Covid restrictions breech

looksee wrote: »

While sadly a large number of people have died of covid who would not otherwise have died, the main issue with the disease, and the real reason for the lockdown, is the impact on medical services. This has become obvious in a few countries that have not been as cautious as they should - Brazil is overwhelmed, quite literally, because the President refuses to deal with the situation. Italy, the US, the UK are all under very severe pressure as they run out of ICU beds.

This is all just theoretical until you have a relative, or yourself, who needs urgent hospital treatment but there is no bed for them, or the staff is under huge pressure because so many are off sick with Covid. Imagine turning up at A&E with a relative with, say, severe chest pains, nothing to do with Covid, and they can do no more than have them sit in a chair or lie on a trolley for days because there are no beds.

Ireland is not too badly off - Limerick hospital is all but overwhelmed https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/munster/arid-40207136.html at the moment. Fortunately, because of the lockdown and insistence on masks there are places in other hospitals, provided the patient is well enough to make the journey.

This is happening now. Anything at all that keeps the situation under some sort of control is worth doing and it would be hoped that all right minded people would be willing to make the sacrifices that might save someone else's life. This is a time for looking beyond one's own wants and wishes and aim for the greater good.

Do you think there might ever be a time where the "greater good" is to allow the vast majority, who would not die from this virus, to get on with their lives?

As time goes on, the damage that restrictions do to people, the loss of jobs, the stress on marriages, the falling behind on mortgages, the stunted social development of children, the loneliness, the mental health breakdowns, people (especially women in their thirties) not being able to find partners, all of this misery does accumulate and compound. I don't think we are there yet, but I can foresee a time, particularly if the vaccine rollout does not increase, or variants render it ineffective, that the balancing of rights will tip towards ending lockdowns.

I find this case in Cavan quite bizarre, as if Fr Hughes just went into the church with people there and sat down it is not "illegal" and is deemed acceptable under restrictions, but because he stood up and says Mass it is unacceptably dangerous. It does not make sense.

Hopefully this terrible experience will prompt an increase in funding and capacity of hospitals to cope with future viruses, as the "no beds" scenario you describe was very common even before Covid.

smacl wrote: »

Off topic, but what exactly is the significance of women in their 30s not being able to find partners? Seems rather specific.

I was having this conversation with some female friends recently, if you were single at the start of this crisis by the time it is over, by an optimistic reckoning, there will have been an 18 month window where you would have been unable to pursue a meaningful relationship, unless you decided to break the law and restrictions and put selfish considerations above the common good.

This is obviously not an ideal scenario for anyone. In your twenties you might view it as being really crap, but not disastrous. However, if you are a woman who wishes to have children (as the vast majority of people do) and were aged around 35 (already considered as being of "advanced maternal age" or geriatric as it used, rather unkindly, to be called!) at the start of this crisis (a common age for people want to "settle down". Around 32 is the average age for having a first child in Ireland, many more career orientated people can be a few years older, having concentrated on establishing a career) it is far more stressful. If you allow an average of 18 months to two years from initial relationship to deciding to have children/buy a house together etc. it is clear that in the context of the 'biological clock' this "freeze" of socializing can have a far more severe impact for women of this mindset and age, than for a younger or older woman, or for a man. Now hopefully it will all work out grand for everyone when this is over, it is stressful for everyone, but I can see how this must be particularly stressful for some women especially.

In my conversation with friends I referred to, it was underlined that the "biological clock" can be a significant cause of stress for people in any scenario, but having 18 months locked at home certainly compounds this. I hope this adequately explains what I meant... it is important, I feel, to be mindful that what might be an inconvenience, or really annoying for some, can be far more impactful for others because of their circumstances. My friends reminded me of this when I said that, aside from being annoying, it didn't really hurt me that pubs and restaurants are shut, which prompted the conversation about this!

smacl wrote: »

I guessed that might be the reason but it struck me as a bit odd.Most couples I know would be together for a few years at least before making the decision to have children. I take your point that the stresses of isolation play out very differently for different people. Of those I'm talking to, my sympathies would go more to single elderly folk and those in apartment living with young kids. For the former who are religiously inclined, I do entirely accept the burden of being unable to attend mass in person, where it may be their primary social outlet and they may struggle with zoom which really doesn't provide much of a substitute. In my opinion, this is considerably more important than hairdressers, pubs and GAA fixtures. As a society we seem to struggle to collectively help those most in need in times such as these and quickly fall back to looking after number one.

