Relaxation of Restrictions, Part XI Read OP For Mod Warnings

Penfailed · 19-05-2021 11:36AM

MOH wrote: »

So you're saying restrictions don't exist unless people follow them?

No, that's not what I'm saying. You're saying it's effectively a 24hr curfew. It's not effectively anything if it's not effective. You said yourself that it was ignored.

MOH · 19-05-2021 11:41AM

Boggles wrote: »

Nope.

Curfew means you can't leave your home after or before permitted times. We never had that.

But we did. Not sure if you're just being pedantic about about a 24-hour curfew not technically being a curfew, or a curfew with very limited exceptions not being a curfew.

If you felt you were confined to your home for 24 hours that is down to you.

Personally I didn't and I would have disliked if we went the French route, I can see how it is easier please, but no.

I really could not care less what you did or felt. It's utterly irrelevant.

The fact remains that the official government publication on the restrictions stated that "People are required to stay at home except for <limited list of exceptions>".

19-05-2021 11:42AM

Boggles wrote: »

Nope.

Curfew means you can't leave your home after or before permitted times. We never had that.

Also in France who still have a curfew you also needed "permission slips", we never had that either.

If you felt you were confined to your home for 24 hours that is down to you.

Personally I didn't and I would have disliked if we went the French route, I can see how it is easier please, but no.

Well, in reality, imposing a curfew means the rules (law if you like) say you must stay in your home during specified times.

Our rules at their tightest in general required you to stay in your home except for a reasonable excuse. You can check out statutory instrument 121 of 2020 introduced in April 2020, SI 448 of 2020 from October 2020 for example if you are interested in knowing what those rules actually were.

These included restrictions of movement in relation to travel from place of residence and set out a non-exhaustive list of reasonable excuses. It was a criminal offence to leave your place of residence otherwise than for a reasonable excuse.

Similar restrictions were reintroduced at the end of 2020 ( SI 701 of 2020), and it was, again, a criminal offence to leave your place of residence without a reasonable excuse (as defined).

I'm not making any comment on whether you or anyone chose to comply with the law but you might as well know what it was if you are trying to discuss it.

Drawing a distinction between restrictions which operate as a curfew (cannot leave place of residence other than during specified times) versus a general restriction otherwise than for a reasonable excuse is trite, if you are suggesting the former was more strict than the latter in their terms (whether or not you adhered to them).

In reality you're taking a spurious, unhelpfully semantic and pointlessly argumentative approach in your posts on this issue, in my opinion.

Boggles · 19-05-2021 12:03PM

ecoli3136 wrote: »

In reality you're taking a spurious, unhelpfully semantic and pointlessly argumentative approach in your posts on this issue, in my opinion.

Again facts are not semantic.

We didn't have a curfew nor did we use "permissions slips".

We were free to be out at 6 p.m. without having to produce a written declaration as to why if challenged by the "authorities".

If you cannot see a glaring difference in that, then I would suggest your interruption is "spurious", in my opinion.

Boggles · 19-05-2021 12:05PM

MOH wrote: »

But we did. Not sure if you're just being pedantic about about a 24-hour curfew not technically being a curfew, or a curfew with very limited exceptions not being a curfew.

It's not my opinion.

We didn't have curfew or "permission slips", like I said if you think we had that's up to you.

19-05-2021 12:17PM

Boggles wrote: »

Again facts are not semantic.

We didn't have a curfew nor did we use "permissions slips".

We were free to be out at 6 p.m. without having to produce a written declaration as to why if challenged by the "authorities".

If you cannot see a glaring difference in that, then I would suggest your interruption is "spurious", in my opinion.

But you could be prosecuted for being out at any time and convicted of a criminal offence unless a judge accepted you had a reasonable excuse.

Who did I interrupt by the way? You?

LOL

You obviously don't enjoy being corrected. I suppose that's understandable.

ArthurDayne · 19-05-2021 12:18PM

ecoli3136 wrote: »

Well, in reality, imposing a curfew means the rules (law if you like) say you must stay in your home during specified times.

Our rules at their tightest in general required you to stay in your home except for a reasonable excuse. You can check out statutory instrument 121 of 2020 introduced in April 2020, SI 448 of 2020 from October 2020 for example ( if you are interested in knowing what those rules actually were.

These included restrictions of movement in relation to travel from place of residence and sets out a non-exhaustive list of reasonable excuses. It was a criminal offence to leave your place of residence otherwise than for a reasonable excuse.

Similar restrictions were reintroduced at the end of 2020 ( SI 701 of 2020).

I'm not making any comment on whether you or anyone chose to comply with the law but you might as well know what it was if you are trying to discuss it.

