Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Covid 19 Part XXXV-956,720 ROI (5,952 deaths) 452,946 NI (3,002 deaths) (08/01) Read OP

1…6768707273…1580

Comments

  • #2072
    ClosedAccountFuzzy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 745 ✭✭✭ClosedAccountFuzzy


    is_that_so wrote: »
    They advised, the government by and large implemented it. Neither ever supported the use of Zero COVID and our circumstances are very different to NZ by dint of being in the EU. Few countries worldwide did embrace it overall.

    But sure it’s illegal to go to the EU at the moment. You’ll be fined. Has been the case for months and will be until July.

    If I want to go to Madrid or Berlin in the morning, I basically can’t. EU freedom of movement hasn’t been open for a long time at this stage.

    Going to the US is absolutely no too.

    Air transit is down well over 90%.

    I won’t even be able to fly out of Cork airport until September as they’ve taken the opportunity to close it for a runway rebuild.

    All I see is worst of both was implemented by a bunch of people who are painfully indecisive.


  • #2073
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,196 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    FuzzyThinking wrote: »
    We basically had months of a very strict lockdown anyway. I don’t really see much difference tbh.

    We seem to have managed to roll with both widespread infections and a rather miserable lockdown that lasted months and months and months.

    We haven’t been able to go beyond 5km from our house for much of the year, then only within counties, international travel is still basically banned.

    So I’m not sure how worse it could have been.

    That still didn't get us down to single digit cases like the social democrats were calling for back in march. So, imagine how much worse it would have had to have been to get to single digit cases a day.


  • #2074
    faolteam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,845 ✭✭✭faolteam


    Amirani wrote: »
    There wasn't evidence to support the mandating of facemasks at the very beginning. There had been some study previously on the usefulness of facemasks in clinical settings versus influenza, but it was pretty equivocal on non-medical grade face coverings in non-clinical settings (particularly for a novel Coronavirus).

    If droplets and fomites had been a much bigger deal, then inappropriately used facemasks may have created problems.

    It's all easy to say in hindsight that they should have been promoted earlier, but there's an understandable hesitancy in medicine and public health to mandate people to do things without an evidence base.

    I agree hindsight and all that and what u say , but I was talking with a Chinese guy in February 2019 and he told me then people need to wear the mask, it's just so amazing that this wasn't pushed sooner. I know people have a choice just my tuppence worth


  • #2075
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    FuzzyThinking wrote: »
    But sure it’s illegal to go to the EU at the moment. You’ll be fined. Has been the case for months and will be until July.

    All I see is worst of both was implemented by a bunch of people who are painfully indecisive.
    No, it isn't illegal, non-essential travel is what the fines are for. The EU were very quick to encourage countries not to close borders to other members and they've remained open apart from our expensive prison system, with its random list of dangerous countries.


  • #2076
    hynesie08
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,247 ✭✭✭✭hynesie08


    podgeandrodge wrote: »
    Perhaps it's been ranted at already earlier, but WTF with TIME LIMITS of 1.5 hours coming back for internal drinking and eating when things open in July. Given there are no meal requirements, people that want more pints will just go pub to pub. What's the problem here?

    Ask the publicans groups and failte Ireland, they suggested it.


  • Advertisement
  • #2077
    faolteam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,845 ✭✭✭faolteam


    is_that_so wrote: »
    The HSE IT issue.

    Ah come on we get the daily cases and can't get the smaller figures for deaths surely this can be done manually and I'm pretty certain this was nothing to do with the IT issue


  • #2078
    ClosedAccountFuzzy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 745 ✭✭✭ClosedAccountFuzzy


    is_that_so wrote: »
    No, it isn't illegal, non-essential travel is what the fines are for. The EU were very quick to encourage countries not to close borders to other members and they've remained open.

    If it’s closed for non essential travel, which has very narrow definitions, then it’s closed. EU freedom of movement isn’t available right now.


  • #2079
    hynesie08
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,247 ✭✭✭✭hynesie08


    faolteam wrote: »
    Ah come on we get the daily cases and can't get the smaller figures for deaths surely this can be done manually and I'm pretty certain this was nothing to do with the IT issue

    We're not getting the proper daily cases though.


  • #2080
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    faolteam wrote: »
    Ah come on we get the daily cases and can't get the smaller figures for deaths surely this can be done manually and I'm pretty certain this was nothing to do with the IT issue
    Deaths are reported into the HSPC system and can take up to 3 months under the current law. If the system isn't up they can't be accurately reported. Swab data comes from labs.


