nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

FF/FG/Green Government - part 2

Beasty

Following on from this thread

Threadbans carry over

Please remain civil or posting privileges will be removed

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Cases of covid well down today, less than 1400.
Too many still I know.
But it puts the quarentine issue in perspective perhaps as but a small part in the fight.
It looks likely that domestic movement and restrictions are 99% of the battle.
A bit of self discipline rather than blaming everybody else seems to be the order of the day.

At what point do you place 'responsibility and disipline' on those elected to govern?

We had the cases down in the 10's before. It happens if you lockdown.

McMurphy

Interesting choice of language from O'Callaghan.

When. Not "if", but when.

https://twitter.com/OCallaghanJim/status/1353393238959386627?s=09

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

At what point do you place 'responsibility and disipline' on those elected to govern?

We had the cases down in the 10's before. It happens if you lockdown.

If we get it down again the electorate will be screaming for opening up again too.
Its a difficult thing to justify lockdown if the disease is low too.
Every country in the world is looking for low numbers to get opened up again, that's the way its been so far, maybe with the vaccine and roll out, this time extending the lockdown on despite lower numbers could be justified perhaps.

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

If we get it down again the electorate will be screaming for opening up again too.
Its a difficult thing to justify lockdown if the disease is low too.
Every country in the world is looking for low numbers to get opened up again, that's the way its been so far, maybe with the vaccine and roll out, this time extending the lockdown on despite lower numbers could be justified perhaps.

See the ESRI poll last time. People wanted more restrictions.

[Deleted User]

Bishop of hope wrote: »

If we get it down again the electorate will be screaming for opening up again too.
Its a difficult thing to justify lockdown if the disease is low too.
Every country in the world is looking for low numbers to get opened up again, that's the way its been so far, maybe with the vaccine and roll out, this time extending the lockdown on despite lower numbers could be justified perhaps.

surely we should go back to nphet plan with the reopening from last summer (along with quaratines)....their modeling has been nearly bang-on for all the pandemic

Make this the last lockdown imo,that tearing it up nphet plan last summer was one of worst political mistakes,made since bank bailouts...we,'ve been on the backfoot since as regards community transmission since

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

See the ESRI poll last time. People wanted more restrictions.

What time is that Francie, before Xmas or after?

smurgen

Bishop of hope wrote: »

If we get it down again the electorate will be screaming for opening up again too.
Its a difficult thing to justify lockdown if the disease is low too.
Every country in the world is looking for low numbers to get opened up again, that's the way its been so far, maybe with the vaccine and roll out, this time extending the lockdown on despite lower numbers could be justified perhaps.

Can you blame them? Three extreme lockdowns down to 5km as a result of government policy. People are battle weary. They've done all they could.

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

What time is that Francie, before Xmas or after?

Before. The public have responded in the main to lockdowns Bish. Incontrovertible fact, they have brought the numbers down each time.

[Deleted User]

smurgen wrote: »

Can you blame them? Three extreme lockdowns down to 5km as a result of government policy. People are battle weary. They've done all they could.

Ya, right. Then why did numbers rise so sharply after Christmas?

Bishop of hope

smurgen wrote: »

Can you blame them? Three extreme lockdowns down to 5km as a result of government policy. People are battle weary. They've done all they could.

What do you mean as a, result of govt policy?
I'm not sure how you qualify that statement as it seems everytime we come out of any level of lockdown the numbers go up.
So you're probably suggesting that we should have been in permanent level 5 lockdown?
If not I don't get your point and if we were would people not be well battle weary?

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Ya, right. Then why did numbers rise so sharply after Christmas?

Because the public were told it was ok to use hospitality and to mix at home. Now those who support FG and FF and the Greens want to blame them when FG and FF and the Greens ignored the expert advice and opened both.

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because the public were told it was ok to use hospitality and to mix at home. Now those who support FG and FF and the Greens want to blame them when FG and FF and the Greens ignored the expert advice and opened both.

You mentioned a poll on this, can you link it.
People wanted tighter restrictions for xmas?

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

You mentioned a poll on this, can you link it.
People wanted tighter restrictions for xmas?

I didn't say specifically for Christmas.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/most-people-want-more-not-fewer-restrictions-survey-shows-esri-expert-1.4372433

The public have complied with restrictions when they have to, in the main which suggests to me the ESRI are right.

I wasn't aware of any polling done that showed the public 'screaming' for restrictions to be lifted. Can you back up what you said?

smurgen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ya, right. Then why did numbers rise so sharply after Christmas?

I'll come back to ya when you come back on my post at 16.06. you seem to have an awful problem answering questions.

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't say specifically for Christmas.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/most-people-want-more-not-fewer-restrictions-survey-shows-esri-expert-1.4372433

The public have complied with restrictions when they have to, in the main which suggests to me the ESRI are right.

I wasn't aware of any polling done that showed the public 'screaming' for restrictions to be lifted. Can you back up what you said?