Drawing a distinction between restrictions which operate as a curfew (cannot leave place of residence other than during specified times) versus a general restriction otherwise than for a reasonable excuse is trite, if you are suggesting the former was more strict than the latter in their terms (whether or not you adhered to them).

In reality you're taking a spurious, unhelpfully semantic and pointlessly argumentative approach in your posts on this issue, in my opinion.

Agreed.

We didn’t have a curfew in an explicit de jure sense, but it still remained the fact that if you went out at night (or any time of the day for that matter) without a legally valid reason, you were in breach of the law. Particularly in the late night / very early morning, with most shops closed and the reality that most people do not exercise at these times — by any honest compliance with the rules (and on the understanding that “essential” reasons to leave your house at say 1:00am are highly uncommon) you were not allowed to leave the house at these hours.

So, despite not being called a curfew expressly, the way the law was constructed essentially created a scenario where the more compliant and honest you were as regards the rules, the more you were effectively under curfew. To me, if one argues otherwise then they seem to be veering very close to saying that the law was essentially pointless and had no real effect.

Silentcorner · 19-05-2021 12:19PM

charlie14 wrote: »

The 2,400 is not a statistic. It`s 2,400 deaths which you glibbly and quite disgustingly dismiss as being a mere nothing.

.

If you don't have the emotional capacity to discuss death rates in a pandemic in a reasonable manner then perhaps these kinds of discussions aren't for you.

That is your figure, it represents a 2-3% difference in outcomes between two States who had two very different approaches.

We don't know what the cost of hard lock downs are in terms of lock down related deaths, but we do know there will be an effect on excess deaths in the coming years...we know in this country, given the size of our waiting lists, there will definitely be a impact on premature deaths across all age groups, so be careful up there on that moral high ground ...the bill for all of this hasn't arrived yet!!!

Penfailed · 19-05-2021 01:10PM

ArthurDayne wrote: »

We didn’t have a curfew in an explicit de jure sense

That's all that needed to be said.

FintanMcluskey · 19-05-2021 01:21PM

This is incredibly disturbing and upsetting

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/disproportionate-number-of-covid-fines-for-18-25s-raises-questions-on-policing-relationship-with-young-people-40441244.html

Eighteen to 25-year-olds have received more than half of all Covid-19 fines, the Policing Authority revealed.

The cohort of citizens that will pay the largest chunk of the bill for protecting people that won’t pay any of the bill, have also been disproportionately fined in the name of public health.

These weren’t the ones filling up hospital beds

Doesn’t bode well for future relationships with the police force and citizens in this country

Particularly so as the police force will be a large part of our lives in future as seen from the ongoing extension of emergency measures

And the fact that emergency measures don’t actually need an emergency to be enacted

Boggles · 19-05-2021 01:32PM

ecoli3136 wrote: »

You obviously don't enjoy being corrected. I suppose that's understandable.

Again, your claim we had a curfew is a falsehood.

It's not my opinion.

19-05-2021 01:43PM

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

This is incredibly disturbing and upsetting

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/disproportionate-number-of-covid-fines-for-18-25s-raises-questions-on-policing-relationship-with-young-people-40441244.html

The cohort of citizens that will pay the largest chunk of the bill for protecting people that won’t pay any of the bill, have also been disproportionately fined in the name of public health.

These weren’t the ones filling up hospital beds

Doesn’t bode well for future relationships with the police force and citizens in this country

Particularly so as the police force will be a large part of our lives in future as seen from the ongoing extension of emergency measures

And the fact that emergency measures don’t actually need an emergency to be enacted

Hysteria ratcheting up another notch I see.

charlie14 · 19-05-2021 01:48PM

Silentcorner wrote: »

If you don't have the emotional capacity to discuss death rates in a pandemic in a reasonable manner then perhaps these kinds of discussions aren't for you.

That is your figure, it represents a 2-3% difference in outcomes between two States who had two very different approaches.

We don't know what the cost of hard lock downs are in terms of lock down related deaths, but we do know there will be an effect on excess deaths in the coming years...we know in this country, given the size of our waiting lists, there will definitely be a impact on premature deaths across all age groups, so be careful up there on that moral high ground ...the bill for all of this hasn't arrived yet!!!

Statistics are cold and impersonal and have been used here by some attempting to downplay what to many is very personal and the real cost of this pandemic. The deaths of family, friends and loved ones.

Statistics have had there place, showing the folly had we followed the natural herd immunity theories of snake oil sales men such as Ionaniddis and Giesecke. In Giesecke`s case in real terms from Sweden and Manaus anti body test results. With Ionaniddis primary school mathematics.

In real world terms using statistics does not hid the real cost in lives when different approaches have been attempted. Your 2-3% difference between two States is 2,400 lives lost.

