Tenzor07 wrote: » The Problem is we don't know where exactly this person came back from and it doesn't matter....For all we know he went away for the weekend and was already infected here in Ireland, was asymptomatic when he travelled, only displaying symptoms when he returned.. The actual issue here is that this individual failed to follow the guidelines as did his contacts... had he been responsible and isolated himself and got tested then we wouldn't all be talking about this case right now... This is a failure of personal responsibility and obligations to others by the character in question!
lawrencesummers wrote: » It says in the piece he returned from holidays. The majority of Irish people go to Spain on their holidays. What the problem?
theological wrote: » Legally restricting travel would ensure that we didn't have to rely on people following the guidance. Why isn't quarantine punishable with fines in Ireland still?
lawrencesummers wrote: » Man who failed to restrict movements after trip abroad led to 56 Covid-19 infectionshttps://www.thejournal.ie/man-failed-restrict-movements-56-cases-5237110-Oct2020/
3xh wrote: » Please God you never serve on a jury.
ShineOn7 wrote: » Where was he from?
lawrencesummers wrote: » What country do you live in that asking a question should disqualify one from being a juror?
lawrencesummers wrote: » Ireland
lawrencesummers wrote: » So travel isn’t a problem? Travel clearly is a problem, but this piece would have you believe the “index case” is the problem with their behaviour when restrictions should have applied, testing should have been in place and follow up to check compliance happening. Man who failed to restrict movements after trip abroad led to 56 Covid-19 infectionshttps://www.thejournal.ie/man-failed-restrict-movements-56-cases-5237110-Oct2020/
3xh wrote: » Lawrence, you said this; ‘It says in the piece he returned from holidays. The majority of Irish people go to Spain on their holidays. What the problem?’ If one of my jurors, judging me, used a thought process like this, I’d be calling for a retrial!
323 wrote: » The Journal!!!!!!... FFS. Must be true then
Acosta wrote: » To be that much of a irresponsible moronic gob****e, the chances are he would have picked it up and spread it around even without travelling abroad.
MOH wrote: » You do realise this is a discussion of a newspaper article on a public forum, and not the OJ Simpson trial? Hold your horses there, Matlock
3xh wrote: » Lawrence, you said this; ‘It says in the piece he returned from holidays. The majority of Irish people go to Spain on their holidays. What the problem?’ If one of my jurors, judging me, used a thought process like this, I’d be calling for a retrial! You’ve read a highly agenda-ised (I know it’s not a word) article and simply assumed he broke quarantine advice because ‘the majority’ of Irish people holiday in Spain. You don’t comprehend the three forms of transmission as per the HSE and how he simply cannot be responsible for the 56 cases. You also don’t acknowledge how the female in this article is also responsible for a number of the 56 cases. And you ask what’s the problem and where do I live.
lawrencesummers wrote: » Spain has for a number of years been the most popular destination for Irish people holidays. You seem to miss the part where I said “presumably“ because presuming an Irish person went to Spain for their holidays isnt a stretch. If you want to apply the musings of people on boards to the statements under oath in the midst of a criminal trial You will find yourself infinitely disappointed. So presumably he went to Spain or some such place that Irish people tend to go for their holidays. Is that ok your honor?
3xh wrote: » No, it’s not. I can tell you’re not aware that the request to quarantine is applicable to non-green list countries only. This case obviously started months ago, if 56 are alleged to have been involved. Transmission, incubation, testing, awaiting, etc. Not last week. The Green list was a lot bigger when it came out. That’s one thing. The second thing is you swallowed whole the bit about this man infecting the woman who then infected others while she waited for her positive result to come back and so therefore he was responsible for all. Not even the HSE/NPHET/Government who bring you this quarantine talk, accept that the guy would be responsible here. All 56 cases are not travel related. You accepted they are because the article said so. You’re wrong. And left unchecked, you’d go on to spout this nonsense to whoever will listen to you. It’s important you understand how cases are notified, the part this alleged woman played in the 56 and how green countries’ returnees aren’t requested to quarantine. The people queuing for Smyth’s again today are more likely to spread it. Do you know what those cases would be called then, Lawrence?
saabsaab wrote: » Ultimately he certainly was as all those cases might not have happened otherwise! It proves that travel is adding in a big way to the total.
Deleted User wrote: » It proves nothing of the sort. It’s not whether travel is a risk. It’s whether travel is a BIGGER risk than whatever would have been done locally I travelled to places with a lower prevalence per 100,000, which also actually had better COVID behaviour. If I had not travelled, I would have gone to the pub. Therefore I did not increase the risk.....in fact I lowered it. The issue is in behaviour, not travel. Blaming travel in isolation is lazy, which is why those in charge who are thinking out the risk v impact have not stopped it
saabsaab wrote: » That does not follow. Behaviours like traveling abroad ensure that you contact many others at airports, ferries trains etc etc.
Deleted User wrote: » Ha. The problem with your post was not the question. I travelled three times this year, to three different countries (excluding my essential visits to the UK). None of them was Spain. They were all places that had, at the time, had the virus more under control than Ireland. Therefore, had I caught COVID, I was more likely to have done so in my local pub (which I also frequented regularly) In any case, this whole conversation is moot. Nothing is going to happen with travel & quarantine rules at this stage, other than the introduction of a fast testing regime at the airport
saabsaab wrote: » When will they get basic common sense and stop non essential foreign travel. Its how it started and how it is still a major factor.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/07abd39dc4f0afde3c391afc78cc920e.svg)
