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

stephenjmcd · 27-11-2020 11:29am

ixoy wrote: »

Fewer people per sitting (down to 4 from 6) makes a lot more sense to stop mingling of different households plus ensuring people wear a mask when entering / exiting / going to the bathroom.
Ensuring also certain slots, which I think many are doing, would help there too - one group at 6, next set of bookings at 8 for example would reduce spread.

A time limit might cut right into restaurant profits if they can only give you a main and not a 3-course meal where the profits would stack up better. 1hr 15 isn't going to make much of a difference to 1hr 45.

To be fair now 1hr 15 compared to 1hr 45 is a bit of difference. You'd be rushing a meal and a drink or two into you in that time frame.

seamus · 27-11-2020 11:33am

I see sheep wrote: »

Reducing the time of a sitting won't help anything or won't stop people getting drunk.
All that will happen is people will be rushing to drink as much as they can.

That's true when you're talking about closing pubs at 11pm.
But I don't think it is here. Like someone is hardly going to go in and order a meal and 12 pints to consume it all in an hour.

Even if they did, I imagine the pub would say no.

I do personally feel like smaller table numbers (four per table) would be a better adjustment than time limits, but any road.

MerlinSouthDub · 27-11-2020 11:37am

seamus wrote: »

That's true when you're talking about closing pubs at 11pm.
But I don't think it is here. Like someone is hardly going to go in and order a meal and 12 pints to consume it all in an hour.

Even if they did, I imagine the pub would say no.

I do personally feel like smaller table numbers (four per table) would be a better adjustment than time limits, but any road.

I actually think reducing the time limits would be counter productive. It will mean more people coming in and out of the restaurant each evening. This surely brings greater risk. I get that more time spent together can increase risk. If you spend 1 minute with someone the risk is very small. But surely if you've spent an hour with the same group of people, the extra risk with each extra minute you spend in their company must be pretty minimal.

paw patrol · 27-11-2020 11:40am

bennyl10 wrote: »

This “gym user” argument is baffling

No other section of society has “users” who have put themselves on a pedestal of “well my thing is more important than your thing, you just don’t understand as you’ve never used a gym”

Gyms, by design, are easy spread environments for Covid. Gyms have done well so far, it doesn’t change that fact.

We’ve all had to change how we exercise and cope. ‘Gym users’ are all that special.

I don't agree, exercise is good for your health and well being.
If they wanted to fight covid they would encourage health living, regular exercise is important. Gyms do this.

You make the point that "We’ve all had to change how we exercise and cope." while it's true but that's an irrelevant point. The point is the closure was unnecessary - we shouldn't have had to cope with this.

I've trained but this lockdown compared to summer (that was nice to train tbh) has been sh1t for training outside given the dark crap weather. It's not coping at all.

is_that_so wrote: »

It was the blanket approach to all activities. Gyms classes are more likely culprits as they tend to take place in very small spaces. The attention to gyms is down to their being a very popular indoor activity and indoor options are a more prominent factor in exercise at this time of year. As for cases here, I believe there was 1 case.

as per public policy - they should work on facts and stats not musings, theories and brain fart. But they are a shower of incompetents so I expect little

27-11-2020 11:41am

Based on NPHETs advice and actions over the last 6 weeks or so, I think it is safe to assume that Tony has no interest in the 5 level living with Covid plan?

He is more of a one trick pony. It seems to be lockdown hard until we get to 0 cases and then very reluctantly relax some restrictions.

The government are going to come under intense pressure to end this approach if we try lockdown again in January.

paw patrol · 27-11-2020 11:41am

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

Time limit = less time exposed to others, perhaps more turnover as more covers, but riskier for staff interacting with more groups per day.
No Time limit = more time exposed to others, perhaps less turnover with less covers, safer for staff interacting with lower number of possible infections.

Like everything in these restrictions, there's no correct answer, only balance with many variables.

or just let people make their own informed decision regarding their health
a bizarre concept I know....:rolleyes:

copeyhagen · 27-11-2020 11:43am

if they make it an hour, im sure a lot of people will GLADLY go to 5 pubs over 5 hours and spend the money on extra food that goes in the bin, just to get out. i know i will.

are they that ****ing stupid to not realise this. people want to socialise, we're humans, its part of our DNA. would it not be safer to sit in a pub for a few hours and have one meal, than going to 4 different pubds and seeing 4* the amount of contact.

no time limit, but have to buy food. or vice versa, would keep some happy.