There was a poll in the journal. If you can't see the result you might have to vote in it.
But it was roughly 58% to 42% either in favour of the suggested Xmas restrictions or looser or going to do their own thing one way or another.
Thats along with my astute streetwise knowledge.

https://www.thejournal.ie/poll-happy-with-christmas-covid-restrictions-5301310-Dec2020/

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

There was a poll in the journal. If you can't see the result you might have to vote in it.
But it was roughly 58% to 42% either in favour of the suggested Xmas restrictions or looser or going to do their own thing one way or another.
Thats along with my astute streetwise knowledge.

https://www.thejournal.ie/poll-happy-with-christmas-covid-restrictions-5301310-Dec2020/

42.9% (the majority) say the restrictions are 'too loose'.

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

42.9% (the majority) say the restrictions are 'too loose'.

It's grown?
42.3 isn't 42.9.
57.7 either agreed with it were going to do their own thing anyway or thought they were to strict.
To me that's a 15.4 majority who were against tighter restrictions for xmas lockdown.
Maybe you got confused like SF supporters after the election and thought your share of the vote was a majority in the Dáil.
I know, you guys get confused a lot.

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

It's grown?
42.3 isn't 42.9.
57.7 either agreed with it were going to do their own thing anyway or thought they were to strict.
To me that's a 15.4 majority who were against tighter restrictions for xmas lockdown.
Maybe you got confused like SF supporters after the election and thought your share of the vote was a majority in the Dáil.
I know, you guys get confused a lot.

I think it is you who are confused or you were lying about people 'screaming' for easing of restrictions.

And no, deflecting to SF will not cover your ass on that one.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

42.9% (the majority) say the restrictions are 'too loose'.

42.9% is only a majority in Trump and SF land. For the rest of us, 50% plus one vote is a majority.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

42.9% is only a majority in Trump and SF land. For the rest of us, 50% plus one vote is a majority.

'the' majority in that poll blanch. Dear lord, you people. :rolleyes:

McMurphy

Bishop of hope wrote: »

It's grown?
42.3 isn't 42.9.
57.7 either agreed with it were going to do their own thing anyway or thought they were to strict.
To me that's a 15.4 majority who were against tighter restrictions for xmas lockdown.
Maybe you got confused like SF supporters after the election and thought your share of the vote was a majority in the Dáil.
I know, you guys get confused a lot.

That's certainly one way for you to make the poll say whatever you want it to say

However, the little problem there is that by your standards, the poll was loaded anyway, 3/4 options available essentially meant the same thing in your mind.

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think it is you who are confused or you were lying about people 'screaming' for easing of restrictions.

And no, deflecting to SF will not cover your ass on that one.

The majority were, nó deflecting the figures.
You put up schmaltz about a poll, didn't back it up or show any data for it.
Caught out with fake news again.
I seen one with references towards a stricter lockdown in early october. But we got tighter restrictions after that and that was likely because people wanted figures brought down so they could have at least a relatively normal Xmas.

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

The majority were, nó deflecting the figures.
You put up schmaltz about a poll, didn't back it up or show any data for it.
Caught out with fake news again.
I seen one with references towards a stricter lockdown in early october. But we got tighter restrictions after that and that was likely because people wanted figures brought down so they could have at least a relatively normal Xmas.

Ridiculous. You were caught out Bish.

Bishop of hope

McMurphy wrote: »

That's certainly one way for you to make the poll say whatever you want it to say

However, the little problem there is that by your standards, the poll was loaded anyway, 3/4 options available essentially meant the same thing in your mind.

Oh sorry, I put up figures backing my claim.
Put up some backing the other and I'll agree we have a conflict worth arguing on.

FrancieBrady

McMurphy wrote: »

That's certainly one way for you to make the poll say whatever you want it to say

However, the little problem there is that by your standards, the poll was loaded anyway, 3/4 options available essentially meant the same thing in your mind.

And none of them back up the 'screaming' lie in order to blame the people.

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ridiculous. You were caught out Bish.

Put up your poll Francie.
When you do I'll come back to you, otherwise I'll leave it there.

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Oh sorry, I put up figures backing my claim.
Put up some backing the other and I'll agree we have a conflict worth arguing on.

You were asked to back up your 'screaming' remark. You failed.

McMurphy

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Oh sorry, I put up figures backing my claim.
Put up some backing the other and I'll agree we have a conflict worth arguing on.

The figures are there on the website, the figures that chose the option saying they thought the restrictions were too loose had more people choosing that option than any other.

If those figures represented seats in a council, they'd have the largest share of seats, ie the majority.

Are you really going to argue that?

smurgen

How in God's name did michael Martin think they dodged a bullet on Covid? Looking at the reports of medical professionals on the front line it seems totally ad odds to what FFG ministers are saying.

https://twitter.com/boland_ronan/status/1353291553272455168?s=19

[Deleted User]

smurgen wrote: »

How in God's name did michael Martin think they dodged a bullet on Covid? Looking at the reports of medical professionals on the front line it seems totally ad odds to what FFG ministers are saying.

https://twitter.com/boland_ronan/status/1353291553272455168?s=19

The important words are “please stay at home”