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

ah well done everyone , great to see people can see they have some power to get ourselves out of this. like i said we all have the power, start calling people /media/politicans out on scaremongering. like even ringing , duffy, tubridy or darcy and then letting them have both barrellls , i believe they are of low moral standing and will jump ship off the doom and gloom if they see the public have it in for them. theres two things politcans and media love is being popular and getting moral high ground. so when they are attacked they will run for cover they hate being called out or that their position is under threat. We need to make them know their position is under threat by their current actions be that a slot on prime time tv or their Dail seat. when they see the tide turning against them then you will see a change

Silentcorner wrote: »

What is killing old people is social isolation, just been to a funeral this week of such a case.

Keeping the elderly away from their families, grandkids and social outlets is deranged, doing the similar to our kids is as bad.

We need to take the simple things in life back from the ridiculous over reach of the state, pay no attention to the curtain twitchers who have swallowed the hysteria whole and are happy to live their own sad lives indoors!

It is deranged, and very cruel. Someone living their final few months denied ever seeing loved ones again. How is that keeping them safe?

Windmill100000 wrote: »

I see what you mean. But with shops, gyms, pubs etc remaining closed and checkpoints in place there is only so much normal living people can do.

The number of cases determine lockdown. The government is not going to say anything about opening up by a certain time, i.e summer, because there is no guarantee they will.

If they said we will be open by summer and then it didnt happen because case numbers remained high, what would you be saying then?

March 5 was only ever a guide and with numbers still above 1000 per day now it was always going to be extended.

Dates are stupid. We need numbers

NO TEST NO CASE

ypres5 wrote: »

surely it would make more sense for oecd countries to come to a resolution on travel once their populations have been sufficiently vaccinated than waiting on countries without the infrastructure or desire to mass vaccinate to do so. this is a serious shift of the goalposts

Since the first vaccine was approved there's been a constant shift in the end goal. Before that we were all told a vaccine will get us away from restrictions and back to normal. Once we get the vulnerable vaccinated we can start easing restrictions. Oh, wait, we need 60% vaccinated before easing. Actually it's not 60% needs to be 80%. VARIANTS!!!!! Right we can't ease anything until the whole world is vaccinated.

It's complete and utter madness at this stage.

Dickie10 wrote: »

if people stop getting teted unless they are sick then numbers come down, perhaps a social movement could be started that way

No need for mass testing. The test and trace has completely failed at every turn. If you have a sore throat, runny nose, or stubbed toe just stay at home until the symptoms pass. No need for a test, it doesn't change anything anyway. The aul 999 is still available if you feel you really need it.

Christ, this crack of ringing a doctor for the slightest little thing is bananas.

gmisk wrote: »

What the big deal with wearing a mask in a shop?
What your logic with that?

I am 100 percent with the shop for throwing you out well done.

Well done them too tbh.
I am very polite always unless I've grounds to not be . I thanked her for her time and left.
Why i don't wear a mask? That's a massive debate tbh which will touch on :

• my beliefs in individual agency over my own body
• how effective masks actually are (not!)
• Can somebody catch it in an open setting like a supermarket (No)
• The covid plan by the state is it competent and clear?

and so forth - we could debate for 3 hours on it

and of course, for readers of the IT or Journal.ie - I'm also far right :pac:

There is an argument that I should wear a mask even if ineffective to put others at ease. But another's fear shouldn't dictate how I lead my life.

Nobody meets me (my house or theirs) or the beach/park that doesn't know my covid risk attitude. I'm very open about what I do (and my wife/kids too).

To people reading this ,
Always stand up for your beliefs and don't bow down just cos you are in a minority or the rabble attack you. That type of obedience isn't good for society which we have seen in the past. If you don't speak out it becomes the emperors new clothes.

SnuggyBear wrote: »

I don't think he really cares that you are 100 percent with the shop

You'd be right.

Windmill100000 wrote: »

I see what you mean. But with shops, gyms, pubs etc remaining closed and checkpoints in place there is only so much normal living people can do.

The number of cases determine lockdown. The government is not going to say anything about opening up by a certain time, i.e summer, because there is no guarantee they will.

If they said we will be open by summer and then it didnt happen because case numbers remained high, what would you be saying then?

March 5 was only ever a guide and with numbers still above 1000 per day now it was always going to be extended.

All very good points but what are the numbers required? That's the frustrating part, we have absolutely no idea.

JRant wrote: »

All very good points but what are the numbers required? That's the frustrating part, we have absolutely no idea.

‘As low as possible’ is all we are ever told.
They are clueless.

We’ve already seen that Hospital and ICU numbers come down when we are getting 1000-2000 cases per day so I don’t understand why we are not ina position to ease things a little right now.

Most people only want to see a bit of flexibility and hope. Little things like easing the 5k distance and opening golf courses would do a lot for morale while having no negative effect on the numbers.

Dickie10 wrote: »

if people stop getting teted unless they are sick then numbers come down, perhaps a social movement could be started that way

So you think a social movement should be started for people not to be tested for the virus so that numbers falsely appear to come down? Exactly what planet are you living on? Total nonsense.

Kunta Kinte wrote: »

So you think a social movement should be started for people not to be tested for the virus so that numbers falsely appear to come down? Exactly what planet are you living on? Total nonsense.

The messaging has been all wrong for a long time now. If someone has any of the symptoms, then stay home until they go. It's that simple.

Having a test makes absolutely no difference to that person until they present with symptoms that requie medical attention. At that point they'll be given a test regardless.

Tell me, what difference does it make knowing whether somebody sitting at home for 2 weeks isolating has on anything? I'm all ears because by their own admission the test and trace isn't worth a damn and doesn't even go back far enough to tell us anything worthwhile anyway.

Deleted User wrote: »

Why are you sticking to the 5k?If its affecting you mentally go outside the 5k. I havent stuck to the 5k when i am exercising and dont intend to anytime soon. I find it great mentally when you can get out for a 15 or 20k run

"Exercise" being your cover story when you are going to the local shebeen with your pals like you were crowing about up to the Christmas/New Year period anyway ?

Windmill100000 wrote: »

I wish I knew as well. I know circa 1000 daily cases will see nothing change at any rate. I also think there is going to be extreme caution after Christmas.

I agree it would be very helpful to have a statement that x number of cases for a consistent period of x weeks will result in relaxation of restrictions. I imagine that to be followed by a clause that a significant increase in cases upon re-opening may change things.

I'd go one step further and say the numbers required should be an absolute necessity rather than just hoping for them. Not only for easing of restrictions but what they would be for increasing as well.