Mitch Connor · 27-11-2020 11:43am

paw patrol wrote: »

or just let people make their own informed decision regarding their health
a bizarre concept I know....:rolleyes:

their health... what about the health of 'other people'?

seamus · 27-11-2020 11:46am

paw patrol wrote: »

If they wanted to fight covid they would encourage health living, regular exercise is important. Gyms do this.

That's debatable tbh. I don't see any reason why gyms should have more priority over astroturf soccer, or swimming, or yoga classes.

In all cases they're activites catering to a specific niche of interested users. While gyms can claim to be multi-sport, the only thing they uniquely offer access to is heavy weight lifting equipment, and the cost barrier to accessing a gym is very high.

So I see no justification for gyms specifically to get a special pass above any other exercise.

Mitch Connor · 27-11-2020 11:48am

Deleted User wrote: »

Based on NPHETs advice and actions over the last 6 weeks or so, I think it is safe to assume that Tony has no interest in the 5 level living with Covid plan?

He is more of a one trick pony. It seems to be lockdown hard until we get to 0 cases and then very reluctantly relax some restrictions.

The government are going to come under intense pressure to end this approach if we try lockdown again in January.

I think your opinion is very unlikely to be true.

But i do think it is true (and a problem) that we don't know what the targets actually are. What are the infection, positivity rates, case numbers and mortality numbers that drive the various decsions.

I can't think it true, at all, that NPHET are aiming for either Level 5 or 0 cases as you claim. But there has to be some number (or collection of numbers) that are being aimed at.

For example, we were told they hoped that case numbers would be 50 or lower after this lockdown. they aren't anywhere close to that so based on what they said and where we are... it isn't a suprise at all that NPHET isn't keen on massive restriction easing - as we are 5 to 6 times higher the case number than they aimed for.

But that is just one instance of having some idea what the government, and nphet, are aiming at.

John O.Groats · 27-11-2020 11:51am

Deleted User wrote: »

Based on NPHETs advice and actions over the last 6 weeks or so, I think it is safe to assume that Tony has no interest in the 5 level living with Covid plan?

He is more of a one trick pony. It seems to be lockdown hard until we get to 0 cases and then very reluctantly relax some restrictions.

The government are going to come under intense pressure to end this approach if we try lockdown again in January.

Another anti Holohan/NPHET comment by you. Surprise surprise (not).:rolleyes: Anyway level 5 restrictions will be reimposed by mid January maybe earlier than that. There is no question about it.

Mitch Connor · 27-11-2020 11:53am

John O.Groats wrote: »

Another anti holohan/NPHET comment by you. Surprise surprise (not).:rolleyes: Anyway level 5 restrictions will be reimposed by mid January maybe earlier than that. There is no question about it.

there absolutely is questions about that.

We have already heard the goverment is trying to keep restaurants open after this lockdown, amid the speculation there would be another L5 in January.

That, all on its own, raises doubt and questions about L5 being returned to in January.

ACitizenErased · 27-11-2020 11:54am

John O.Groats wrote: »

Another anti Holohan/NPHET comment by you. Surprise surprise (not).:rolleyes: Anyway level 5 restrictions will be reimposed by mid January maybe earlier than that. There is no question about it.

That's a massive assumption to make without taking into account vaccinations and you also assume that people are gonna go ballistic.

Plumbthedepths · 27-11-2020 11:55am

John O.Groats wrote: »

Another anti Holohan/NPHET comment by you. Surprise surprise (not).:rolleyes: Anyway level 5 restrictions will be reimposed by mid January maybe earlier than that. There is no question about it.

What makes you so confident in your assertion?soundings form government have stated once certain sectors reopen it will be permanently.

ElJeffe · 27-11-2020 11:56am

John O.Groats wrote: »

Another anti Holohan/NPHET comment by you. Surprise surprise (not).:rolleyes: Anyway level 5 restrictions will be reimposed by mid January maybe earlier than that. There is no question about it.

We will see a level 5 plus scenario from mid January onward if these rumours are true.

ACitizenErased · 27-11-2020 11:57am

ElJeffe wrote: »

We will see a level 5 plus scenario from mid January onward if these rumours are true.

What rumours? Tony, is that you?

Also, Plus????

KrustyUCC · 27-11-2020 11:58am

What's level 5+?

ACitizenErased · 27-11-2020 11:59am

KrustyUCC wrote: »

What's level 5+?

Welding the doors of peoples houses shut

John O.Groats · 27-11-2020 12:00pm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

What makes you so confident in your assertion?soundings form government have stated once certain sectors reopen it will be permanently.

You must have missed Leo`s comments the other day.

Plumbthedepths · 27-11-2020 12:01pm

ElJeffe wrote: »

We will see a level 5 plus scenario from mid January onward if these rumours are true.

