Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Why no coherent legal challenge to restrictions?
Options
Comments
-
Gregor Samsa wrote: »I fully agree with you that this communication has been very poor and confusing.
But I'm not sure that it would be grounds for a Constitutional challenge. By their very nature, those guidelines aren't backed up by legislation. Therefore there's no law to bring a Constitutional challenge against. Not every utterance from the Government has to be backed up by legislation, and there's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits guidelines from being issued. It's not like you could bring a Constitutional challenge against the Food Pyramid or the guideline regarding 30 minutes of moderate physical activity a day.
If the Government had actually specifically claimed that attending a family gathering in a house was unlawful when it isn't, then there would be grounds to challenge the claim that it is law - but not the guideline itself. I don't think the Government actually went as far as to make claims like that, but even if they did, the best you could hope for is to force them to clarify the legal situation, not to withdraw the guideline itself.
Yes, though there haven’t been Garda checkpoints set up to ask citizens whether they have done their 30 minutes of exercise that day. I don’t think it’s a particularly valid comparison, as the gravity afforded to government messaging around 14 day quarantine limits, travel outside certain zones, cocooning etc during the pandemic has infinitely outweighed simple everyday messaging on healthy lifestyles etc. It’s not the “mere utterances” that are the problem, but the potentially deliberate deception as to what is legal and what is not. It is a requirement under Irish law, EU law and the European Convention on Human Rights that there is certainty as to the nature of obligations placed on citizens. If the government considers measures to be so important, and communicates them in such a way as to be mandatory, then they need to be on satisfactory legal footing so that citizens understand what their obligations are.
I mean, it’s perfectly obvious to citizens that 30 mins exercise is not a legal requirement — but I think it’s a stretch to pretend that there was not at least some degree of assertion (and with that, widespread perception) that there was legal weight behind the guidelines. There is evidence to suggest that there was a deliberate nature to that. There has been much criticism in legal circles of the delays in publishing the content of regulations even after they come into effect, which does reek of a deliberate ploy to confuse. I work in a law firm myself and with all our resources and know-how on quickly finding legal material it still took digging by trainees to actually dredge up the regulations, which were often difficult to locate (again, after coming into effect). In fact, the government never even declared a constitutional state of emergency as this power can only be exercised in war or rebellion. Instead, legislation which was merely described as emergency legislation was introduced — but this legislation has no special status.
There are certainly grounds for legal challenge under the established law on clarity of legal obligations. In fact, the Special Committee on Covid 19 Response has heard evidence on from senior legal figures and there was plenty of food for thought on the legality / constitutionality of the State’s approach. From my own personal critical opinion, my two questions are: (1) did the State deliberately blur the lines on legality to confuse people into compliance?; and (2) if the State saw the guidelines as being so fundamentally important for public health, why were they not given legal footing?0 -
Gregor Samsa wrote: »Under which specific section?
For instance, 40.6.1 ii guarantees
"The right of the citizens to assemble peaceably and without arms.".
Which on the face of it, would prevent a law from restricting public gatherings of any kind.
But it then goes on to say:
"Provision may be made by law to prevent or control meetings which are determined in accordance with law to be calculated to cause a breach of the peace or to be a danger or nuisance to the general public and to prevent or control meetings in the vicinity of either House"
The allowance of those provisions to prevent or restrict public gatherings seem broad enough to allow for legislation to do so in the case of a public health crisis like this.
It's pretty thin ice.
If a group of people, who profess and identify themselves to be Covid positive, meet to demonstrate that it's harmless to catch it, that could certainly be argued to fall into the danger aspect of the legislation.
It's a bit of a stretch to argue that a group of people meeting in a public place is a danger to the general public.
