ednwireland wrote: » the guy making my sandwich wasnt wearing one, only shop assistants i have seen are chemists (and some shops whoc have been open throughout. but then when im the only person in a 1000sq foot shop ......
Ficheall wrote: » Is this a boardsie?https://player.vimeo.com/video/432243372
is_that_so wrote: » Others may. I read it one of the other threads. It was in the order of 20 or so.
Arrival wrote: » But what was the source, was it just someone in a thread saying that or was it an official statistic that was released by the HSE?
circadian wrote: » Good for you. What about the people that need others to do so? Or are you just that selfish that you couldn't give a flying **** about anyone else?
stephenjmcd wrote: » https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1276161122165497862?s=19
weldoninhio wrote: » Couldn’t give a flying xxxx
weldoninhio wrote: » So it’s another “pretend” law, like quarantine hahahahaha
Away With The Fairies wrote: » I really hope you enjoy life on a ventilator.
is_that_so wrote: » It's little more than a memo just for now. The DoH will need to work on it first. It's not happening any time soon by the sounds of it.
stephenjmcd wrote: » Harris saying they'll use the emergency legislation, but nothing drawn up yet. They'll have to discuss with dept of health and dept of transport on how to do it. No detail on how to do it yet and no detail on enforcement. Giving a time frame of next 2 weeks. It's essentially going to be handed over to the next government
is_that_so wrote: » No, it came from the companies themselves IIRC. It's probably on the main thread somewhere. Here's a link from UK Times and you can see the data at the top,https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/supermarket-staff-largely-evade-virus-in-ireland-zs2wbb9xr
Arrival wrote: » That's actually great, just really surprising. If there were reliable antibody tests available it'd be interesting to carry them out on all supermarket staff to see what those numbers are. So likely the very reduced amount of people being allowed in at a time and the high adherence to keeping physical distance in the supermarkets (up until recently at least) must've been effective at keeping them safe. With more people being allowed in at once and some people being less mindful of the health guidelines though you'd hope this doesn't change, but hopefully a high adherence to masks will contribute positively towards that
ednwireland wrote: » you do realise the only reason the government are only stirring the mask issue now is to increase the numbers on public transport not health not safety
ExMachina1000 wrote: » There was a chap on newstalk saying they could give free travel to people who turn up wearing a mask and charge those who dont. Ie They cant enforce it. Theres no legislation theres no law.
Midlife crisis man wrote: » If the government are making wearing masks mandatory, are they going to be giving out free masks to everybody?
circadian wrote: » Thanks for confirming something I had long believed.
weldoninhio wrote: » Virus is pretty much extinct in the community. Chances of me catching it, then spreading to someone else is minuscule. Probably more likely to bump into someone accidentally and knock them under a bus.
odyssey06 wrote: » Only because of the restrictions we have had on travel, closing businesses, working from home, no schools. That can't continue indefinitely. As things open back up again, we will need more capacity on public transport, more people working, allow people's lives to get back to normal. That's where masks come in. A measure to prevent a second wave while allowing businesses and society to resume. And a small price to pay for it compared with the costs of the lockdown restrictions.
weldoninhio wrote: » Lockdown was never needed. Social distancing alone more than likely would have had the same effect.
saabsaab wrote: » Wouldn't take long to legislate and make a law as they did with the travel.