nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Off Topic Thread 5.0

[Deleted User]

Thread continued from here https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057835955&page=250

The usual rules apply. Non-rugby talk here. Consider this a social place, but like a pub, things like religion and politics can be divisive, so don't say things here you wouldn't say to someone's face in the pub. Sober

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

sydthebeat

DGRulz wrote: »

Yes, exactly. What part of what I said, isn't what you said?

my bad DG

i read your post wrong

i edited my post above to show i was agreeing with you

molloyjh

sydthebeat wrote: »

all i can see in that tweet is that that SPECIFIC VULNERABLE GROUPS have had increases in cases, which has lead to deaths and increase in hospital stress.

so why isnt the response specifically targeted??

they are making the very same mistakes again !!!!

edit: and just to echo a later tweet in that twitter thread...... there is noting in that announcement from NPHET which links teh increase to business and employment. They are all residential scenarios which are problematic.... nursing homes, over 65s, travellers and direct provision centers

But how do you think the virus gets into nursing homes or direct provision centres? None of these areas & none of these groups exist in a vacuum. For example, outbreaks in nursing homes tend to come from younger people who either work there or have to go there for work.

I can't understand this idea of specifically targeting groups and/or areas. Society simply doesn't work that way & so neither does C19. You cant shut vulnerable groups off from the rest of society, which is exactly what you would need to do to "target" them.

That also goes down a very dangerous road of "well it doesn't affect me so just box that other group over there off and let me get on with my life" never mind any potential issues with long term after effects on less vulnerable which are yet to be determined.

The simple fact is that we are in this together. We need to address it together. Step up for one another. Too many people are not doing that.

Stheno wrote: »

exactly. My partners kids are in the 25-30 age bracket, and his daughter said she could not keep up with restrictions as she does not watch the news, read newspapers etc

I'm going to have to call this one out. Anyone who is an adult has responsibilities here. Theres a global pandemic killing hundreds of thousands (over 1,000,000 confirmed dead already). They could watch the news if they wanted. They are choosing not to. They are choosing not to inform themselves. They want to be spoon-fed the info. Thats what we do for children. There is no good reason to be doing it for adults. As adults they should be responsible enough to go looking for this info rather than wait for someone to slap them in the face with it. Anything else is a lazy cop out. And one we should not be happy to tolerate. If people want to be treated like adults they need to start acting like adults.

EDIT: Sorry folks, I know I'm being very, eh, direct on this. But its a real frustration that we have access to so much info & yet people won't inform themselves, even in difficult times where they really, really need to. They'll actively remain ignorant regardless of the cost to them, but much worse, to others. If that doesn't piss people off then nothing should.

DGRulz

sydthebeat wrote: »

my bad DG

i read your post wrong

i edited my post above to show i was agreeing with you

Np. I was just very confused.

Stheno

molloyjh wrote: »

I can't understand this They could watch the news if they wanted. They are choosing not to. They are choosing not to inform themselves. They want to be spoon-fed the info. Thats what we do for children. There is no good reason to be doing it for adults. As adults they should be responsible enough to go looking for this info rather than wait for someone to slap them in the face with it. Anything else is a lazy cop out. And one we should not be happy to tolerate. If people want to be treated like adults they need to start acting like adults.

EDIT: Sorry folks, I know I'm being very, eh, direct on this. But its a real frustration that we have access to so much info & yet people won't inform themselves, even in difficult times where they really, really need to. They'll actively remain ignorant regardless of the cost to them, but much worse, to others. If that doesn't piss people off then nothing should.

I fully agree with you and was pissed off at her attitude

sydthebeat

molloyjh wrote: »

But how do you think the virus gets into nursing homes or direct provision centres? None of these areas & none of these groups exist in a vacuum. For example, outbreaks in nursing homes tend to come from younger people who either work there or have to go there for work.

I can't understand this idea of specifically targeting groups and/or areas. Society simply doesn't work that way & so neither does C19. You cant shut vulnerable groups off from the rest of society, which is exactly what you would need to do to "target" them.

.

do you know what the positive return rate is currently in testing??? its 97% negative

we have gone from having 2 symptoms for testing to having very spurious symptoms.

has there been one worker in the whole country who works in a nursing home tested without showing symptoms?? the answer is no... because nursing home staff are not specifically targeted in a testing regime

should people working with vulnerable groups be targeted??? yes of course they should.
should nursing home visitations be curbed at the time of an increase in cases... yes of course it should.
should nursing home workers be required to restrict their movements to absolute necessity and not to socialise during times of case increase, 100% yes... that should be mandated to do that.

only 3 examples of targeting specific areas of society to protect against covid.
There are many more ways to go above and beyond the different blanket level restrictions that currently govern us... for specific groups in specific ways.
we have very limited resources but we are not using them in a targeted way... we are taking the scatter gun approach to this.

can we stop covid getting into every household in the country ? no we cannot.
we can only do our best individually to protect against it, and there should be much harsher penalties on those who do not.

aloooof

sydthebeat wrote: »

do you know what the positive return rate is currently in testing??? its 97% negative

It's 4.5% over the last 3 days. A small sample, but that's a 50% increase on the figure you're quoting above.

sydthebeat wrote: »

we have gone from having 2 symptoms for testing to having very spurious symptoms.