Might increase the risk of someone catching it, but putting that person in danger?0 -
ArthurDayne wrote: »Yes, though there haven’t been Garda checkpoints set up to ask citizens whether they have done their 30 minutes of exercise that day. I don’t think it’s a particularly valid comparison, as the gravity afforded to government messaging around 14 day quarantine limits, travel outside certain zones, cocooning etc during the pandemic has infinitely outweighed simple everyday messaging on healthy lifestyles etc. It’s not the “mere utterances” that are the problem, but the potentially deliberate deception as to what is legal and what is not. It is a requirement under Irish law, EU law and the European Convention on Human Rights that there is certainty as to the nature of obligations placed on citizens. If the government considers measures to be so important, and communicates them in such a way as to be mandatory, then they need to be on satisfactory legal footing so that citizens understand what their obligations are.
I mean, it’s perfectly obvious to citizens that 30 mins exercise is not a legal requirement — but I think it’s a stretch to pretend that there was not at least some degree of assertion (and with that, widespread perception) that there was legal weight behind the guidelines. There is evidence to suggest that there was a deliberate nature to that. There has been much criticism in legal circles of the delays in publishing the content of regulations even after they come into effect, which does reek of a deliberate ploy to confuse. I work in a law firm myself and with all our resources and know-how on quickly finding legal material it still took digging by trainees to actually dredge up the regulations, which were often difficult to locate (again, after coming into effect). In fact, the government never even declared a constitutional state of emergency as this power can only be exercised in war or rebellion. Instead, legislation which was merely described as emergency legislation was introduced — but this legislation has no special status.
There are certainly grounds for legal challenge under the established law on clarity of legal obligations. In fact, the Special Committee on Covid 19 Response has heard evidence on from senior legal figures and there was plenty of food for thought on the legality / constitutionality of the State’s approach. From my own personal critical opinion, my two questions are: (1) did the State deliberately blur the lines on legality to confuse people into compliance?; and (2) if the State saw the guidelines as being so fundamentally important for public health, why were they not given legal footing?
The guidelines never included a limit on the number of times people could go outside for exercise anyway.0 -
Give us your plan.
And to add whatever your plan is we are allowed to tell you its ridiculous and doesn't work just like people are allowed to say tha about the government plan.
Sometimes what you call blind faith is people listening to expert opinions, The news, reading online and making a decision based on that. Just because they might not entertain your interpretation doesn't mean they are blindly following. Perhaps they know you just wont accept their conclusion so they don't debate you.
I would stagger a guess than half the county haven't even thought to question the rights they are giving up - they understand the restrictions and accept them as expert advice etc, but have't thought how they affect constitutional and human rights.
People like yourself, obviously have but a lot haven't.
Personally, i see no point in the current restrictions while schools are still open - lots of kids travelling 20km to school, and mixing etc. If we have to have a lockdown, do it properly - close the schools, or at least put additional measures place - staggered attendance, mix of online & classroom. Maximum numbers on school transport.
I think the Welsh plan is a lot better in that regard, primary schools stay open as a much smaller catchment area, and high schools close.
I would not have any restriction on the travel just have a list of things people are allowed to do - if you can go to the golf course if its within 5km, why is it suddenly more dangerous if its 6km away?
Personally I think the travel restriction is what causes the most anxiety among people - as it makes many people isolated, and worried about family they haven't seen in months!
I also think we should have a public emergency team that makes the recommendations and considers wider issues and not just a health public emergency team.0 -
canonball5 wrote: »Article 40.1 when they started locking down counties for example.
Article 40.6.1 (ii) the right to assemble and meet peacefully.
Article 40.4.1
Why did you only include one line of 40.6.1 (ii)
You excluded:Provision may be made by law to prevent or control meetings which are determined in accordance with law to be calculated to cause a breach of the peace or to be a danger or nuisance to the general public and to prevent or control meetings in the vicinity of either House of the Oireachtas.0 -
Advertisement
-
Seems you may have a constitutional loophole about the fact the guidelines haven't been made into legal statute. So you might go to court and win that case after a few weeks and great expense. And then the government will just roll it through as legislation and make it law.