What rumours? go on this should be entertaining.

eagle eye · 27-11-2020 12:02pm

ACitizenErased wrote:

What rumours? Tony, is that you?

You keep questioning everybody that sees cases rising.
Let's have your calculation method and number of cases projection for Christmas.

Plumbthedepths · 27-11-2020 12:02pm

John O.Groats wrote: »

You must have missed Leo`s comments the other day.

Leo says alot much of which is best kept in his head. His musings on northern travel restrictions have bit him in the ass. Slapped down by MM.

paw patrol · 27-11-2020 12:03pm

Mitch Connor wrote: »

their health... what about the health of 'other people'?

what "other people"? This is a Genuine question so bare with me.

Are you mixing with people whose attitude and adherence to the covid19 guidelines are unknown to you? Anybody i've met has been fully aware that I've been visiting others. I've had people avoid me too over my attitude (respectfully too so there is no issue)

If you are concerned about covid in the pub - avoid the pub.
If you are caring for granny and she is vulnerable - best avoid the pub.
and so forth....you get the picture...

You may argue that you'll meet strangers in a supermarket or while walking in the park but there is no evidence of any transmission in those settings. None. Don't forget the 15min rule for close contacts and if you are concerned over covid I'm sure you'll social distance.
Also the supermarket workers have been working solid all year with thousands of weekly contacts - but they aren't getting sick.

So where are you going to meet these "walking dead infection blasting "pub goers..? in the pub!!

or if you invite them to your home.
Control who you visit and hang out with like minded folk or nobody. that was common sense surely?

Remember too - these rules aren't to help save you from covid - it's to protect the HSE and hospitals , they aren't the same thing.

Let people live the lives they want to , personal freedoms are so important and it's shocking to see people happily throw them away cos of a virus that isn't the plague.

podgeandrodge · 27-11-2020 12:04pm

copeyhagen wrote: »

if they make it an hour, im sure a lot of people will GLADLY go to 5 pubs over 5 hours and spend the money on extra food that goes in the bin, just to get out. i know i will.

are they that ****ing stupid to not realise this. people want to socialise, we're humans, its part of our DNA. would it not be safer to sit in a pub for a few hours and have one meal, than going to 4 different pubds and seeing 4* the amount of contact.

no time limit, but have to buy food. or vice versa, would keep some happy.

Have to agree with some of this. If restricted to just over an hour, I will go to another pub with whoever I am with. You'll have more people moving around different locations. Hard to see how that will help. Will become a pub crawl.

Plumbthedepths · 27-11-2020 12:04pm

KrustyUCC wrote: »

What's level 5+?

A windup attempt would be my guess.

eagle eye · 27-11-2020 12:07pm

paw patrol wrote:

Let people live the lives they want to , personal freedoms are so important and it's shocking to see people happily throw them away cos of a virus that isn't the plague.

So what about people who are working and don't want to be around people going to places like pubs and the likes? Are they supposed to give up their jobs?

seamus · 27-11-2020 12:07pm

Well, this is unexpected.

Yesterday's swab data has been revised.

The number of positive swabs is the same, but the number of tests has been increaed by 50%.

There were 12,439 tests carried out yesterday, 271 positive, giving a p-rate of 2.18%. 7-day rate is now down to 2.65%

So what was confusing and slightly worrying, is now in fact excellent news.

is_that_so · 27-11-2020 12:09pm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Leo says alot much of which is best kept in his head. His musings on northern travel restrictions have bit him in the ass. Slapped down by MM.

Yeah but he's floated the advance warning and it is generally assumed/accepted there will be a reversal of restrictions at some point in the new year, depending on how cases go over the Christmas period. Stable numbers will not automatically trigger higher restrictions.

ACitizenErased · 27-11-2020 12:10pm

eagle eye wrote: »

You keep questioning everybody that sees cases rising.
Let's have your calculation method and number of cases projection for Christmas.

I have a conscience so I'm not going to make predictions for everyone's Christmas on here. If you wanna PM me I'd be happy to provide a solution and teaching moment :pac:

ACitizenErased · 27-11-2020 12:10pm

seamus wrote: »

Well, this is unexpected.

Yesterday's swab data has been revised.

The number of positive swabs is the same, but the number of tests has been increaed by 50%.

There were 12,439 tests carried out yesterday, 271 positive, giving a p-rate of 2.18%. 7-day rate is now down to 2.65%

So what was confusing and slightly worrying, is now in fact excellent news.

Ah ffs thats brilliant. Jesus, knew it looked off.

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

Comments