There are very obvious reasons for this around testing capacity.

sydthebeat wrote: »

has there been one worker in the whole country who works in a nursing home tested without showing symptoms?? the answer is no... because nursing home staff are not specifically targeted in a testing regime

should people working with vulnerable groups be targeted??? yes of course they should.
should nursing home visitations be curbed at the time of an increase in cases... yes of course it should.
should nursing home workers be required to restrict their movements to absolute necessity and not to socialise during times of case increase, 100% yes... that should be mandated to do that.

You're suggesting this targeted testing should be at the time of increased cases. Presumably that would be indefinitely. I don't see how the numbers would decrease in the rest of the community if we were to change to this type of approach.

Isn't it also entirely against the WHO recommendations for testing?

sydthebeat wrote: »

only 3 examples of targeting specific areas of society to protect against covid.
There are many more ways to go above and beyond the different blanket level restrictions that currently govern us... for specific groups in specific ways.
we have very limited resources but we are not using them in a targeted way... we are taking the scatter gun approach to this.

I respectfully disagree, Syd. To my mind, what you're suggesting above sounds far more scattergun.

At the start you seem to be suggesting that having such a high negativity rate is a bad thing. I'd argue the opposite; it tells us exactly where the virus is.

sydthebeat wrote: »

can we stop covid getting into every household in the country ? no we cannot.
we can only do our best individually to protect against it, and there should be much harsher penalties on those who do not.

I'd absolutely agree here.

sydthebeat

I'll post later aloof... But knowing where the virus is is too late once its in a nursing home.

molloyjh

aloooof wrote: »

You're suggesting this targeted testing should be at the time of increased cases. Presumably that would be indefinitely. I don't see how the numbers would decrease in the rest of the community if we were to change to this type of approach.

This. Over and over again, this. If we restrict the vulnerable & let everyone off do their thing we will be continually in a state of increased cases. So we would be severly restricting vulnerable groups & those in contact with vulnerable groups for what is at present an indefinite period of time. Society doesn't work by splitting us into them and us. It works by everyone pulling their weight in the same direction.

That approach is wholly unfair but also leads to a far more uncontrolled spread of the virus. Once the control over the spread is gone the game is up. A low positivity rate right now is good because it means relatively low levels of infection plus let's us know quite quickly if there's a substantive change in the spread of the virus, which will save lives. A higher positivity rate will see spikes slower in being identified and so doing more damage.

Neil3030

Everyone relax and watch this group bear cubs pigging out on an apple harvest:

https://twitter.com/JohnFusco12/status/1309309516798996480?s=20

Everything's going to be OK.

Podge_irl

molloyjh wrote: »

This. Over and over again, this. If we restrict the vulnerable & let everyone off do their thing we will be continually in a state of increased cases. So we would be severly restricting vulnerable groups & those in contact with vulnerable groups for what is at present an indefinite period of time. Society doesn't work by splitting us into them and us. It works by everyone pulling their weight in the same direction.

The younger cohort <25 are taking much more damage and facing much less risk.

Kids missing school don't recover for potentially years, if ever. Kids missing college life are missing out on a once in a lifetime event where a huge proportion of contacts and friends are made. New graduates are facing an impossible job market and likely to never recover.

Those already in secure jobs, with professional and personal networks already built up (never mind their own homes and space) are simply not being impacted as much by this. So we're not "all in it together" - we are asking a disproportionate amount from those facing the least risk. So I think its incumbent upon us, and the older generations to come to them, not for them to come to us.

Buer

Neil3030 wrote: »

Everyone relax and watch this group bear cubs pigging out on an apple harvest:

There appears to be a Honda 50 eating apples.

Neil3030

Buer wrote: »

There appears to be a Honda 50 eating apples.

Little known fact about bear cubs is that they purr when happy.

This video is from a reservation in New Hampshire; these cubs are all orphans.

Usually you don't get close enough to hear cubs purr without Mama Bear requesting a brief friendly chat.

molloyjh

Podge_irl wrote: »

The younger cohort <25 are taking much more damage and facing much less risk.

Kids missing school don't recover for potentially years, if ever. Kids missing college life are missing out on a once in a lifetime event where a huge proportion of contacts and friends are made. New graduates are facing an impossible job market and likely to never recover.

Those already in secure jobs, with professional and personal networks already built up (never mind their own homes and space) are simply not being impacted as much by this. So we're not "all in it together" - we are asking a disproportionate amount from those facing the least risk. So I think its incumbent upon us, and the older generations to come to them, not for them to come to us.

Its not wholly one thing or the other. Theres a balance to be found between all considerations. Young people are being disproportionately affected by the economic impacts, older people by the public health impacts. When I say we are all in this together I mean that we all need to act as one because otherwise we're goosed. Dont act as one and either more people die or more people lose out in the ways you mentioned trying to right the ship. Or as is most likely the case, a bit of both. We simply dont have the luxury of acting as individual segments of society.