  • #2081
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    FuzzyThinking wrote: »
    If it’s closed for non essential travel, which has very narrow definitions, then it’s closed. EU freedom of movement isn’t available right now.
    Eh it is, pretty much everywhere. In our case nobody will stop you going, but you might be fined if you do.


  • Advertisement
  • #2082
    Economics101
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,218 ✭✭✭Economics101


    faolteam wrote: »
    Ah come on we get the daily cases and can't get the smaller figures for deaths surely this can be done manually and I'm pretty certain this was nothing to do with the IT issue

    When they did have the daily death numbers, at least in recent weeks they were often way out of date. There was one day in late-April or early-May when 8 or 9 deaths were announced: 2 or 3 from each of January, February and March. The registration and notification process is very slow, and the daily data conveyed almost not useful information.


  • #2083
    faolteam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,845 ✭✭✭faolteam


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Deaths are reported into the HSPC system and can take up to 3 months under the current law. If the system isn't up they can't be accurately reported. Swab data comes from labs.

    Fair enough but if someone dies of Covid can this not be manually old fashioned way so we have. A rough idea seems to me now even the daily figures of Covid related is been pulled out of the air


  • #2084
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Economics101 wrote: »
    When they did have the daily death numbers, at least in recent weeks they were often way out of date. There was one day in late-April or early-May when 8 or 9 deaths were announced: 2 or 3 from each of January, February and March. The registration and notification process is very slow, and the daily data conveyed almost not useful information.
    It isn't terribly useful apart from for bunfights over the IFR but as stated at least 100 times before up it can take 3 months to report a death. That's one law that needs changing.


  • #2085
    lukas8888
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 526 ✭✭✭lukas8888


    hynesie08 wrote: »
    Ask the publicans groups and failte Ireland, they suggested it.

    The vintner associations most definately did not ask for this unworkable 105 minute rule.It will only lead to the unwelcome pub crawl.Bord Failte pen pushers
    who never ran a business now thats a different matter.


  • #2086
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    faolteam wrote: »
    Fair enough but if someone dies of Covid can this not be manually old fashioned way so we have. A rough idea seems to me now even the daily figures of Covid related is been pulled out of the air

    You'd have to ask the HPSC and I believe that they have archaic structures anyway!


  • #2087
    ClosedAccountFuzzy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 745 ✭✭✭ClosedAccountFuzzy


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Eh it is, pretty much everywhere. In our case nobody will stop you going, but you might be fined if you do.

    That’s just a bit of a playing with words though. The fact that you’re fined if you travel means you can’t - EU freedom of movement is suspended at the moment. There’s no point in kidding ourselves about that.


  • #2088
    MerlinSouthDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭MerlinSouthDub


    lukas8888 wrote: »
    The vintner associations most definately did not ask for this unworkable 105 minute rule.It will only lead to the unwelcome pub crawl.Bord Failte pen pushers
    who never ran a business now thats a different matter.

    The 105 minute limit wasn't applied in any of the places I went to last time around. It was always a daft rule, more likely to result in super spreading events with the same infected person travelling from pub to pub. Anyway, even if they do have the rule again this time around, I expect no one will be following the rule by the end of July (if not earlier).


  • #2089
    Timmy O Toole
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 348 ✭✭Timmy O Toole


    MerlinSouthDub wrote: »
    Nice stable numbers. Vaccine effect has offset any increase from re-opening of intercounty travel. Decent chance that case numbers will fall a bit between now and the next phase of re-opening on 2nd/7th June, as vaccine effect gathers pace.

    The same decrease happened last summer with no vaccine.


  • #2090
    podgeandrodge
    Site Banned Posts: 5,975 ✭✭✭podgeandrodge


    MerlinSouthDub wrote: »
    The 105 minute limit wasn't applied in any of the places I went to last time around. It was always a daft rule, more likely to result in super spreading events with the same infected person travelling from pub to pub. Anyway, even if they do have the rule again this time around, I expect no one will be following the rule by the end of July (if not earlier).

    Elsewhere I read that this limit was again only applying if there wasn't 2 metre distance ie for those using the new 1m rule. Honestly, the drip feeding of scattered and contradictory info from Govt. is a joke.


  • #2091
    stephenjmcd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭stephenjmcd


    podgeandrodge wrote: »
    Elsewhere I read that this limit was again only applying if there wasn't 2 metre distance ie for those using the new 1m rule. Honestly, the drip feeding of scattered and contradictory info from Govt. is a joke.