For Sweden..... which you have now ignored for the third consecutive post .......?????, a country that went initially with the natural herd immunity approach, compared to it`s three neighbours the 545% difference is that had Sweden followed the approach of the other three, then their deaths could possibly have been as low as 2,620 rather than 14,301.

All your attempts to stay as far away as possible geographically from four neighbouring European countries with guff about emotional capacity and statistics does not hide the large gaping hole in your argument.

Boggles · 19-05-2021 01:50PM

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

This is incredibly disturbing and upsetting

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/disproportionate-number-of-covid-fines-for-18-25s-raises-questions-on-policing-relationship-with-young-people-40441244.html

The cohort of citizens that will pay the largest chunk of the bill for protecting people that won’t pay any of the bill, have also been disproportionately fined in the name of public health.

These weren’t the ones filling up hospital beds

Doesn’t bode well for future relationships with the police force and citizens in this country

Particularly so as the police force will be a large part of our lives in future as seen from the ongoing extension of emergency measures

And the fact that emergency measures don’t actually need an emergency to be enacted

So we should only have imposed the law on individuals that would end up in hospital?

Does that technology exist?

PTH2009 · 19-05-2021 01:54PM

Good news about the outdoor dining but there still doing up drafts of the guidelines. Me thinks there taking there time so they don't create an argument of 'why can't they open earlier'

Prefer indoor hospitality as its easier for the lone drinker. I don't think publicans would be happy with one person taking up a six person table. Places might have smaller tables

Boggles · 19-05-2021 01:54PM

Silentcorner wrote: »

We don't know what the cost of hard lock downs are in terms of lock down related deaths, but we do know there will be an effect on excess deaths in the coming years...we know in this country, given the size of our waiting lists, there will definitely be a impact on premature deaths across all age groups, so be careful up there on that moral high ground ...the bill for all of this hasn't arrived yet!!!

Hang on. You are aware countries who didn't impose strict lockdowns still curtailed medical procedures, screening and such, primarily because their hospitals were full and medical staff pretty busy?

There exists no Utopian that was able to carry on as normal simply by ignoring the pandemic.

Apart from the countries who mitigated hard at the start and closed their borders, etc.

charlie14 · 19-05-2021 02:02PM

Boggles wrote: »

Hang on. You are aware countries who didn't impose strict lockdowns still curtailed medical procedures, screening and such, primarily because their hospitals were full and medical staff pretty busy?

There exists no Utopian that was able to carry on as normal simply by ignoring the pandemic.

Apart from the countries who mitigated hard at the start and closed their borders, etc.

Also ignoring while speculating on future long term health problems, the possible long term health problems from being infected with this virus.

FlubberJones · 19-05-2021 02:05PM

PTH2009 wrote: »

Good news about the outdoor dining but there still doing up drafts of the guidelines. Me thinks there taking there time so they don't create an argument of 'why can't they open earlier'

Prefer indoor hospitality as its easier for the lone drinker. I don't think publicans would be happy with one person taking up a six person table. Places might have smaller tables

I've been thinking of this but in the end if I fancy a few beers and there's a table free I'll take it, if the team running the place can manage to accommodate groups and singles... even better

19-05-2021 02:06PM

Boggles wrote: »

Again, your claim we had a curfew is a falsehood.

It's not my opinion.

I didn't say we had a curfew.

Labelling things I never said as false is classic you.

Boggles · 19-05-2021 02:11PM

ecoli3136 wrote: »

I didn't say we had a curfew.

Ahh you did.

ecoli3136 wrote: »

Well, in reality, imposing a curfew means the rules (law if you like) say you must stay in your home during specified times.

Our rules at their tightest in general required you to stay in your home except for a reasonable excuse.

ecoli3136 wrote: »

Labelling things I never said as false is classic you.

Don't think I ever noticed you before, buy hey, classic you!

ArthurDayne · 19-05-2021 02:41PM

Penfailed wrote: »

That's all that needed to be said.

Well I don’t think it is. Consider these two statements:

1) It is a criminal offence to leave your house without one of the lawful reasons for doing so between the hours of 9pm and 6am.

2) It is a criminal offence to leave your house without one of the lawful reasons for doing so.

The effect of both laws is precisely the same, only that people might be tempted to say that Statement 1 looks more like a curfew simply because it expressly mentions a time range. In fact, Statement 2 just does the exact same thing — only the range can be assumed to be 00:00 to 23:59. So in Ireland, after dark, when shops and businesses were all mainly closed and you honestly were not exercising at midnight — if you had no lawful reason to be outside of your home then you were committing an enforceable criminal offence. The fact that this was not enforced with any significant vigour does not change the effect of the law. So the difference between Ireland and France as regards curfew is simply one of expression and severity of enforcement — one was de facto and one was de jure.

