Relaxation of Restrictions, Part V - **Read OP for Mod Warnings**

road_high wrote: »

On my ignore list- rarely bother putting anyone on it but for when someone has absolutely zero worthwhile to contribute or read.
It’s obvious they don’t get any “comic relief” more so active pleasure in the annoyance of others. It’s pathetic but there are people like that out there

I'd say that lad has nothing worthwhile going on at all, not to mind just on boards.

Penfailed wrote: »

*England

Scotland, Wales and NI advice is to work from home if possible.

The Tories are waking up to the economic carnage coming in the 2nd half of 2020. They are beginning to slump in the polls as people tire of the endless doom and fearmongering.
There are increasing stories in the U.K press about retail, office closures. The Government are finding it hard to convince people back to the office for fear of catching blown out of all proportion Covid.

There are also increasing stories in relation to the Restrictions and if they were the right course of action.

Article in relation to Boris trying to get people back into their offices in some format:
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-just-one-in-six-back-in-the-office-in-cities-as-boris-johnsons-return-to-work-plea-ignored-12053139

Journalist who wasn't allowed to write his cricitisms of the lockdown and measures in other publications:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8677727/PETER-HITCHENS-rant-BBC-Proms-make-slaves.html

Article showing that London and Stockholm have the same exposure rates to the virus despite one locking down and another not:
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53741851


Article from the BBC raising the prospect of moving on and going back to normal:
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53951764

Article highlighting how Sweden will ultimately have done less damage to its economy:
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-53664354

CruelSummer wrote: »

The U.K. are...offering 50% off meals in restaurants as a stimulus, they’ve waking up to the economic cost of this.

If that was tried here, you'd all be complaining (like the €350) that we'll all have to pay that back. The UK taxpayers will have a massive bill at the end of this. About three weeks ago they'd estimated that 35 million meals had been purchased under the scheme and using a figure of £10 equates to £350 million pounds of taxpayers money that will have to be paid back. Who knows what the figure is now. I availed of it myself a couple of times last week...

Source? What are you implying about suspicious circumstances?

Spiderman0081 wrote: »

Could you please explain the reasoning behind pubs that serve food being open and pubs that don’t serve not allowed be open?

Of course this has been explained numerous times, but some people are slow to absorb information. When you eat food you drink less and get less drunk than when you are drinking alone. When you are sober you are more likely to respect the regulations. When food is served the general atmosphere is more that of restaurant where distinct groups of people sit at tables which are separated and do not interact with others.

Could you please also explain why masks don’t need to be worn in a place serving food but do need to be worn while sitting outside on a passenger ferry?

Because you cannot eat with a mask on. Also I suggest that on a passenger ferry there may not be sufficient distance between different parties, but I am not well informed on passenger ferries, whereas I do eat each day.

risteard7 wrote: »

A lot of people have died tragically this weekend on the roads & in suspicious circumstances. But forget all about that & we'll wait for the Covid figures this evening

These matters are also important, and will receive the attention they deserve.
However a person killed by someone who considers themselves too important to slow is no different from someone killed by a person who considers themselves too important to wear a mask.

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Of course this has been explained numerous times, but some people are slow to absorb information. When you eat food you drink less and get less drunk than when you are drinking alone. When you are sober you are more likely to respect the regulations. When food is served the general atmosphere is more that of restaurant where distinct groups of people sit at tables which are separated and do not interact with others.

Thanks for explaining it again but I still don’t understand.
So the recommendations are based on untrustworthiness? Is the suggestion that Irish people can’t be trusted to sit at a table and have a few drinks? Even if there are some who have a difficulty adhering to the recommendations, are the majority of Irish landlords who don’t serve food incapable of running a pub in a professional manner? Seems very demeaning.

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Because you cannot eat with a mask on. Also I suggest that on a passenger ferry there may not be sufficient distance between different parties, but I am not well informed on passenger ferries, whereas I do eat each day.

Thanks for explaining that food can’t be eaten with a mask on. If a passenger ferry has a capacity of 100 and there are 10 people on board, they are required by law to have a mask on while sitting outside on a boat on the Atlantic Ocean. If a pub has a capacity of 100 and there are 100 people eating, drinking etc, masks are not required.
I need help understanding the logic behind this as I must be “slow”

Spiderman0081 wrote: »

Thanks for explaining it again but I still don’t understand.
So the recommendations are based on untrustworthiness? Is the suggestion that Irish people can’t be trusted to sit at a table and have a few drinks? Even if there are some who have a difficulty adhering to the recommendations, are the majority of Irish landlords who don’t serve food incapable of running a pub in a professional manner? Seems very demeaning.

Because the culture of pubs and why people want them is the ability to mingle and drink to excess and these things facilitate the virus.

Thanks for explaining that food can’t be eaten with a mask on. If a passenger ferry has a capacity of 100 and there are 10 people on board, they are required by law to have a mask on while sitting outside on a boat on the Atlantic Ocean. If a pub has a capacity of 100 and there are 100 people eating, drinking etc, masks are not required.
I need help understanding the logic behind this as I must be “slow”

If people wore masks throughout the restaurant would have to close, this is not the case for the ferry which can operate perfectly well when people wear masks. Do you advocate closing everything?