I think this crisis has shown up many of the downsides of city living, apartments are tough at the best of times. Regarding helping people, I think if it was any other disaster, be it flooding or whatever, people would help each other far more as they would be able to meet. With older people especially you can't meet them out of worry you might give them the virus. At the start of the virus I decided to move in with my parents who are vulnerable, otherwise I would not be able to see/help them. I had hoped it would only be a few weeks! It's just so insidious, the normal actions of communal solidarity would just make things worse. It is bizarre we are now 12 months on from the outbreak, over the weekend I realized that I have been out of my house for longer than 6 hours only one day over the past 12 months, and that was to go into the office which being empty, had a sort of post apocalyptic feel. I'm lucky in that my employment has been unaffected and I am working from home, had I lost my job and had money worries etc. on top of this I think I would go insane so I feel very sorry for the many people who have it worse.

The ban on Mass has been overturned in Scotland, pretty much on the basis of similar arguments to what I have been posting in this thread. Most certainly will have relevance for the situation here:

Lord Braid stated in his decision:”I have concluded that the Regulations … constitute a disproportionate interference with the Article 9 right of the petitioners and others. As such, they are beyond the legislative competence of the respondents.”

He added: “ The Regulations are also a disproportionate interference with the petitioners’ and additional party’s constitutional rights.”

He also rejected the government’s argument that congregations could simply worship online.

"While some people may derive some benefit from being able to observe on-line services, it is undeniable that certain aspects of certain faiths simply cannot take place, at all, under the current legislative regime," he said.

“It is impossible to measure the effect of those restrictions on those who hold religious beliefs. It goes beyond mere loss of companionship and an inability to attend a lunch club.

"The fact that the regulations are backed by criminal sanctions is also a relevant consideration...

...He said the government had “paid lip service” to Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.”

Lord Braid said there was “no evidence that they [the government] have accorded it the importance which such a fundamental right deserves.”

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/priest-wins-legal-fight-as-covid-ban-on-worship-ruled-unlawful-3176715

This might interest some here, a protestant pastor is to be prosecuted:

A non-denominational Christian pastor has been given a prosecution notice and threatened with up to six months in prison by Gardaí for opening her church on Easter Sunday.

Pastor Sharon Perry of the Abundant Grace Christian Assembly in Ringsend, Dublin, said her congregation were upset and anxious after Gardaí took action when she opened her church during the Level 5 restrictions.

“On Easter Sunday the Gardai set up checkpoints all around our church building,” the Pastor said. “The officers stopped each person coming to the church, they were questioned and had their personal details taken. This was extremely upsetting, indeed frightening, for many. They were told they were committing an offence, but then allowed to enter the building.

“We were very glad to be able to celebrate the resurrection of our wonderful Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, as is our constitutional right. However, not knowing if they were going to come in again and arrest everyone did put a strain on what should have been the highlight of our Christian calendar.”

https://gript.ie/irish-pastor-given-prosecution-notice-for-easter-service-facing-6-months-in-jail/

Perhaps some protestant brothers or sisters here might elaborate on whether physical communal worship is theologically necessary in their denominations? (I know it is not in the same way as it is for Catholics, but I'm wondering if it is in other ways).

There was a time that the respectable left would have decried the elevation of capitalist enterprise above individual and civil liberties. Yet this has been championed, even among the Irish Stalinists who tend to be more considered in their utterances than their erstwhile more reactionary trotskyite cousins.