And again — if what I am saying is not true — then what was the point of the law?

Parachutes · 19-05-2021 02:55PM

hynesie08 wrote: »

Are we supposed to be happy that the vaccine rollout has been so successful that normality is returning?

Probably.

Being grateful to a government who took away all your rights to arbitrarily give a few back (while extending their powers to take them all away again whenever they see fit) is called Stockholm Syndrome.

19-05-2021 02:56PM

Boggles wrote: »

Ahh you did.

Don't think I ever noticed you before, buy hey, classic you!

The post I made expressly disintinguished (in circumstances where you were conflating two distinct concepts and were either unaware of or didn't care to be reminded of the terms of the Irish legislation) between a curfew and the Irish regulations, and in this and subsequent posts I made the point that the relevant Irish regulations were, on their face stricter than the sort of curfew you were describing, by requiring you to remain in your place of residence at all times subject to having a reasonable excuse and not just during specified periods.

Ironically, you were celebrating the fact that Ireland has managed the situation without imposing curfews. Again, you appeared not to know or not to care what the Irish law has been.

I thought you were deliberately pretending to misunderstand what was said but it seems you genuinely didn't - apologies for thinking the former. I understand better the problem now and will bear it in mind in future posts and when reading yours, should someone quote you.

Boggles · 19-05-2021 03:08PM

ecoli3136 wrote: »

The post I made expressly disintinguished

Your musings conflated the 2, wrongly.

Again doesn't change facts.

In France after 6 you could only walk the dog 1km from your home and you needed a permission slip to do this.

But yeah we were far stricter, 24 hour curfew, etc.

Little early for the hysterical revisionism, but there you go, the week all retail opened.

I think there has been 2 references to it, 1 by me. Strange that.

Boggles · 19-05-2021 03:10PM

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Well I don’t think it is. Consider these two statements:

1) It is a criminal offence to leave your house without one of the lawful reasons for doing so between the hours of 9pm and 6am.

2) It is a criminal offence to leave your house without one of the lawful reasons for doing so.

3) It's a criminal offence to walk your dog further than 1km after 6, and a further offence if you do not have a permission slip to walk it regardless.

Stormyteacup · 19-05-2021 03:20PM

Boggles wrote: »

Your musings conflated the 2, wrongly.

Again doesn't change facts.

In France after 6 you could only walk the dog 1km from your home and you needed a permission slip to do this.

But yeah we were far stricter, 24 hour curfew, etc.

Little early for the hysterical revisionism, but there you go, the week all retail opened.

I think there has been 2 references to it, 1 by me. Strange that.

Since when was this thread about celebrating the relaxation of restrictions?

Several references now about how appreciative we should be about the loosening of any restriction, mostly used as a put-down to anyone unhappy with handling of the relaxation/imposition of restrictions throughout.

Nothing to see here - government/NPHET didn’t put a foot wrong, or if they did then forget it and move on. All good.

Boggles · 19-05-2021 03:26PM

Stormyteacup wrote: »

Since when was this thread about celebrating the relaxation of restrictions?

It isn't, but at least it's in the vicinity of the thread topic.

Or do you think the thread is a sole vehicle for nonsensical fear and doom mongering?

PTH2009 wrote: »

Good news about the outdoor dining

Indeed it is. Good news all round that the vaccination roll out is ramping up and the economy and society is following suit.

We are not allowed celebrate it though.

ArthurDayne · 19-05-2021 03:33PM

Boggles wrote: »

3) It's a criminal offence to walk your dog further than 1km after 6, and a further offence if you do not have a permission slip to walk it regardless.

If we are going to get into this semantic game, someone living in some tyrannical despotic regime could claim that France never had a curfew because people didn’t get shot on sight.

Just because France had a stricter approach on this and their curfew was explicitly set out with a defined time limit does not change the fact that in Ireland you were not allowed to leave the house at night without one of the specific lawful reasons for doing so.

Stormyteacup · 19-05-2021 03:37PM

Boggles wrote: »

We are not allowed celebrate it though.

Not sure why you think you’re not allowed to celebrate.

Relaxation of restrictions is welcomed, however it doesn’t negate the abysmal management of them, and discussion of same doesn’t fall under doom-mongering.

Boggles · 19-05-2021 03:39PM

ArthurDayne wrote: »

If we are going to get into this semantic game, someone living in some tyrannical despotic regime could claim that France never had a curfew because people didn’t get shot on sight.

There we are again, facts are semantic.

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Just because France had a stricter approach on this

So we agree, fair enough.

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

Comments

Relaxation of Restrictions, Part XI Read OP For Mod Warnings