Fantastic seeing thousands of fans in the stands for french Ligue 1 matches right now. Another step towards real life in France. Yet we ban parents watching kids play in a field for an hour.

Spiderman0081 wrote: »

A rhetorical question. Very mature.

I thought it quite apparent that I don’t advocate such actions but it is very apparent you prefer certain businesses do against all sustainable logic. If this is about stopping the spread of the virus, your argument is pointless, especially if you defend the use of masks in the fresh Atlantic Ocean air on an uncrowded boat but refer to the importance of keeping one type of business open and not another.

Some types of business can impose restrictions without affecting their operation, they should do so. Some businesses can operate at a low to moderate risk with some amendment of the general rules, they should be allowed do so if the general transmission rate is not too high. Some businesses cannot be operated safely and they should be closed. It isn't rocket science.

TomTomTim wrote: »

How many grannies did you kill?

In very poor taste, thousands of people have lost relatives to this virus and they should not be sneered at.

Idbatterim wrote: »

Was out in ranelagh last night. Far far busier than ive seen it since lockdown...

Haha me too! Was bustling and although nothing near pre covid levels, it was good craic! I’m a local and last night was the busiest day I’ve seen in a while

I was down the country today in a popular food pub, and great to see a responsible business and customers to match. We ate outside thanks to the good weather, but inside looked well spaced out with all the staff very professional about masking, distancing and keeping risk low. Obviously there's a limit to this, and the toilets were a bit chaotic, but we're all just figuring this out. I'm sure they're struggling with the reduced numbers, and Winter is going to be difficult for every business, but they've a reputation to maintain and they're certainly keeping it - although I heard they're under pressure because many of their staff are going back to school! I feel sorry for them that there is a small number of irresponsible businesses (and customers) who are putting the entire industry and economy at risk, I'd fully support a crackdown on those who are not complying (or pretending to comply) and I'm sure responsible businesses would also welcome it.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

So what is it? Fear of CV-19, or fear of accepting that the reality doesn't match the media narrative?

Kaiser, nothing personal but this is the "Relaxation of Restrictions" thread and not the "Debate whether Covid is a big deal with Covid deniers" thread. I'll stick to discussing restrictions and the conditions which could allow them to be relaxed or rolled back.

hmmm wrote: »

Kaiser, nothing personal but this is the "Relaxation of Restrictions" thread and not the "Debate whether Covid is a big deal with Covid deniers" thread. I'll stick to discussing restrictions and the conditions which could allow them to be relaxed or rolled back.

No one has denied Covid - this isn't twitter with its black and white/with us or against us positioning so let's put that aside shall we? The point being made is that Covid is not as dangerous to the overwhelming majority as has been made out. This isn't my opinion. This is the facts of the stats and evidence in this country over the last few months.

However the constant negative reporting and selective use of numbers to further that is absolutely key to the relaxation of restrictions - for as long as people continue to believe that narrative, we will not be able to relax or fully reopen.

So again, what are you so afraid of? Because until that fear is addressed, you and by extension the rest of us will never be able to move forward as we need to.

MadYaker wrote: »

This all your interpretation of it though. When I look at the numbers I just see numbers there's no slant on it. It may indicate that we are going in the right or wrong direction but those are just facts of our situation that are extrapolated from the figures. Ignore the media opinion stuff and just look at the numbers would be my advice.

I don't agree with the point in bold to be honest because once again, that is your interpretation of the way it was reported. My view on it from the start is the danger posed by this virus has remained the same. Because it has. The virus hasn't changed, its still the same virus, the categories of people at risk hasn't been expanded. Less people are dying now but that's only because it's young people getting infected. Stop listening to the irish media.

OK let's look at the numbers..

- less than 2000 deaths after 6 months, over half of whom were elderly with/or (had) previous underlying conditions

- no new deaths in just over a week now. Minimal deaths for weeks before that

- minimal numbers in hospital for weeks, even less in ICU

- growing evidence that those who are catching the virus are minimally affected (if they know they have it at all)

Those are the facts of the matter. No interpretation there.

So why then are we continuing to restrict the overwhelming majority of people who are at little to no risk from this virus, rather than focusing our efforts on those who actually need those resources and support?

Why are we all wearing masks when before they became mandatory the numbers continued to decline and there were no outbreaks in shopping centres?
Case numbers have increased despite this in recent weeks (thanks again to the mishandling of a known centre of risk - meat plants, similarly to how nursing homes were mishandled previously leading to the aforementioned initial surge in deaths)

Why are we continuing to restrict businesses at great economic and personal cost when the evidence doesn't support the severity of the measures imposed (and no, I'm not just talking about pubs)

These are facts, observed evidence and genuine questions. Ignoring the reality of where we are, or attacking the questioner, will not make it go away. It'll only make the overall situation worse.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Covid is not as dangerous to the overwhelming majority as has been made out.

Where exactly has this been made out? Except maybe in the minds of some that want that narrative to be the perceived view?

I’m constantly seeing In reports that 80% of all cases will be mild.