The Government would clearly rather not make it law, and I think we can all understand why. But if they're forced to they will.0 -
Billgirlylegs wrote: »It's a bit of a stretch to argue that a group of people meeting in a public place is a danger to the general public.
Might increase the risk of someone catching it, but putting that person in danger?
Not sure everyone would agree with you on that one. I don't think it would be difficult to argue that increasing the risk of spreading it is a danger to the general public. To cause "danger" just means to potentially cause harm - it's a matter of increased risk rather than necessarily causing actual damage. It doesn't have to mean certain death is caused.
In any case, "danger" is only one criteria. Mere "nuisance to the general public" is also grounds to prevent or control such meetings. Rather than it being a stretch, it's pretty broad.0 -
LuckyLloyd wrote: »Seems you may have a constitutional loophole about the fact the guidelines haven't been made into legal statute. So you might go to court and win that case after a few weeks and great expense. And then the government will just roll it through as legislation and make it law.
The Government would clearly rather not make it law, and I think we can all understand why. But if they're forced to they will.
But the question remains why they don’t just do that anyway. If the State believes that certain measures are so vital and of such fundamental significance to the national interest (to the point of being a matter of life and death) that they portray them as mandatory or at least obfuscate the matter — then why don’t they give them the appropriate legal footing?
It’s not a “constitutional loophole” to point out that presenting certain things as being mandatory when they are not amounts to the State effectively threatening citizens with legal implications that do not exist. It is a straight-up abuse of power — an attempt to use the gravitas of the State’s authority as a means of creating pseudo-law. It’s contrary to human rights and as time goes on (which we are seeing a lot of today!) it makes people question the integrity of the measures themselves and therefore erodes their willingness to take them seriously.
It’s actually an argument which transcends the restrictions debate because both sides should have valid grievances. The pro-lockdown leaning folk should be against the pseudo-enforcement of what they perceive to be absolutely vital Life & Death measures, while the anti-lockdown leaning folk have a legitimate question as to how reasonable the measures are when the State appears to only be pretending to implement them!0 -
political analyst wrote: »In Britain, the businessman Simon Dolan has challenged Covid restrictions in the courts. In the Australian state of Victoria, there have been several cases taken against restrictions.
So why has there been no coherent legal challenge to restrictions in Ireland? There must be people who have enough money for such a case and who would be able to make better arguments than Waters and O'Doherty did.
Sunetra Gupta might be willing to give evidence via video-link to support such a case here.
After all, either we have constitutional rights or we don't.
Possibly because Gemma O’Doherty and John Waters were left facing a significant legal bill after the High Court ruled they must pay the costs of their failed attempt to challenge laws brought in due to Covid-19.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/o-doherty-and-waters-ordered-to-pay-legal-costs-of-case-against-state-over-covid-19-laws-1.4270600
That case also tested the waters and potentially could be used as a judgement in any other challenge taken
I also don't believe any such case will be successful or is a particularly good idea0 -
To be honest I want a total and complete lockdown of everything but to your point on why is 6km more dangerous, we all know its not. They had to pick a number. If they said 10 people would say why not 11. People need a rule book to follow so they can operate. Its not good enough to say restrict your movements as much as possible.I would stagger a guess than half the county haven't even thought to question the rights they are giving up - they understand the restrictions and accept them as expert advice etc, but have't thought how they affect constitutional and human rights.
People like yourself, obviously have but a lot haven't.
Personally, i see no point in the current restrictions while schools are still open - lots of kids travelling 20km to school, and mixing etc. If we have to have a lockdown, do it properly - close the schools, or at least put additional measures place - staggered attendance, mix of online & classroom. Maximum numbers on school transport.
I think the Welsh plan is a lot better in that regard, primary schools stay open as a much smaller catchment area, and high schools close.
I would not have any restriction on the travel just have a list of things people are allowed to do - if you can go to the golf course if its within 5km, why is it suddenly more dangerous if its 6km away?
