FintanMcluskey wrote: » Considering Italy will open the pub's on June 1st the publicans have every right to feel aggrieved having to wait 2.5 months longer
kippy wrote: » You've said that there's been no consideration for the economy in all of this. There has. Any state payment scheme is an economic intervention, as were the six billion of measures mentioned yesterday. As are any of the measures the state has asked the banks to assist with, or insurance companies, or revenue...If you don't know what an economy is or accept that the actions of the government in introducing payment schemes is one part of an economy then you're not going to deviate from your opinion that there's been no consideration for the economy. That doesn't make you right, just not informed.
Jinglejangle69 wrote: » Yeah because Italian pubs and Irish pubs are exactly the same not too mention the difference in drinking cultures!!
FintanMcluskey wrote: » Thats great stuff but its all comes at the price of an extraordinary increase of national debt. Now your economic understanding is admirable as you did say construction and manufacturing have no effect on the economy, presumably because free money is the only source of economic revival.
kippy wrote: » I didnt say they had no effect on the economy. I said construction was a small part of the economy. But you have a habit of misrepresenting what both yourself and others say so that's understandable. No such thing as free money, just very very cheap money which has also funded a shed of construction here and elsewhere over the past few years
JoeA3 wrote: » I and most reasonable people see it differently. Mainly young men, working in isolation, getting on with it, working hard, no danger to anyone. Not sitting on their holes collecting €350 a week.
JoeA3 wrote: » Nonsense? In your opinion. Not naive, just realistic and capable of weighing up relative risks in my own mind. I perceive the risks on an open building site as absolutely minuscule, something thats clearly widely agreed upon, considering they are going to be the first to be allowed back (officially). I'm not willing to hide in my bedroom for another 2 months and I wouldn't dream of snitching on hardworking locals.
iamwhoiam wrote: » An ICU consultant said in an interview last week that the vast majority of the Covid patients in the Mater were Roma and Brazalian . Make of that what you will
Ginger n Lemon wrote: » So from your logic because money is "very, very cheap" governments should hand it out no questions asked? Construction is a small sector? 140,000 jobs in construction, direct jobs, what about suppliers... what about jobs in deli counters that prepare lunch for these construction workers every day? Huge part of economy. I am not actually even angry at construction sector being underestimated, I am angry at the fact that some of the healthiest people work in construction, strong lads, young lads all been told to stay at home. These guys wont even feel the virus. They dont tend to live with elderly before this funny "yeah but" is thrown at me. They should have been working every day. Just like in Canada. Just like in UK.
gmisk wrote: » Do you have a link?
iamwhoiam wrote: » No i dont have a link , he was interviewed on RTE either news or on PrimeTime
giveitholly wrote: » Yeah I actually heard the same on the tonight show about two weeks ago,Some guy(can't remember who) was concerned about the amount of covid amongst the Roma and migrant community in inner city Dublin
Bob24 wrote: » Went out for my first walk in weeks besides very short ones to the grocery shop and pretty appalled by what I saw. Looks like to me restriction have in effect been largely relaxed already with many people passing by each other at very close distance and hundreds lying in the park. Pics attached.
Cyrus wrote: » If people are well spaced out which they appear to be , what’s the issue
Bruthal wrote: » You seem to have an imagined view of building sites, fuelled by this perception put forward that they are outdoor jobs, "working in isolation" etc. Well, the reality is with commercial sites, hundreds of persons, indoors, often queues at toilets as the minimum requirements are never enough (hundreds of lads with 15 or 20 toilets between them), packed into canteens at break times as the canteens are overcrowded, and the very nature of this type of work requires close proximity to others. Quite how people think buildings are built with everyone outside is an interesting one. And as for the "minuscule risk" being widely agreed upon, well if they have this view of 20 lads building a data centre by all standing isolated outside it, its easy to see why such a "widely agreed" view is held, when the reality is, there will be hundreds around each other inside it.
CruelSummer wrote: » This kind of vilification of people enjoying the nice weather, at a social distance is ridiculous. Everyone in pics provided are in groups, helping themselves stay sane during a way over the top lockdown that doesn’t even need to continue for the next two weeks. If you’re an at risk person, it’s not the public’s fault, people have to live their lives. I think a day of reckoning is on the way for the government. Far too slow to lift restrictions, while the damage is catastrophic. I would understand if the death rate was 8-10%. But it’s actually less than 1% so therefore why are we even locked down at the moment?!
kippy wrote: » 1 percent of 5 million works out at 50,000. 14 percent, the hospitalisation numbers works out at 700,000 half these rates if you think it doesn't take account of people without symptoms. Yes, these are totally sustainable numbers that won't cause any issues whatsoever when the number of hospital beds is in the thousands and ICU beds in the hundreds. That's why there are restrictions in place on movement etc. It's crazy that 6 weeks in people don't appreciate the figures involved. The precise reason we are keeping the numbers manageable IS the restrictions we have been generally adhering too. I've not real opinion on the photos.
Bob24 wrote: » They clearly aren't within 2 meters on the picture of the street. They kind of are in the park, but which of the allowed reason to leave home would you say they fall into? (I'd say none) All I'm saying is that if people don't like the rules they should be vocal and convincing about changing them; not break them. That is ridiculous.
FintanMcluskey wrote: » Whats your opinion on Sweden
robinph wrote: » I'm guessing you were equally appalled with your own behaviour as well in heading to a popular spot that other people were already hanging out in and then stopping to take photos because everyone else was so appalling?
Bob24 wrote: » They clearly aren't further than 2 meters from each other on the picture of the street. They kind of are in the park, but which of the allowed reason to leave home would you say they fall into? (I'd say none) All I'm saying is that if people don't like the rules they should be vocal and convincing about changing them; not break them. That is ridiculous.
kippy wrote: » I don't live in Sweden, amn't Swedish and don't know enough outside of their death rates to have a well formed opinion on Sweden. Do you disagree with my maths?
Gynoid wrote: » Maybe because it was nasty and low, and you find that kind of remark funny..?