Also, just because I and others of my section of society are personally less impacted its worth noting that many, if not all of us, know people who are. Family who are front line workers, vulnerable due to age and/or underlying conditions, cancer patients not receiving or uncertain of their treatments or even younger siblings dealing with the struggles you mentioned. None of us live in a bubble, unaffected by the world around us. Our personal medical, financial & professional situations are not the sum total of us as individuals.

I'm adhering to the guidelines because if I dont I put others at risk. If I dont cases could go up and make a return to something like normality all the more difficult for everyone. I give a damn about people other than myself and people different to me. So I'm making sacrifices in the hope it will help them. Thats what being in it together is about. Pulling in the same direction to help each other as much as we can.

thomond2006

You know a lot would be solved by a simple rule we try to follow in here.

Don't Be A Dick.

ClanofLams

I see multiple people going mad on social media at the government who were at a house party with forty plus people Saturday night, I was told.

As I get older, the percentage of people I consider absolute morons increases every year.

Zzippy

thomond2006 wrote: »

You know a lot would be solved by a simple rule we try to follow in here.

Don't Be A Dick.

There's plenty flout that rule too!

irishbucsfan

So after all that, are Dublin/Donegal effectively under the same restrictions they already have been?

Squidgy Black

irishbucsfan wrote: »

So after all that, are Dublin/Donegal effectively under the same restrictions they already have been?

Yup. No further restrictions just extended across to the rest of the counties.

Wet pubs in Dublin still not allowed operate at all, but in other counties can with up to 15 people outdoor

sydthebeat

By my reading this closes down restaurants no??

No sane person is going to go for a meal outside in winter in Ireland

Dave_The_Sheep

sydthebeat wrote: »

By my reading this closes down restaurants no??

No sane person is going to go for a meal outside in winter in Ireland

My take was they can stay open, but with unspecified additional restrictions.

gov.ie wrote:

Level 2:
Open with protective measures in place (for example: physical distancing, table service only, cleaning regimes, noise controls).

Maximum numbers in restaurants and cafes linked to capacity of establishment, taking account of public health advice, but with individual groups limited to 6 people from the same household.

Level 3:
Additional restrictions for indoor dining.

I have my first time going anywhere since March (bar the shops, the datacenter for work and my mother's house) booked for Friday this week (Kildare). Have abided by the rules and guidelines pretty much to the letter, haven't gone to the pub, or whatever since they reopened.

I'll have to live with it if they close down but I will not be a happy f*cking camper.

Squidgy Black

sydthebeat wrote: »

By my reading this closes down restaurants no??

No sane person is going to go for a meal outside in winter in Ireland

They're outdoor dining in Dublin at the moment, I've gone for a meal and to be honest it wasn't that bad considering most places doing it have outdoor canopies and space heaters etc.

But I don't think it's the same with the rest of the country, or at least it hasn't been confirmed

Edit: actually yeah it has

Zzippy

sydthebeat wrote: »

By my reading this closes down restaurants no??

No sane person is going to go for a meal outside in winter in Ireland

Pretty much, 15 diners even outdoors wouldn't be enough to keep most restaurants open. Those that can adapt and do takeaway/delivery will do ok.

Yeah_Right

sydthebeat wrote: »

By my reading this closes down restaurants no??

No sane person is going to go for a meal outside in winter in Ireland

What are you talking about. I bbq throughout the winter. Open the awning, put on a coat, light the firepit and you're good to go.

Oh. You said sane person. Nevermind. As you were.

sydthebeat

Zzippy wrote: »

Pretty much, 15 diners even outdoors wouldn't be enough to keep most restaurants open. Those that can adapt and do takeaway/delivery will do ok.

Those that can adapt already do.

This is going to close down so many businesses

errlloyd

That 15 person limit can't be real. Flannerys and Toners were both hopping all weekend.

awec

errlloyd wrote: »

That 15 person limit can't be real. Flannerys and Toners were both hopping all weekend.

The 15 limit is for level 3.

Of course 15 is not likely to be viable for very many businesses.

Dave_The_Sheep

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

My take was they can stay open, but with unspecified additional restrictions.

They've updated it since I looked earlier today. ****'s sake. Changes it to 15 people and no indoors. Guess I won't be getting to go after all. F*cking typical.

Level 3: Bars, cafes and restaurants (including hotel restaurants and bars)

Restaurants and cafes (including bars or pubs serving food or wet pubs) may remain open for take-away and delivery and outdoor dining or service to an absolute maximum of 15 people.

Wet pubs in Dublin are to remain closed.

Squidgy Black

errlloyd wrote: »

That 15 person limit can't be real. Flannerys and Toners were both hopping all weekend.

It is, but there's almost zero enforcement of it. Like most of the stuff that was brought in to be honest.

Zzippy

Squidgy Black wrote: »

It is, but there's almost zero enforcement of it. Like most of the stuff that was brought in to be honest.

And I say again. This policing by consent is bollux. Time to come down hard on individuals or businesses flouting the rules and putting everyone at risk.

Burkie1203

Anyone else feel level 5 is just a few weeks away

https://twitter.com/JohnFogartyIrl/status/1313235302102847494?s=19