In any case, I am surprised that some don't seem to understand that the unnecessary severity, and in particular the nonsensical inconsistencies, of the Irish lockdown, along with there being little in the way of a logical and transparent plan for exiting it, are more likely to result in people abandoning restrictions wholesale. Unfortunately, reasoned dislike for particular unnecessary restrictions ends up being parlayed into opposition to lockdown in its entirety. Should reasoned concern about aspects of the lockdown be addressed, lockdown would maintain support. We have seen recently that the government can do this when they feel like it, such as the change to allow the sale of children's shoes. Just look at the "most thanked" posts on this site daily - the majority of which are either advocating or celebrating breach of lockdown (none appear to be actioned by moderators incidentally), a considerable ways beyond what I have asked for here to be changed regarding restrictions. People are chucking them in because the rationale has not been explained, never mind justified, by the government.

The Irish people have been treated with contempt, with no detailed explanation of the rationale for restrictions. Today it is not safe to cycle 6km, but next week 20km is fine. When I advocated that the ban on public worship should be eased, I was asked home many people I was happy to have die in order for this to happen. Where are these people today? Why are they not asking how many dead people the Zoo is worth? Or 20km travel is worth? Or inter-county GAA? Or 25 people at a funeral? The govt do not have the respect for the people to be honest with us - we all know that the reason schools are open is basically because the govt have decided that they are so important they are worth the risk. That's fair enough, but they have not told us that, instead they have persevered all along with the lie that schools are safe. They were perfectly safe we were told, until they were not. Now they are safe again. This is what the government have said.

We have seen nothing in the way of evidence to say that public worship, with limited numbers, wearing masks, socially distanced, is incompatible with, or would fatally undermine the efficacy of lockdowns. This is needed when a fundamental human right is being denied, especially when the restriction is out of kilter with how the rest of the world are doing things. I can go queue up a meter apart from the next people in the queue for twenty mins for a take away pint, or go into a coffee shop and get a coffee, this is safe supposedly. But if I go, along with 20 or 30 others into a 2500 capacity cavernous church and sit far away from everyone else, this is deadly. If the priest in full PPE hands me communion this is deadly (supposedly). If I give him a tenner for it and call it take away food that makes it safe? Or call the blood of Christ a cup of take away wine?

It now is the case that activities that would appear riskier, are again to be allowed before public worship - but we are told by the government that sectors are not being put above or below others - nonsense. Fair enough if the govt think certain areas are more or less important, why not tell us that, and explain why?

My prediction is that come the slight easing of restrictions people will largely abandon them. I think most people (not me mind) already have abandoned large portions of the rules. This will be the governments fault for making a bags of things.

smacl wrote: »

Not sure how many Irish people from anywhere in the political spectrum would refer to themselves as Stalinists, or even Trotskyites for that matter. Bandying around terms such these comes across as derogatory rhetoric which says rather more about the person using them than those they're referring to.

:pac::pac: You obviously don't know many, getting falsely offended on behalf of someone else is always amusing. I know lots of these people, although I was always more in the socialist republican camp myself, but maintained friendships with others on the left, the Communists were always good for a chat and were sound on the national question. The marxist leninists would have little issue with me describing them as stalinists, although they would more often ironically refer to themselves as 'tankies'. The other wing of the extreme left have no issue with being associated with Trotsky, far from it. I was making an observation about the actions of this specific cohort of the left.

The lockdown rules are blunt for the simple reason of pragmatism. Yes, you might argue that mass should be excepted, or cycling beyond 5k should be excepted, or as in your previous post, women over the age of 35 looking to start a family might be excepted. What you'd quickly realise is that there are thousands of exceptions to lockdown you could argue, but in doing so we'd have a lockdown that would be complex and time consuming to both implement and police. Out of necessity, it cannot be any of these things and is often unfair as a result. As per my previous post though, it is important not to confuse unfair with unnecessary and I take serious issue with those looking to gain advantage from that confusion. It is all too easy to point out the many mistakes our government has made, particularly from a position where one is not responsible for making important decisions nor the attendant outcome. I would imagine that if some of the commentators from Gript were running this country we would be in a situation closer to that of Brazil than where we are now.