Personally I think the travel restriction is what causes the most anxiety among people - as it makes many people isolated, and worried about family they haven't seen in months!
I also think we should have a public emergency team that makes the recommendations and considers wider issues and not just a health public emergency team.
Again someone silently coming to the conclusion to go with the recommendations doesn't mean they are following it blindly. experts have advised and the government have decided to go with msot of their recommendations.
I think you probably know this.
Schools opening on staggered times well why is that any different to your 6 km question. If my kid can safely go in on Tuesdays why not Wednesday and Thursday also
As for the rights, I'd like a list of rights we have given up.
Your public emergency team, would they be able to weigh up the economic,social,environmental implications of these restrictions. If so surely this is what the government is doing anyway.
You want tighter restrictions so why do you have a problem with any restrictions they have decided to put in place. Any restriction is better than none but you seem to want the perfect restrictions for you and your reality.0 -
Advertisement
-
That case also tested the waters and potentially could be used as a judgement in any other challenge taken
I doubt that any precedent was set by two loons ranting. Their case was prevented from reaching a full hearing in front of the High Court because they didn't even attempt to form an actual case, didn't attempt to present any expert opinion, didn't engage with the court properly and just talked nonsense about Nazi Germany. They didn't even manage to get over the fairly modest hurdle of having a coherent argument for their case. Anybody who could do those basic things would at least get themselves in front of a proper HC sitting.0 -
Gregor Samsa wrote: »I doubt that any precedent was set by two loons ranting. Their case was prevented from reaching a full hearing in front of the High Court because they didn't even attempt to form a coherent case, didn't attempt to present any expert opinion, didn't engage with the court properly and just talked nonsense about Nazi Germany. They didn't even manage to get over the fairly modest hurdle of having a coherent argument for their case.
Can’t disagree with that. Probably the most damaging thing about their case though was the impression it created that questioning the legality / constitutionality / justice of the measures was an exercise for eccentrics and contrarians. It’s far from it and there are serious questions to be answered whether now or in a future inquiry.0 -
They come from recent amendments to the 1947 Health Act, the Constitution is not involved. Those amendments were approved by the Dail.political analyst wrote: »In Britain, the businessman Simon Dolan has challenged Covid restrictions in the courts. In the Australian state of Victoria, there have been several cases taken against restrictions.
So why has there been no coherent legal challenge to restrictions in Ireland? There must be people who have enough money for such a case and who would be able to make better arguments than Waters and O'Doherty did.
Sunetra Gupta might be willing to give evidence via video-link to support such a case here.
After all, either we have constitutional rights or we don't.0 -
To be honest I want a total and complete lockdown of everything but to your point on why is 6km more dangerous, we all know its not. They had to pick a number. If they said 10 people would say why not 11. People need a rule book to follow so they can operate. Its not good enough to say restrict your movements as much as possible.
Again someone silently coming to the conclusion to go with the recommendations doesn't mean they are following it blindly. experts have advised and the government have decided to go with msot of their recommendations.
I think you probably know this.
Schools opening on staggered times well why is that any different to your 6 km question. If my kid can safely go in on Tuesdays why not Wednesday and Thursday also
As for the rights, I'd like a list of rights we have given up.
Your public emergency team, would they be able to weigh up the economic,social,environmental implications of these restrictions. If so surely this is what the government is doing anyway.
You want tighter restrictions so why do you have a problem with any restrictions they have decided to put in place. Any restriction is better than none but you seem to want the perfect restrictions for you and your reality.
I don't want tighter restrictions - i don't want mandatory restrictions at all in fact, but if they are going to insist of having restrictions at least have ones that will work and lower the case numbers properly, so that they are for as short as time as possible. The restrictions simply don't make sense with schools open.
And yes Staggered attendance would still mean kids attend school - but you would have less children in each classroom, less on the bus etc, and therefore more social distancing.
So it is no more dangerous to at 6km than 5km - so why 5km then? It should be enough to say restrict your movements, that you can do x,y or z only. The lockdown in the North never had distance limits, just a complete ban on non essential travel.
