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

Penfailed wrote: »

There was good scientific reasoning behind that decision. Would you rather they'd said no TV at all?

Ha ha. That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time.

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

It’s not childish it’s science.

I went for a few drinks with friends over the Summer, we shared a main portion of chicken wings for €12.50 and none of us caught the virus.

They had a starter portion for €6.50 on the menu and I dread to think what would have happened if we went for that option

I hope the pubs open again so I can get another immunity curry and a pint before winter kicks in.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The surface of the virus desiccated quite quickly in warmer weather. That isn't to do with avoiding the wearing of masks.
In lower temperatures when humidity is higher such as would be experienced now the virus lives longer and spreads more easily.
The weather conditions outdoors now are more akin to what you'd find in an Abattoir where the virus was spreading like wildfire during the time that you are referring to when people weren't wearing masks outdoors.

You take issue with my reasoning on masks and then come out with this.

Penfailed wrote: »

There was good scientific reasoning behind that decision. Would you rather they'd said no TV at all?

I get the reasoning behind it.

My point is the pub is either safe enough for where we’re at or it is not. The moment you have to issue a 50 page pamphlet with it you’ve already lost the people. Yes it would be better to not open them at all in this case.

nofools wrote: »

I think it is arrogant to think you can control so easily.

What do you think is being done now?
Are we not 'controlling' it presently?

As has been posted since, a more proportionate response is required, both to control the spread of the virus so our health system can function, while allowing the maximum economic activity at the same time.

It seems you also do not believe in herd immunity (a different post of yours) but yet believe in vaccines ---- whose purpose is to provide herd immunity.

It [zero Covid] is still much more plausible than herd immunity

Your posts are just too contradictory to be anything but deliberate incitement.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Where is all the health advice to the population about boosting the immune system to help ward off the virus?

Where is the advice from NPHET that obesity is one of the primary health issues that Covid will effect much more severely?

What did they do?

Shut the ****ing gyms

The policies regarding “living with Covid” are straight out of a mr Bean show

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

The policies regarding “living with Covid” are straight out of a mr Bean show

Yeah, not funny!!!!

charlie14 wrote: »

This CONTROLLED spread has been attempted to acquire acquired herd immunity.

Both this attempt CONTROL and acquired herd immunity have been shown to be failures.

Where was that Charlie? Where was it tried and where did it prove to be a failure? And also what exactly is the difference to the vaccine approach? People dont seem to like that term but what people are hoping for through a vaccine is herd immunity isn't it?

So the conclusion drawn is that although we find it possible to control the virus spread to near nil, it is impossible to control it less than that, without it balooning out of control?

Makes no sense to me.

Sweden could be accused of 'letting it rip' which is not comparable to tightly controlling the spread at a sustainable level.

So whats the solution guys? Up and down between level 3/4 and 5 until some magic cure arrives?
What if it doesn't arrive? Or what if it isn't all that magic? We just keep going like this for years?

Over something with an IFR in the low zero point somethings?

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

The Government has been accused of stacking the odds against taxpayers who exercise their right to appeal a tax bill.

Under the unheralded measure in the Finance Bill, Revenue will no longer pay interest to taxpayers who win an appeal on money they have paid in advance to the tax authorities.

The move comes as thousands of businesses across the State struggle to survive.

Where a taxpayer appeals a tax bill and loses they are liable to interest charges of up to 10 per cent. To avoid this, many taxpayers make an up-front payment on the understanding that it will be returned should they win their appeal. Under current law Revenue pays interest in those circumstances.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/government-accused-of-stacking-odds-against-taxpayers-1.4402704

Things are that bad. Scraping the barrel here, we ll be reaching our hand out to IMF very soon. But thats alright, Ireland is "getting it right"

nope, you will need to do better.
that has been on the cards for a while as far as i'm aware, the government never wanted revenue to be paying out more then it had to.
it's a simple case of shoving a change through while people are distracted with something else, a simple co-incidence that it is during the covid pandemic that they are putting this through.
i disagree with it but i'm surprised they didn't bring it in long ago.

acequion wrote: »

That is it in a nutshell. Proportion. Our response has been out of proportion with others and out of proportion to the threat.

The majority here who complain about excessive restrictions are not saying "just let's all get on with life as before and let the virus rip" They want proportion. They want balance and they want the Govt to provide that proportion by balancing all needs and all interests. But the Govt, the new Govt that we voted in ironically just before all this, have really let us down by allowing NPHET to call all the shots.

I have to live with the virus and expose myself, and by extension my family, to risk every day as a frontline worker, a teacher in a large secondary school where there have been cases. And of course it makes me nervous. But so far so good. The tiny outbreak was quickly contained and not one staff member caught it. So I'm happy to go to work, would absolutely hate to be stuck at home on PUP as so many are. So imo a proportionate response to this second wave would be level 3 and down to a level 2+ as soon as possible. Let people operate as the front line have to. Let them get on with their work but with the strict restrictions of masks, distancing, constant sanitising and limited numbers in place. If teachers all over the country are doing it and doing it safely, why not other workers?

That for me would be reacting with balance and proportion.

our response has not been out of proportion, local conditions will mean that countries will deviate on some specific parts of their response compared to others.
france, spain, italy, the UK for example will all have deviations, it would not be possible for all countries to have the exact same approach unless a particular approach had been established to be absolutely effective in all possible conditions.
the government are balancing all that they can do so, but a balancing act means just that, it means we will be unable to protect every business, every job, etc.
minimising virus spread, minimising economic damage, protecting public services, protecting the high contributers to the economy, they are the main points that the government have to consider the most, with others beyond that.
this nonsense that nphet call the shots is just that, nonsense. it clearly gives people comfort to believe that they do as they can't accept that the government aren't going to do exactly what they want but they are just hurting themselves more by believeing something that is completely incorrect.
level 2 or 3 with the ability to move up and down where required is likely going to be our approach going forward anyway.

charlie14 wrote: »

Open the gym so people with the underlying condition of obesity can use them.
What possibly could go wrong :rolleyes:

Yeah, the gyms would be packed with people with obesity issues rolling up to die.

CalamariFritti wrote: »

But thats the whole point of the idea of controlled spread.

In one scenario you're trying to suppress to lowest possible numbers. Treading water essentially and hoping for a game changer.
In the other scenario you're trying to keep the health system afloat but go for biggest achievable spread within that constraint.

Since we already agreed that it will spread anyway it seems to me that at least scenario 2 has some sort of goal or a possible positive side effect. Whereas scenario 1 is all hope and little plan.

We already heard senior scientists claiming we will still have distancing and masks and restrictions even with a vaccine. That just cannot be allowed to happen. I'd actually become a zero covid supporter over this nonsense.

I don`t see the highlighted as the aim here or now anywhere. To keep a health system afloat but go for the highest achievable spread has been attempted and failed.
The aim is to get the level low, so that along with protecting the health system you can relax restrictions.
Speculation by scientists on a vaccine is just that, speculation. These vaccine trials are operating on a double blind. Until the final results go for authorisation by independent bodies on safety and efficacy not even the scientists involved know for sure.