Long_Wave wrote: » People need to take back control themselves and open for business.
arctictree wrote: » What if they provide us with a plan but the numbers just stay where they are indefinitely? Do we just stay in lockdown indefinitely? Not going to work....
timmy_mallet wrote: » Be comfortable with the risk as a family or not. Dont see much else you can do?
SusieBlue wrote: » I also said my dog was overheating due to the weight of his heavy coat & cannot be walked properly because of this, which in my opinion is a reasonable, legitimate concern as an animal owner. I said I was happy that TD’s are pleading with the government to open dog groomers as they are an essential service for a lot of people. You then took the piss out of me, mocking me saying I just wanted to get my dog a haircut so I gave you another example of an elderly woman who has injured herself and is now in hospital after an accident that occurred when she was trying to bathe her dog. You know, to further prove my point that animal groomers are in fact an essential service. Even your choice of language of ‘poor doggo’ just shows you are still sneering and trivialising my point which is quite pathetic but totally transparent to anyone reading these posts. Whatever, clearly you think it’s funny and irrelevant and that’s you’re prerogative but this isn’t all about you and this is an essential, necessary service that people are struggling without.
KrustyUCC wrote: » Exactly They will lose a lot of public support by going down that road
road_high wrote: » Not even bothered watching this plonker in all his glory. Pointless waste of time, the headlines or whatever will confirm whatever they’ve been drip feeding all week. Ie let’s bury our heads in sand for another blast and cross our fingers
Spanish Eyes wrote: » Just saying... it's a new world out there, and we have never had to stop kids from mingling and hugging granny and grandad and their cousins etc. up to now. It is all so nerve wracking in a lot of ways. Granny and Grandad are a bit concerned too, but DO want to see the kids. Tough call, because I know the first thing the kids will do is barrel up to them and hug and kiss them and so on, it is tough for everyone. I don't know the solution either.
stephenjmcd wrote: » To be fair enough of it has been leaked that we know what's coming unless they've already seen public reaction and decide to change the plan slightly it'll be what we know already I think
showpony1 wrote: » Ok - So you are totally changing the context of saying the Dog groomers need to be opened as an "essential service" from what you actually said in your post Sue. You are now saying this is due to an old woman dying trying to lift her sick dog into the bath - when your whole previous post was about your poor doggo needing to have to wear a pony tail cause his hair was in his eyes. that was the only "legitimate concern" in your whole previous post.
Antares35 wrote: » Don't some public sector workers still get a "productivity allowance" if they started before a certain time?
JRant wrote: » He was even trying to fudge when the announcement would be, "it might be Friday but will definitely be at some stage over the weekend". Just bloody well tell us and get on with it. He seems to revel in that sort of nonsense. Just like his "plan" for providing childminding to healthcare workers. He was waiting on a "report" and would definitely have it actioned in a day or two. That was over a week ago and the actual plan was let them take paid leave to mind the children. Absolute genius, I don't know why we didn't think of that sooner but it clearly needed top men to write a report to come to such a groundbreaking solution.
Jinglejangle69 wrote: » Can you wait until friday? Before you throw your toys out of the pram?
Spanish Eyes wrote: » Fair enough. I just wonder about the practicalities of a load of kids together visiting Gran and Grandad or whomever. They go nuts! It is lovely to see, but in these times I would be a tad concerned.
cython wrote: » Well according to the Swiss under 10s aren't a risk (https://m.independent.ie/world-news/coronavirus/swiss-elderly-told-they-can-hug-children-who-are-under-10-as-theyre-not-spreaders-39166432.html) and if you accept that from 10 upwards they can be "controlled", for want of a better term, then where's the risk? There's an element of flippancy to the above, but it still goes to show there's a counterpoint out there
road_high wrote: » Not this wait and see ****e that’s for sure- there are people on massive salaries advising/modelling. But sure what’s another month of dole and demolished tax revenues?
Jinglejangle69 wrote: » Yeah 7 weeks ago Ireland should have known the plan for a virus no country has yet to figure out. Jesus what was your plan 7 weeks ago?
stephenjmcd wrote: » Let's see what Friday brings but if that's the way it goes it'll be difficult for them to get people on their side again as it wont give clarity to businesses
Spanish Eyes wrote: » OK, OK, settle down. I get what you are saying, but the instinct of kids is to mingle and play. And they may have younger siblings also. It's a tough call really, since they have so much energy to run off, and unless you have them in reins off they will go, inevitable.
iamwhoiam wrote: » Then you leave again . I can’t see the problem really . Older kids will sit very still if it means they get to see grandparents again in my opinion
road_high wrote: » That should have been the plan 7 weeks ago then. An awful lot of time has been wasted but par for the course with the HSE involved. The most incompetent organisation in the country led by dithering pen pushers- what could go wrong?
NIMAN wrote: » This would be massive. It would mean that the kids could go visit their cousins, even just sitting on the same lawn maybe 5 metres apart would be huge for them.
KrustyUCC wrote: » Back to that "at an appropriate time" crack Some plan that is That really won't go down well with people