The Public emergency team would indeed look at social, economical, environmental, and of course health - yes the government do consider these - but the government are a group of elected representatives, they aren't experts, a public emergency team should be made up of experts across a range of areas, not just health
The government take health advice from health experts, but who do they take economic, education, social advice from - eg? is there an expert economic team that decides on or recommends the PUP payments, stimulus measures, etc?
As for what rights we have given up, i am sure there are plenty of people more knowledgeable than me but from a quick google the below rights listed in the constitution are at least partially affected by the new restrictions
Freedom to Travel
Freedom to earn a living
Right to Consort together for married couples (If they happen not to live together for whatever reason)
Freedom of Assembly0 -
https://metro.co.uk/2020/10/16/court-overturns-order-to-shut-bars-and-restaurants-in-berlin-at-11pm-13432566/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Court overules german government on restrictions0 -
I beieve and the WHO organisation also,that using lockdowns/restriction hits women, children the poor and the disabled worse.
For example women more effected regsrding work as they are in lower paid and zero hour contracts. And less able to work from home.
Also have noticed here on boards and elsewhere woman complaining this has adversely effected some of them to have children.
I also feel that disabled and vulnarable are being used as piggy in the middle and being discrimnated by and not given a voice.
If they or their familys were given an extra 350 euros a week many would be able to protect themselves and their familys bettet while those who are low risk work.
These people have had many of their services pulled with the closing of so many things. And will be the first impacted by a recession. Many who work in the mental health srea are seeing negative impact too.
Live a half live now and potentialy die anyway in what follows.
Also they are first in line for vaccines thst have on the vaste majority of cases only been tested on healthy people. I feel echos of history in this and hope I am wrong. We have the hoŕibke history here in ireland of testing on the poorest and childrens homes etc.
Maybe a case of discriminatiom or this response is adversely effecting dverse these people.
I find it criminally neglient the way the government have responded. They wrre put on notice by myself and others in jan and february and early march and still
nursing home deaths
lack of icu beds
contact tracing fiasco etc
If the good doctors for example had not gone against hse rules and tested the poor man who died in cork we would not have know we had community transmission either.
May he rest in peace and his family find solace one day.
As an ordinary citzen of Ireland and a high risker I hope somebody challenges them on the lack of data they have to offer for these blanket restrictions.0 -
is_that_so wrote: »They come from recent amendments to the 1947 Health Act, the Constitution is not involved. Those amendments were approved by the Dail.
What makes you absolutely certain that not a single part of the 1947 Act is unconstitutional?0 -
I'm amazed the likes of Penny's haven't went legal route to stay open
Don't understand it
How could it be proven its more dangerous than Tesco etc?0 -
This has to be one of the most confused comments on the issue.is_that_so wrote: »They come from recent amendments to the 1947 Health Act, the Constitution is not involved. Those amendments were approved by the Dail.
The 1947 Act allowed for a person with an infectious disease to be confined if they refused treatment. This was tested in a case, and found to be constitutional.
It most certainly did not provide for mass restrictions on persons who mostly don't have any infectious disease. Such a significant change in scope cannot be made immune from challenge simply by tacking on to an older Act.
And all Acts of the Oireachtas that have been found to be unconstitutional have been approved by the Dail. I don't know how you can think the Constitution is "not involved".
