

RIP to those who have passed
Genuine question though?
If numbers are still as high late next week, where are we going with all this?

Tomorrow should give us more insight when they do the modelling report

Deaths lag behind a couple of weeks so they will take time to reduce

KiKi III

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Funny how you're so very concerned about every single life lost by covid-19 but have absolutely no compassion for the people who are going to die or be harmed by the lockdown.

I have compassion for everyone effected harshly by the lockdown. You must be mistaking me with someone else.

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

You're saying the parks should be closed because it's risky to have groups of people in them, but you think there's no risk to the public of having sweaty joggers breathing in their face?

They have some quare folk altogether over in London, the joggers here in Dublin go right past people, they don't stop to breathe in the faces of the elderly?

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Yes, it is possible to exercise indoors, but that's not the point, is it? Lots of people are told by their doctor that they need to get outside, and they're potentially facing months of not being able to do so. But that's just grand, is it?

No, it's not ideal. So everyone should do their absolute best to stay inside as much as possible for the next few weeks so that the lockdown lasts for the shortest possible amount of time. A loosely enforced lockdown will last longer... get it?

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

As long as you're not the one affected, like.

I am effected by it you loon, I just choose to look at it differently to you.

niallo27

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

What a clueless response.

Why so, this is the only true data we have.

jmayo

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Having a pair of shoes other than a Sunday best was also once a luxury. Times change as does people's interpretation as to what is a luxury.

Yes TIMES CHANGE.

It's about time you grasped that when you are making your own arguments.

C__MC wrote: »

RIP to those who have passed
Genuine question though?
If numbers are still as high late next week, where are we going with all this?

Lockdown stays in place until there is appreciable continous drop off in numbers would look to be likely path.

Otherwise medical system will not be able to cope.

People can argue that this only targets people say over 70 and those compromised, but if our ICUs and A&Es are overflowing, if health care staff are drastically down then the system as a whole can't cope.

If half your ICU staff are out, registrars & consultants are out, all the ICU beds are full, A&E is backed up, what happens when there is a major road crash and you have 5 or 6 healthy young lads brought in after ploughing into another car ?

Who is there to treat them and where do you fit them in ?
What happens if they contract covid 19 whilst fighting for their lives already?

What happens if coronary care is taken over with covid 19 patients ?
Where do you fit in the heart attack patients ?

This whole thing is about making it manageable and giving people a fighting chance.

Of course to some (more than a few around here) they couldn't give a shyte about those people because they reckon it will never be them.

Jinglejangle69

Fairview Park full of sunbathers today. Like a holiday.

Restrictions are gonna be here for a long time folks.

Thick Paddy's can't follow the rules.

Lost implants

Billions of people around the world barely able to feed or shelter themselves, and we have people here complaining that they can't get out for a pint, under the guise of their worry for the economy.

Sums up this thread.

[Deleted User]

Lost implants wrote: »

Billions of people around the world barely able to feed or shelter themselves, and we have people here complaining that they can't get out for a pint, under the guise of their worry for the economy.

Sums up this thread.

This is true every day of the year, so can we never complain about anything ever again?

lainey_d_123

KiKi III wrote: »

I have compassion for everyone effected harshly by the lockdown. You must be mistaking me with someone else.

No you don't. You've repeatedly told me and others to suck it up when we expressed worries about the mental health effects of being locked down and unable to seek treatment. You've literally just said that people who are not fit or well enough to exercise outside should just stay in rather than being allowed to sit and rest in public spaces. You've told people worried about the financial implications to suck it up.

You haven't shown a single ounce of compassion for anyone other than those who have died or will die from this virus.

They have some quare folk altogether over in London, the joggers here in Dublin go right past people, they don't stop to breathe in the faces of the elderly?

Every single London forum I've been on has entire threads of people moaning about joggers panting in their faces, not giving distance and even brushing past and making contact on the narrow pavements, but sure, you must know better.

No, it's not ideal. So everyone should do their absolute best to stay inside as much as possible for the next few weeks so that the lockdown lasts for the shortest possible amount of time. A loosely enforced lockdown will last longer... get it?

I'm not arguing with that. I'm saying that the world I live in is a real one, where people are struggling already, and getting more and more lax already, and that some of the restrictions are even counter productive.

I am effected by it you loon, I just choose to look at it differently to you.

Nice personal abuse. Showing your true colours there.

Stheno

The Daily Mail have an article where a former WHO doctor predicts the UK will reopen pubs on May 18th

And yes I know it's the Daily Mail

KiKi III

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Actually, you're very wrong.

You're literally saying right here that if disabled people want to go outside for some fresh air, that's too bad, they can just stay in.

You're completely dismissing the needs of people with mental health issues and telling them to just suck it up and read a nice book.

You think having a drink in a pub once in a while is a luxury and not something anyone has a right to do.

Do you know what kind of people say those kind of things?

Tories.

I've talked on this thread about how I'm coping with my own mental health issues (online therapy has been a saviour) so acting like I don't care about such people once again says way more about you than me. You're making an absolute disgrace of yourself with your carry on.

And it's really not my fault that you don't understand the difference between a necessity (food, clothing, shelter) and a luxury (nights out in the pub). Just because you consider them essential parts of your privileged life doesn't mean they're not luxuries. Lots of people have happy, fulfilling lives and rarely if ever set foot in a pub.

Lost implants

AdamD wrote: »

This is true every day of the year, so can we never complain about anything ever again?

Complain away if you makes you feel better, economies will always rebound regardless.