Covid 19 Part XXVIII- 71,942 ROI(2,050 deaths) 51,824 NI (983 deaths) (28/11) Read OP

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Are they promoting breaking the rules?

Like why have this chap on????

He’s an actor!!! Plainly obvious it’s bull****

Cork2021 wrote: »

He’s an actor!!! Plainly obvious it’s bull****

Thought that too, his delivery wasn't very natural.

Government to focus on street drinking instead of ban on takeaway pints

They said the idea of banning such sales had been explored but decided against as Mr Donnelly wanted to ensure that pubs that have legitimate takeaway services are not penalised.

Instead new proposals would make it an offence covered by a fine to gather or drink alcohol outside.

Eivor wrote: »

I don’t understand the panic around the cases we’re seeing right now. Are the hospitals and ICUs under pressure? I thought we were trying to keep the cases at a manageable level, not get rid of the virus.

People need to stop freaking out, the situation is nowhere near as bad as this thread would have you believe.

This.
We are 2/ 3 through lockdown and cases while a bit of a blip up over the last few days are down 2/ 3 on what they were when we went into this .
If people can just keep it going for another while maybe we will be still ok to open up before Christmas .

It's like the thread has merged with something very strange this evening

Seamai wrote: »

How exactly would that be policed?

Appearently the Gardai might be able to fine you.

Existing bye laws its a €75 quid fine in Dublin.

Probably want that increased but are the Gardai going to be going around handing out fines, are they fcuk. Another measure to be seen to do something to act as a deterrent.

All that was needed at the weekend was implementing the existing bye laws, the Gardai will probably get the power for a stupidly big fine and won't hand any out.

Cork2021 wrote: »

Claire Byrne live going all out on the doom!!

I think she's lovely

Eivor wrote: »

I removed the worm that is nphet from my ear long ago which has dramatically improved my mood and outlook. Evaluate the risk you are willing to take yourself. Yes, they can take away pubs and shops but they can’t really stop you from seeing friends and family. They can try but they can’t stop you.

Woah , don't agree with that though ..

Mannix Flynn, who I have great respect for, is on now complaining about takeaway pints.

But he was always opposed to outdoors revellers in Dublin city centre long before there was any virus.

growleaves wrote: »

Mannix Flynn, who I have great respect for, is on now complaining about takeaway pints.

But he was always opposed to outdoors revellers in Dublin city centre long before there was any virus.

Easy for him when he's sat at home anyway with his nest egg.

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Easy for him when he's sat at home anyway with his nest egg.

So what if he is?! If there is a crowd of alcohol-consumers on a street with no public amenities available then what do you think will happen?! If people want to get drunk they can do it at home instead.

majcos wrote: »

I heard it’s the underground Masses that are causing the current growth in cases in the over 85s.

That and the inevitable afterwakes.

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Yes, but by saying you understand why people do these things, you are essentially confirming that you understand that people need an outlet — and if you understand that people need an outlet you can therefore understand the fundamental problem with chipping away at the outlets that are available to them. The more you take away, the more people will want back — the more normality you deprive people of, the greater their enthusiasm will be to reclaim it. And this is an example in motion — you deprive people of the ability to gather indoors with a few friends for some food and drink (something human beings have done together over thousands of years), they then gravitate towards something else .... in this case drinking in the supremely well-ventilated surroundings of outdoors. Deprive them of that, where then will they go? To eachothers’ houses of course.

And then the State will let everyone loose at Christmas, with strict guidelines that only a fool could expect people to follow closely after months of their lives being frozen, and suddenly the narrative will change to socialising being OK again. Then come January the narrative will find a new scapegoat to blame for the inevitable rise in cases.

Yes, I understand that people need an outlet. But I don't think that justifies congregating in large numbers in order to have a few pints in the face of continuing efforts to suppress an infectious disease. There are other outlets.

To use another example. I can understand why some young people speed and drive wrecklessly - they're young, impetuous and risk taking etc - but I don't think they are justified to do so. There is a distinction between understanding and justification.

I know people feel like they need an outlet, I often feel exactly the same way. But, I couldn't, hand on heart, justify meeting people for a few beers, either indoors or outdoors, because I know that it would violate, for me, the spirit of our supposed collective efforts in trying to get the numbers down - and I would feel like a hypocritical fraud for doing so. Perhaps I possess superhuman levels of self control - but I don't think so.

I feel they couldn't have been clearer in the goals and the time frame: we're aiming for a 100 cases or less by December 1st - it at least gives us a platform to consider opening up for a period. If the cases are still in the hundreds and hundreds we'll all lose out even more. It's also pretty clear that it's human behaviour and people thinking "fck it, it'll be grand" that is going to play a significant part in determining where we stand by the end of the month. We can't blame the government or NPHET if we're still at 500/600 cases in a few weeks - we all know what we individually should and shouldn't do and if that involves some more sacrifice to get to that goal then, in my opinion, people should be able to make it.

Looks like government considering fines instead of banning takeway pints outright. Thought some form of fines for drinking in public already existed. Wonder will it be implemented or are they hoping it acts as a deterrent.

https://twitter.com/MichealLehane/status/1328478900129722369

Eod100 wrote: »

Looks like government considering fines instead of banning takeway pints outright. Thought some form of fines for drinking in public already existed. Wonder will it be implemented or are they hoping it acts as a deterrent.

https://twitter.com/MichealLehane/status/1328478900129722369

A joke. Either they are serious about controlling the spread or they are not.

It should just be outright banned.

Take half assed measures, get half assed results. Who knew?

Arghus wrote: »

Yes, I understand that people need an outlet. But I don't think that justifies congregating in large numbers in order to have a few pints in the face of continuing efforts to suppress an infectious disease. There are other outlets.

To use another example. I can understand why some young people speed and drive wrecklessly - they're young, impetuous and risk taking etc - but I don't think they are justified to do so. There is a distinction between understanding and justification.

I know people feel like they need an outlet, I often feel exactly the same way. But, I couldn't, hand on heart, justify meeting people for a few beers, either indoors or outdoors, because I know that it would violate, for me, the spirit of our supposed collective efforts in trying to get the numbers down - and I would feel like a hypocritical fraud for doing so. Perhaps I possess superhuman levels of self control - but I don't think so.

I feel they couldn't have been clearer in the goals and the time frame: we're aiming for a 100 cases or less by December 1st - it at least gives us a platform to consider opening up for a period. If the cases are still in the hundreds and hundreds we'll all lose out even more. It's also pretty clear that it's human behaviour and people thinking "fck it, it'll be grand" that is going to play a significant part in determining where we stand by the end of the month. We can't blame the government or NPHET if we're still at 500/600 cases in a few weeks - we all know what we individually should and shouldn't do and if that involves some more sacrifice to get to that goal then, in my opinion, people should be able to make it.

Do you actually think we will make it to 100 or less cases a day?



The lads I work with and my mates are all chomping at the bit t go to the pub this xmas. It's going to be a free for all sh*t show and NPHET know it.