.0 -
A couple of big-ish Dublin gyms have said they're staying open and ignoring the restrictions
That didn't work out too well for that oul lad with a Pub down the country who announced similar in Lockdown 1. He was closed by the Guards the next day
It'll be interesting to see if more gyms follow suit and refuse to close
I think they'll win and stay open with extra restrictions tbh. The government can't deny how much of a positive influence they have on helping the country's mental health0 -
Advertisement
-
A couple of big-ish Dublin gyms have said they're staying open and ignoring the restrictions
That didn't work out too well for that oul lad with a Pub down the country who announced similar in Lockdown 1. He was closed by the Guards the next day
It'll be interesting to see if more gyms follow suit and refuse to close
I think they'll win and stay open with extra restrictions tbh. The government can't deny how much of a positive influence they have on helping the country's mental health
The Blanchardstown one is claiming they are staying open to help people's mental health while in the same paragraph saying its to help pay for renovations. While theres no doubt it isn't a good position to be in it makes a mockery of true mental health issues and the phrase is becoming a placeholder for doing what you want to do regardless of others.0 -
While it is a crisis the use of "lockdown" is a tool the HSE is using to limit access to health services which are uasually busy this time every year.
if fully protected PS/RTE had a threat to their livelyhoods or PUP we would not be in fully lockdown seperate the vunerable and let the economy survive, as long as the alright jack brigage are happy.
New year will see immigration among our young pickup to areas less restrictive and have more jobs especially to avoid a 3rd lockdown0 -
The Blanchardstown one is claiming they are staying open to help people's mental health while in the same paragraph saying its to help pay for renovations. While theres no doubt it isn't a good position to be in it makes a mockery of true mental health issues and the phrase is becoming a placeholder for doing what you want to do regardless of others.
Right job
Really annoying mine ia closed0 -
Well, it's been around since 1947 and the Constitution does speak about acting for the common good so I feel I'm on safe enough grounds.political analyst wrote: »What makes you absolutely certain that not a single part of the 1947 Act is unconstitutional?0 -
ArthurDayne wrote: »But the question remains why they don’t just do that anyway. If the State believes that certain measures are so vital and of such fundamental significance to the national interest (to the point of being a matter of life and death) that they portray them as mandatory or at least obfuscate the matter — then why don’t they give them the appropriate legal footing?
It’s not a “constitutional loophole” to point out that presenting certain things as being mandatory when they are not amounts to the State effectively threatening citizens with legal implications that do not exist. It is a straight-up abuse of power — an attempt to use the gravitas of the State’s authority as a means of creating pseudo-law. It’s contrary to human rights and as time goes on (which we are seeing a lot of today!) it makes people question the integrity of the measures themselves and therefore erodes their willingness to take them seriously.
It’s actually an argument which transcends the restrictions debate because both sides should have valid grievances. The pro-lockdown leaning folk should be against the pseudo-enforcement of what they perceive to be absolutely vital Life & Death measures, while the anti-lockdown leaning folk have a legitimate question as to how reasonable the measures are when the State appears to only be pretending to implement them!
The State is trying to achieve its public health goals through majority compliance and collective responsibility. The last resort is legal statue enforced by policemen or soldier supplement. I would agree with you that these regulations should be enacted via legislation and I think we are moving to a phase where we require enforcement. In this regard, the government is getting it wrong: they have wanted to proceed with a light touch but we have now reached a point where that is no longer viable.
So really, I don’t disagree with you here. But in terms of bringing a legal challenge to the restrictions, the basis would be around the misleading nature of guidelines being presented as legal requirements. If your objective is to prevent restrictions, winning that point in court will be met by legislation via an overnight session of the Oireachtas (as we have seen before). So you won’t prevent restrictions.
If your objective is to win a constitutional legal point in court, and to lay down a marker for quicker injunctions in the future on different topics then maybe you want to take this case. But who has the money or inclination to essentially go and win an academic point in the Court system when it doesn’t fundamentally change anything about the current situation?
The rest of the conversation around this (not from your good self) is arm flailing and ranting about “freedom” and “rights”. Making the context all the more unseemly for someone with the money and / or the inclination to win that academic point less motivated to do so.0 -
The Blanchardstown one is claiming they are staying open to help people's mental health while in the same paragraph saying its to help pay for renovations. While theres no doubt it isn't a good position to be in it makes a mockery of true mental health issues and the phrase is becoming a placeholder for doing what you want to do regardless of others.
