Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VIII *Read OP For Mod Warnings*

SheepsClothing wrote: »

They figured out that if you flatten the curve insufficiently, when you open up, your curve quickly goes to **** again, leaving you back where you started. You have to crush it.

Impossible to crush something that is endemic

darconio wrote: »

When Leo is proclaiming that we won't be able to travel for another year what does that sound to you if not like a forced lockdown on our existence?

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/tanaiste-mandatory-quarantine-not-ruled-out-but-if-brought-in-will-probably-be-for-a-year-40010937.html

Well it seems that the majority wouldn't be bothered and for that I rest my case about trying to reason a viable compromise.

Not being able to go were I want when I want is comparable to being locked in a cage: sometimes they let the door open but we are on a very short leash. I regret I didn't fly to visit my family when I had the opportunity because I wanted to be compliant: as a token of appreciation we are now told that I won't be able to do so probably for another 12 months.

Except Leo didn't say that. You'll be able to travel but there will be a mandatory quarantine. They're still 'ifs', 'buts' and 'maybes' though.

If foreign travel is off this year, please open the pubs!

TomSweeney wrote: »

so another year I won't see my parents or

Thanks Leo

I don't know what you are thanking Leo for, the Irish ports and borders have been open.

Lad on here went to Lanza a couple of weeks ago.

DeanAustin wrote: »

My original post was talking about the conspiracy theory stuff whereby people think governments are using Covid to strip away freedoms with a view to never giving them back. That's nonsense for the reasons I've outlined.

The rest of what you've said is fair enough. But it's still politicians trying to manage the narrative that what they are doing (i.e. minimising deaths/cases) is the right thing so that they find favour with the public and get votes next time we go to the ballot box. That's always the end game for politicians - "how do we get as many votes as possible in the next election" rather than "how can we remove everyone's freedom and rule the country without the inconvenience of an election."

The government has set their stall out clearly on covid. Their stated priority is minimising cases and saving lives above everything else. That's their guiding principle so what you've outlined is them being consistent with that aim. The approach is also logical and is being followed by other governments around the world. You can disagree with it but it's a very logical strategy to pursue.

If there is an alternative way to manage this crisis, it's up to the media and the opposition to put that forward. It's not the government's job to challenge their own strategy once they've decided on it.

I sometimes think people think that there is a solution to this crisis. "If only the government did x, things would be much better and this problem would go away." There isn't. Without a vaccine, we're just moving deckchairs around the Titanic. Personally, I think the government have done a decent job - they're managing an impossible situation.

That’s all very reasonable, and your point is a very sincere and well-expressed one.

We do seem to come to a similar meeting point however — even if our thought process for getting there differs — in that we both acknowledge a motivation on the part of politicians to get votes and (ergo) save their own careers. So it leads us, I would imagine, to a similar place where we can both say that it’s within the realms of reason that politicians in this country are susceptible to making decisions on the Covid crisis that they may deem to be the right ones for saving their reputations, rather than out of any burning desire to save lives.

My view on the Covid strategy has been, since the beginning really, that Ireland has particular demographic, geographic and cultural advantages that would allow us to push our risk tolerance upwards. People got scared by Italy — and there were not many taking a step back and asking “what is the actual data From Italy telling us?”. I mean, I spent a large portion of March and early April arguing with people that the virus did not pose a significant threats to young people — and there was still an attitude among many at that stage that the virus was so broadly severe that it could cripple society entirely by also striking down the young and economically active.

The measures we took in the early days were deemed commensurate and proportional to a far greater risk — and time has shown that while Covid is to be taken extremely seriously in its potential to place severe strain on the health service — it is not quite at the level of existential threat to society that was once feared (think the 96,000 Covid deaths by July an academic study in Sweden predicted, when in reality they had 96,000 total deaths by all causes for the entire year of 2020).

But as I have said many times, acknowledging this reality and advocating a ramping-up of our risk tolerance requires people in high offices to risk their reputations and the destruction of their careers. Elevating the risk tolerance means elevated deaths and probably a period of health severe service strain — and those who advocate it will in time be destroyed for it. They are done essentially. So it’s much safer to say “the current strategy saves lives” because that’s a fairly bullet-proof moral standpoint, or alternatively it’s also kind of easy to say “if we were to change tactic it should be NZ style”, which is also pretty morally watertight. Defending a policy of upping the risk tolerance is a much more nuanced stance, where you have to say some pretty uncomfortable things and be ready to face the barrage for saying it.

froog wrote: »

i said lockdowns around the world probably prevented 20-50 million deaths. why do you keep misquoting me on that? very childish.

But yet those nations who didn’t lockdown didn’t have any more excess than those nations who did.


Let’s ignore that though, your imaginary figures are really patriotic

francogarbanzo wrote: »

I imagine that keeping an entire country confined to their homes for most of a year with no clear path forward is a good policy.

No one, at any stage, has been confined to their homes.

Penfailed wrote: »

No one, at any stage, has been confined to their homes.

Absolutely correct although going by some on here you would think the whole country has been sealed Wuhan style in their homes. Typical of the usual nonsense spewed out by the permanently outraged cohort.

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

But yet those nations who didn’t lockdown didn’t have any more excess than those nations who did.


Let’s ignore that though, your imaginary figures are really patriotic

oh yeah?

Boggles wrote: »

The High Court says no. But for some reason you want my opinion?

Like I suggested you are free to take a case. Print off your quotes and head on in there.

Noted.

Some good news from abroad, Map shows Polish businesses reopening in defiance of “illegal” lockdown, glad to see good few court cases won

https://notesfrompoland.com/2021/01/15/map-shows-polish-businesses-reopening-in-defiance-of-illegal-lockdown/

froog wrote: »

oh yeah?

I am not dismissing this but you need to give a little context.
Like what is blue and what is red and most importantly in 'excess' to what exactly? 2019? An average of something?

Also mortality tables and excess deaths is measured over a year.

Kunta Kinte wrote: »

I suppose somebody can quote Artice 30 to the Garda all they want. It will at least pass a few minutes while the Garda is taking details before issuing them with the increased 500 euro fine for breach of the travel regulations.

And do you think that's in violation of the UN Human Rights Declaration? If not, why not?