Spencer Brown wrote: » It’s so weird. Imagine pleading for a police state.
Penfailed wrote: » The question was, "How could lockdown be harsher?" Person answers question. Person gets told answer is drivel without any explanation as to why...
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » Unless you're in Italy, this is a moot point. I'm in Berlin where, as I said, the lockdown has been much milder, instigated at the same time, being routintely flouted and yet the figures of new cases and deaths are extremely low - 75-100 and 3-4 pre day respectively. In Stockholm, they've had NO lockdown and they've had less cases than Ireland. In New York, they've had lockdowns and had MORE cases than Ireland. There is ultimately NO evidence to suggest a stricter lockdown woud make any difference. It depends on the location and the specific social, geographic, features faced by the location in question. Conclusion: In order to argue for an extended lockdown in a specifci location (Ireland) you need to argue what specific issues said location has that make it nessecary. With evidence.
LiquidZeb wrote: » **** it let's just board up everyone's doors and windows. Have a soldier posted outside ready to shoot anyone who tries to get out.
easypazz wrote: » For the umpteenth time. Take a look at the list and tell me what further measures can be implemented to increase the lockdown on Joe Public. Apart from restricting exercise there is nothing else that can be done. And you have failed to come with one single thing. Restrict fuel supplies, ffs.
Penfailed wrote: » But it could be more restrictive. That's the point that you are ignoring.
niallo27 wrote: » So when we do relax and numbers creep up, do people think we will just panic and lockdown again over the smallest increase. That's my worry.
Spencer Brown wrote: » Dear god, what is wrong with some of you people. Mods should have a different account to post drivel.
Mr.S wrote: » Restrict time spent out-doors (let's say, 1 hour max. enforced with fines and arrest) Documentation required every time you leave the house with only specific reasons allowed (printed form confirming where you are going, the reason and who you are) Overnight curfew to restrict movements (let's say 10pm to 4am) Alcohol sales prohibited (to avoid gatherings / public order offences taking up police / hospital time) Closed borders only allowing citizens / residents / cross border workers in Children to remain indoors Failing to see how you see our restrictions as a lockdown, but anyway. As Leo said, people interrupt the word very differently. All you have to do is look outside your window and see there is no lockdown in it's true sense here. I can go to my local coffee shop and spend all the day in the park if I want to
normanoffside wrote: » Some people might go out in their bare feet and spread the virus on the footpaths. It might be better for them to cut off everyone’s legs.
SNNUS wrote: » Maybe the army should go to every house and confiscate shoes.
kippy wrote: » Haha. No tangents here. Just trying to get down to your level and failing miserably.
kippy wrote: » And again, no one said it but there are enough idiots out there that don't understand the concept of social distancing and/or basic hygiene. The initial issue was that Italians should have been allowed outside to exercise. I say no. Because of the amount of cases in Italy and the likelihood of coming into contact directly or indirectly with the virus
DeanAustin wrote: » I think those are fair points. The message has been skewed over the last few weeks. Leo did definitively say to Miriam O’Callaghan the other night that a plan was being formulated and will be unveiled before May 5th and it would effectively be a “what if” plan that will allow us to see the way out of this “i.e. if x happens by y date, we’ll do this, if w happens we will do this”. If that isn’t forthcoming, his credibility will be shot to pieces. I never bought into the bouquets that were being thrown and Leo, Harris and Holohan at the start of this but I do also think some of the criticism now is a bit harsh. There has been a massive change in the general mood of people on here that I’ve seen recently compared to the first few weeks. Fingers crossed we both get what we want in the next few days.
kippy wrote: » A more restrictive procedure would be to place them in quarentine away from their family. Is that more restrictive than what is in place currently. Yes or no.
easypazz wrote: » Waste of time trying to engage with him. He can't find anything on the official list that can be changed (except ban exercise) which will affect Joe Public so keeps going off on tangents about travel bans, restrict fuel etc.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » Again - going outside neither spreads the virus nor entails meeting up with people.
the kelt wrote: » Hopefully so and yes you are right, there are a number of situations where we will need a rapid reactionary response. Will we see a plan within the next few days though? I mean to date from Leo over the last few weeks I’ve seen there will be a plan to ease restrictions, there may be and there may be a 2/3 week extension as of yesterday! Meanwhile whilst Leo is talking about possible 2/3 week extension at the same time Simon Harris talking about slight easing and we were told on the 17th we had reached a plateau with the growth rate close to zero yet 4 days ago Leo said we weren’t at the peak. That’s my point, it’s all over the place. I hope your right and a plan is put in place because at the moment the mish mash of information and contradictory analysis is adding to the frustration. Let’s hope your right.
