Can we have some fcuking control on the airports from high risk countries please?

Valhallapt wrote: »

Its a net negative effect - maybe 18 months ago there was some merit to it. But it's half baked and half implemented. When the US locked up asian looking people in WW2 - most people thought it was a positive safety effect.

I'd say there not really the same but i think i get the jist of what you are meaning. Todays good idea is a bad one tomorrow, you may be right. I do agree if there is merit for it now, it should have been in a long time back.

namloc1980 wrote: »

Yes it should protect people from being arbitrarily detained by the State.

But is it arbitrary if it protects the people of our nation? I would argue that the temporary stay that is quarantine protects us (if the science really does stack up, far from expert enough to argue the nuances). Also its a self imposed detention as anyone entering is aware of it pre arrival, choice does exist. Or Belfast for the desperate.

is_that_so wrote: »

The Constitution is there to make sure we don't get bad laws and trample all over people's rights and that is how this should be characterised. A concern around the legislation is that the Health Act can now be used for whatever you like once you get the backing of the Dail. The need to resort to this approach is also the lack of robustness in home isolation.

Is it really trampling all over our rights, was international travel enshrined into the constitution? I did see other argue the concept of home quarantine was also unconstitutional?

I suppose in general the concept of limitation of freedoms is plain wrong and crosses a dangerous line. But is it fair that people come in and out of the country freely if they pose a risk to the people of the nation?

Even the opposition are not against this move, in fact they are all for, when i see pretty much the entire dail that love tearing each other down agree a move in general is good, I tend to think that maybe it has merit!

FileNotFound wrote: »

I was originally not all that supportive but decided that if the science backs the choice and I think it must if the Gov have bent to putting EU nations (total assumption) on the list, then we should be happy they have tried to introduce.

I do think its badly planned, limited in the way its thought out, brought in too late if the science does back it etc. etc.

But I wouldn't be delighted to see people travelling for any reason and using our constitution as a get out of quarantine clause, I imagine for every 1 good reason there are dozens of totally unnecessary trips (once again total assumption).

I suppose i get where you are coming from and can understand, would like to see improvements rather than it scrapped if it could help is all..

Science doesn't "back" anything.. it's entirely position free.

Scientists and medics however use science in manners that prove, support and justify their own positions!

But two scientists can use the same datasets to support two entirely different positions.

lawred2 wrote: »

Science doesn't "back" anything.. it's entirely position free.

Scientists and medics however use science in manners that prove, support and justify their own positions!

But two scientists can use the same datasets to support two entirely different positions.

Well NZ would be the worlds biggest case study and it showed it to be pretty effective no?

That would just be from mine own ignorant standpoint.

I would have to say that doing quarantine for some nations v not for others and allowing the Belfast loophole would most certainly reduce the intended effectiveness - whether this justifies MHQ existence is for smarter peeps than me to answer.

FileNotFound wrote: »

Well NZ would be the worlds biggest case study and it showed it to be pretty effective no?

That would just be from mine own ignorant standpoint.

I would have to say that doing quarantine for some nations v not for others and allowing the Belfast loophole would most certainly reduce the intended effectiveness - whether this justifies MHQ existence is for smarter peeps than me to answer.

The republic is not an island, that’s the fundamental flaw in MHQ. We have an unsupervised 400km border where airports will be busier than ever this summer

Valhallapt wrote: »

The republic is not an island, that’s the fundamental flaw in MHQ. We have an unsupervised 400km border where airports will be busier than ever this summer

Very valid point. Even the well known "Fly to Belfast to avoid" is a giant hole in the plan.

I suppose its little more than a deterrent to unnecessary travel so?

Zackary Scruffy Thumb wrote: »

The USA does not meet the 2.5X factor, Donnelly said on morning ireland, that within the EU its about variants, outside the EU Case load 2.5X

this is nuts.

Yeah I don't understand, once the argument is perceived prevalence of variants, the minister has given himself carte blanche to quarantine whomever he wants in a non evidence based way. noone wants this power, it can only lead to a disaster. By eliminating oversight and justification this could turn into a lot of lawsuits. Like surely the first thing you do when implementing a solution is to state the problem you are trying to solve. "We want to quarantine people travelling from countries with a prevalence of x%", he clearly plans to move the goal posts as we go.

joseywhales wrote: »

Out of interest, the flying into belfast option, do you need a UK passport for that post brexit?

Don't see why you would. You don't need a specific passport anywhere else in or out of the EU

joseywhales wrote: »

Out of interest, the flying into belfast option, do you need a UK passport for that post brexit?

thatd be a laugh!! Asking the likes of Gerry Adams to produce a british passport when arriving into his home city !!

Ryanair should invest more in Northern Areas of Ireland while they are beginning to open up. Belfast is the only show in town but Derry would be right on the border. Could see it being very busy.

Lmkrnr wrote: »

Ryanair should invest more in Northern Areas of Ireland while they are beginning to open up. Belfast is the only show in town but Derry would be right on the border. Could see it being very busy.

Ryanair already reopened Belfast base with three aircraft moved from Dublin, they may will move more aircraft north if MHQ continues

Lmkrnr wrote: »

Yeah I was replying from a intra CTA pov England to Belfast ect.

A park and fly option to Belfast from the border town's would be a good business if NI really opens up.

Would you chance a bus? Might be better get someone with an irish reg for pick up.

Belfast isn't the only option, is Canada on the list?

expectationlost wrote: »

where are the details of the post travel isolation advice for people who don't have to go into mandatory hotel quarantine? https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/b4020-travelling-to-ireland-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/ I can't find the details regarding this anymore, its all been overwritten by MHQ text.

It's there under "Post-arrival quarantine requirements for all passengers arriving in Ireland".

namloc1980 wrote: »

Yes it should protect people from being arbitrarily detained by the State.

Nobody is being arbitrarily detained by the state... People are choosing to come to our country from another and must follow the law when they land... They can choose not to enter the state if they do not wish to quarantine

It makes more sense to have a mandatory hotel quarantine system in place for a handful of tourists for 2 weeks than to half-arsedly force an entire nation to stay within 5km of their homes for 3 months

a_squirrelman wrote: »

and

• passengers who travel from another country to Ireland, and arrive via Northern Ireland, must also observe the mandatory quarantine regime
• you may only leave your place of residence during the quarantine period for unavoidable reasons of an emergency nature to protect a person’s health or welfare, or to leave the State
• you can end your period of quarantine if you receive written confirmation of a ‘non-detected’ RT-PCR test result taken no less than 5 days after arrival. You must retain the written confirmation of your test result for at least 14 days

What do you mean by details though?

Regarding the last point they could state that we have to pay for the PCR ourselves, which I believe is the case, that one is a bit vague.

How do you get a PCR test taken if you can't leave your quarantine location though?