Poor_old_gill wrote: » Well if it’s more than one then he’s got a chronic eating disorder and his obesity & probable diabetes are an affront to and a drain on the rest of us
KiKi III wrote: » If this is the level of discussion you’re capable of, I’ll leave you to it. Have a good afternoon.
brickysession wrote: » Last week, I saw it gradually getting busier and busier and I thought about ringing the station and letting them know they might want to send someone down. It wasn’t the Stasi level stuff people on here are envisioning.
ThewhiteJesus wrote: » Great craic here by the canal in rathmines, plenty boozing and even a dude playing guitar, happy days
KiKi III wrote: » You can also get booze in most small local Centras? You’re proving my point more than your own. Offy not necessary.
KiKi III wrote: » You’re not smart enough to figure out a user called Kiki with a female avatar isn’t a he so I’ll be leaving you to it too.
glasso wrote: » I believe that this data is very important in terms of phase II and relaxation of restrictionshttps://reason.com/2020/04/09/preliminary-german-study-shows-a-covid-19-infection-fatality-rate-of-about-0-4-percent/ the population of Gangelt is about 11,000. please note that antibody testing is testing after the fact, not for case numbers. the infection fatality rate directly correlates to the infection ICU rate and the infection hospitalisation rate. if they are much lower than previously thought/ assumed then this could (and arguably should) influence the phase II plan the measures have been directly linked to health service capacity and if that the situation is not as bad as thought in that regard that will be influenced. of course having an accurate on-site (no lab) test and technology assisted contact tracing will be very important also.
MOH wrote: » So you want to take the people who are queueing and shopping for alcohol in off licenses, and the people who are queuing and shopping for food and other necessities in supermarkets, and merge the two so they're all now queuing and shopping in the same place? Yeah, that sound like a genius way to reduce transmission
KiKi III wrote: » The people who are queuing in the offy are also queuing in the supermarket. I’m sugggesting they put a few bottles of wine or beer into their trolley and queue once in one location instead of twice in two locations. It’s not rocket science.
FixdePitchmark wrote: » There is no queue - there are less people and less time. It is risk science - not rocket.
KiKi III wrote: » Food shop = 1 queue Offy = 1 queue 1 + 1 = 2 Buy your food and drink together = 1 queue total
Cork Boy 53 wrote: » Government press conference due at 4pm.
FixdePitchmark wrote: » It is time and number of people - you don't get this ?
KiKi III wrote: » Are you being deliberately obtuse? If you encounter 25 people in the shop and 5 in the offy, you’ve increased the total number of people interacted with by 25%. Two trips to two locations is a greater risk than one trip to one location. Especially when that one location is the essential one and the second is completely optional.
glasso wrote: » take a picture?
FixdePitchmark wrote: » But - I keep telling you there are 100s in tesco - and zero in small local shop. And very few in local centra. You do not need to go to a big shop - (maybe once every 2 weeks) and in particular not as often as you are. You are the problem going shopping all the time to entertain yourelf.
MOH wrote: » Can you please provide a reliable source of figures to prove the percentages of people who are queueing in the off licence who are also then going and queueing in the supermarket? Because basic common sense would suggest that people who were out to shop for both food and drink would indeed go to the supermarket and buy both there since, as you so astutely pointed out, it is not in fact rocket science. But the fact that people are still going to off licences would suggest either they're totally unaware of this - in which case perhaps we need to kind of government information campaign to make people aware that they can buy alcohol in supermarkets - or that they're actually just buying alcohol, in which case they're quite logically doing so in a premises designated specifically for that purpose, rather than wasting other people's time taking up valuable space in a supermarket. Have you also considered closing chemists? You can buy paracetemol and the like in a supermarket. Or maybe just keep them for prescriptions only. And all forms of takeaway food - you can buy food in a supermarket, and take it away. I bet if we put our thinking caps on we can come up with a whole range of businesses we can shut down. For the good of the country, of course.
pgj2015 wrote: » There is always 1 ar$ehole with a guitar isnt there.
KiKi III wrote: » It’s amazing to me that people on this thread genuinely seem to equate food and medicine with alcohol in terms of necessity. Have a think on that.
KiKi III wrote: » This will be my last post to you because at this stage I actually think you’re just trolling. Just in case you’re not: There are no shops with hundreds of people in them. Supermarkets are operating very strict one in one out policies so that a limited number of people are inside at any given time and you encounter very few of them directly. You are just making up things about me and my shopping habits either to troll or because it’s easier than discussing things with me based on logic, which seems to be an issue for you.