There is some truth in what you say, but the fact is that citizens and businesses are absolutely entitled to act within the law. If the State does not craft law properly, or applies it inconsistently, or (as has often been the case this year) doesn’t make apparently important things legally binding at all — then it is not for all of us to sit around second-guessing what we are legally entitled to do and what we are not.
I have discussed at length on this thread about how the State appears to have been deliberately obfuscating the lines between what is legally mandatory and what is not — and have pointed out that it’s not only an abuse of power but also erodes the integrity of the State’s messaging. People simply stop taking the message seriously, and that is extremely problematic in societies that adhere to the rule of law.
Ultimately, if businesses break the law then the State can sanction them. If the State refuses to create law or creates law which is applied confusingly, it cannot then reasonably expect that total compliance with pseudo-law or confusing law will be achieved. Sure — maybe in this instance it does make a mockery of the mental health issue....but if the State makes a mockery of the rule of law, they cannot complain when the corollary disobedience occurs.0 -
A couple of big-ish Dublin gyms have said they're staying open and ignoring the restrictions
That didn't work out too well for that oul lad with a Pub down the country who announced similar in Lockdown 1. He was closed by the Guards the next day
It'll be interesting to see if more gyms follow suit and refuse to close
I think they'll win and stay open with extra restrictions tbh. The government can't deny how much of a positive influence they have on helping the country's mental health
The pub (If i'm correctly remembering the same one) opened , the gardai walked in and said "you must close" and he did.
The gyms (hopefully) will say no to the gardai.
I see the gym in liverpool won in the end when they refused to close.0 -
Regarding my earlier posts which I stand by I would also like to add in fairness what sections have done well re covid.
After a very bumpy start those who organise the testing have done well even if a bit slow on realising the need for other types of rapid testing for public health and keeping pcr for clinical diagnosising.
Also I believe the doctors and nurses on the frontline regarding how patients are treated in hospital are doing great work on the main but maybe with not full access to all the drugs/treatments that might work.. they too are let down by the lack of ICU beds and staff.
Those staff also trying if impossible at times to keep day services running and those re aranging apointments even if not perfectly done.
Covid assement hubs and post viral clinics also a good idea but I think more empasis is needed on those who have recovered at home getting a check up.
We need to continual fund those adding to the phylogentic tree of covid.. good work there. The army and the fire brigade and ambulance service have also done a great job. eg testing and logistics etc.
And the gardai with keeping the community aspect of the service as their forefront.
Gp clinics are a mixed bag some have and some have not rose to the challenge.
I also think that pharmists in the community hsve rose very well to the challenge and have been innovated in many ways.
And lastly but not least the vaste amount of business owners and the public who have rose to the challenges that covid presents.
Especially those who stayed coocooned(harder than most people realise) and those who helped them and their fellow neighbours out.0 -
The Blanchardstown one is claiming they are staying open to help people's mental health while in the same paragraph saying its to help pay for renovations. While theres no doubt it isn't a good position to be in it makes a mockery of true mental health issues and the phrase is becoming a placeholder for doing what you want to do regardless of others.
Yes agreed. Mental Health was very bad in this country long before Covid and some businesses are just using it as a foundation to build an argument
Until very recently Blanchardstown was the most infected area in the whole country so I'm not sure a large gym open there is a great idea right now
There's plenty of exercises that can be done without a gym0 -
Advertisement
-
https://www.irishexaminer.com/business/companies/arid-40063538.htmlOne of the country's biggest leisure and hospitality groups has claimed in a High Court action against the Government it could suffer losses of more than €20m if the current Covid-19 lockdown measures continue until year-end.
Press Up Ltd, which runs 55 businesses including five hotels, 11 bars, 37 restaurants and two cinemas, says it is entitled to an indemnity or compensation from the State for the losses.
It is also seeking declarations against the minister for health, minister for finance and the State that the lockdown is unconstitutional and a disproportionate interference with its property rights.0
Advertisement