I neither know, nor care about what commentators from Gript would do if in power. What is any of that to do with me?

You are wildly speculating here, because the government have not given the rationale you have for the restrictions. But, even taking what you said, the government HAVE made exceptions for certain things. The zoo among them, and a whole bunch of other things. But the government have said that they are expressly not doing this, making exceptions, rather the specific restrictions are based on the scientific/safety grounds.

Why do you not think that the government should have to demonstrate that specific restrictions are necessary, especially when the restrictions are a ways above and beyond what other countries have done? The fact is, that there are many restrictions that it has not been demonstrated that they are necessary. Because the government say so, it does not mean that they are. Luckily we live in a democratic country where it is the responsibility of citizens to scruitinise and hold to account the actions of elected representatives.

I think the Irish public have, for the most part, acquitted themselves excellently and will continue to do so to the very best of their ability. I find anti-lockdown, anti-masking and anti-vaccine activism seeking to undermine this largely for reasons of self interest to be morally reprehensible. We are in the process of rolling out a vaccine and the worst effects of this pandemic are nearing an end. Any actions leading to additional unnecessary deaths at this stage are to be avoided.

Very well, so the restrictions should not be relaxed then on April 12th? How many additional unnecessary deaths is you or I cycling 15km worth, or going to the zoo? And if you say to me that there is no evidence that these will lead to unnecessary deaths, are you saying the deaths are necessary? Or if you are arguing that they won't lead to deaths at all, they why is this standard not applied to other things too?

And "anti mask, anti vaccine etc" why are you saying this to me?

smacl wrote: »

Unless you can actually point to a current Irish group that refer to themselves as Stalinists it is about as useful as talking about Irish fascists and then going on to discuss those more generally on the right in this country. I'm well aware of the history of the Irish Communist party but I've only ever seen the label Stalinist used in the derogatory sense. Are you aware of any current Irish group that refer to themselves as Stalinist?

This is getting quite odd. Are you yourself a marxist leninist taking offense at being referred to as a Stalinist? Why are you being so sensitive to their possible offense? Even if they would view such a description as offensive (they don't) it would be akin (running with your comparison to the right) to being worried about fascists being offended at being referred to as Nazis. I am at something of a loss as to why you would be so exercised about defending their feelings and honour, particularly to the extent that the rest of my post, including the substantive points I made, is put aside, in favour of pursuit of this rather small point.

I referred to the "respectable left" and then went on to specifically discuss the extreme fringe of the left, the marxist-leninists. You then have the various socialist groups, PBP etc. which are all troskyist in outlook and definition. Even these organizations have fallen in line with elevating the importance of capitalist enterprise above the fundamental human and civil rights - this is quite noteworthy, hence my passing remark. It was not intended for any fixation. If anything, the people who might be slightly put out by what I said are the trotskites because I referred to them as being more reactionary, but even worse, as being associated, even related (cousins), to the marxist leninists!

Take the Connolly Youth Movement for example, they have over a dozen works by or about Stalin on their education and reading lists, informing the fundamental philosophical basis of their worldview. No sign of Khrushchev's speech, but there is a document from Mao slagging off and denouncing Khrushchev. They have pictures of Stalin on their walls. They or their former mother group the CPI won't burst into tears at any suggestion they are associated with Stalin or Stalinist thought. I've had many discussions with them. Head into Connolly books next time if you are bored in Dublin and want a chat. If they have any objection at being referred to as Stalinists (Eugene won't kick you out if say that word, don't worry), it will be rooted, not in any repudiation or disgust of Stalin, but rather in the idea that their thought should be referred to as Marxist-Leninist as all Stalin did was put into words (and action) the theories of Lenin rather than come up with anything astoundingly new, in terms of theory - this idea of course was one of the central battle-lines between the Soviets and the rest of the far left. For what it's worth I think the marxist-leninists are more right than wrong on this point, although I would strongly disagree about whether Lenin's ideas were correct or should have been put into action at all!

Now, I've made something of a detailed study of marxism as a theory and the various small far left communist (and republican) groups in Ireland. An interesting subject, I'm happy to discuss it further if you want. My personal 'favorite' was the Communist Party of the Irish Republic, who pledged allegiance to the republic declared in 1916, and were major fans of Gadaffi, North Korea, as well as our pal Stalin. Their internet forum is still kicking around, but very quiet. I could go on, but one last Stalinist fact, the editor of History Ireland, Ireland's best history magazine, Tommy Graham, was for many years a leading light in the Communist Party of Ireland (Marxist Leninist) a group which denounced other communists as essentially being too soft and revisionist. An interesting fact to bear in mind, when reading his editorials.

smacl wrote: »

Mildly left of centre myself but don't have much time for those on either extreme end of the political spectrum. So when I read the post below

it asserts there are groups of active Irish Stalinists out there championing elevation of capitalist enterprise above individual and civil liberties. Firstly, I wasn't aware any such groups even existed in significant numbers, let alone active and championing capitalist causes, hence my pursuing you on the subject for information that supports your claims. Looking at links to the CYM, they exist, albeit more active in the North of Ireland. Not seeing anything that supports that their position is anything other that thoroughly anti-capitalist. Perhaps you could cite your source that led you to make this assertion?

Not sure what you mean by the "Respectable Left" either. Is this a matter of numbers, policy, or political position relative to one's own? Personally, I struggle to have much respect for much of our present political system or those involved in it.

The CYM are an all Ireland organization, largest numbers are in Cork (where they have their 'liberated' house) and in Dublin. There are other groups too... it's fair enough that you are not familiar with them, I wouldn't be, save for the fact that I made quite a study of these groups and know/knew many of the people involved. My own political position, in a traditional sense where the left/right spectrum referenced economic positions, I would be very much on the left, although I am not a marxist. (How happy I was to discover that Catholic social doctrine on the economic front so closely corresponded with what I had thought anyway).

They support lockdowns where civil liberties are curtailed, but also support certain businesses remaining open. It is self evident that capitalist enterprise has been elevated above personal and civil liberties by all who support the current lockdowns. Now this is not wrong, we would probably all starve and die if it wasn't, but the extreme left, particularly the Marxist-leninists who seek to destroy the capitalist system, could usually be relied upon to adopt contrary positions (this is why I always enjoyed talking to them!) on things like this, after all, their ideology did not balk at the prospect of famines before if it furthered their political goals. If they stuck firmly to their ideology (remember how extreme it is), they would have been propagandizing along the lines of how quantitative easing, massive state supports for business, lockdowns etc. all illustrate the lengths capitalist governments will go to to maintain the system, yet they barely lift a finger to help homeless etc. This crisis has placed the capitalist system under unprecedented strain, in the past the extreme left would have viewed this (as they did wars etc.) as an opportunity to topple it, but instead they have broadly supported state actions, and in fact advocated that they should be more extreme, and the support given to business even greater. As I said, this was an aside I was making. I just think it interesting that the left, particularly the extreme left, have surrendered so many positions they used to occupy, entirely to the right. For example, not too long ago the left position on cheaper workers being shipped in would be that it should be banned full stop, today the principle of doing this is accepted and militantly defended. Again, I am not saying that they are wrong necessarily, I was just mentioning it as an aside, I had not intended in dwelling on this point as I have done.

The respectable left, is that which does not seek to implement an extreme ideology that has resulted in the deaths of millions and millions of people. I agree regarding the system, I was involved for politics for many years when I was younger, it was one continual disappointment.