    It's not contradictory you've just read it wrong.

    1m allowed outdoors, no time limit, well because its outdoors

    Indoors same as last summer:
    1m allowed indoors with 105 time limit (rarely actually enforced and probably even less so this year)
    2m no time limit

    Some of the guidelines are silly but they're pretty straightforward in terms of what's being asked


  • Advertisement
  • #2092
    iamwhoiam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,248 ✭✭✭✭iamwhoiam


    Does anyone understand the reasoning behind the 105 minutes ? I don’t get it ?


  • #2093
    Timmy O Toole
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 348 ✭✭Timmy O Toole


    iamwhoiam wrote: »
    Does anyone understand the reasoning behind the 105 minutes ? I don’t get it ?

    If I go out to watch a match, I'll miss the last couple of minutes of it. Meanwhile in London, 80,000 will be attending said match.


  • #2094
    marno21
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,648 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    The idea that by being 1m away from someone presents a risk if you spend more than 2 hours beside them but 2m away presents no measured risk is absolute nonsense of the highest order and has been thoroughly debunked at this stage.

    There is no scientific basis for this. Restaurants should be allowed slots at their discretion if they want to recycle tables for new customers. There is no Covid related benefit of clearing pintmen from tables in pubs after 105 minutes.


  • #2095
    prunudo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,100 ✭✭✭prunudo


    To a certain extent I could forgive them for wanting 105mins if its 1m apart when it was announced last year, but now when there'll be over 3m vaccines administered by the time they're opening up. I just don't see what the point is. Either vaccines are the way out of this or they're not.


  • #2096
    techdiver
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,541 ✭✭✭techdiver


    iamwhoiam wrote: »
    Does anyone understand the reasoning behind the 105 minutes ? I don’t get it ?

    It's the usual, make up a rule to cover their arse if anything goes wrong, so the claim can't be put to them that they allowed unrestricted return to normality.

    I've never taken issue with restrictions that were measured and based on science but this **** annoys me.


  • #2097
    stephenjmcd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭stephenjmcd


    prunudo wrote: »
    To a certain extent I could forgive them for wanting 105mins if its 1m apart when it was announced last year, but now when there'll be over 3m vaccines administered by the time they're opening up. I just don't see what the point is. Either vaccines are the way out of this or they're not.

    It's seen to be doing something. They don't want a free for all.

    If all is still good by the end of July and because of vaccines it should be then I expect you'd see indoor measures further relaxed. Why ? Because my end of July / start of August a large percentage of the public will be fully vaccinated.

    There's also every chance the guidance could change prior to indoor reopening if things are going even better than expected, that goes without saying. The VFI & LVA have said this evening that there would be further engagement on indoor reopening as June progresses & that what's published for indoor now might not be relevant then.

    I don't envy anyone trying to think up guidelines for 6-7 weeks time because what's suggested now might not be needed then.

    They'll only get firmed up in the week before indoor reopening.

    Oh and nearly every bar I've seen advertising their opening is using time limits and bookings to make sure they've a steady turn over of trade, so they're doing it anyway before any guidelines come out


  • #2098
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    iamwhoiam wrote: »
    Does anyone understand the reasoning behind the 105 minutes ? I don’t get it ?

    It seems pretty arbitrary but to be fair the industry needs to have some kind of limit while table service is the only thing allowed. How do you take bookings if you have no idea how long someone is going to be using the table, and if you let customers set their own times you'll get people who want the table for the night just in case but end up leaving after a few drinks, and now you've refused people with the belief that the table was full for the night.
    And in fairness most bars seemed to bend the limit if it was a quiet night and no one was waiting for your table but that had to be a courtesy rather than an expectation.


  • #2099
    Fann Linn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,050 ✭✭✭Fann Linn


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    It seems pretty arbitrary but to be fair the industry needs to have some kind of limit while table service is the only thing allowed. How do you take bookings if you have no idea how long someone is going to be using the table, and if you let customers set their own times you'll get people who want the table for the night just in case but end up leaving after a few drinks, and now you've refused people with the belief that the table was full for the night.
    And in fairness most bars seemed to bend the limit if it was a quiet night and no one was waiting for your table but that had to be a courtesy rather than an expectation.

    Well if it's an economic case so be it, but tell us that is why you're doing it. . But don't try and shunt it off as some health reason. There was a doctor on earlier and she said if someone in your group has it, well then you're gonna get it after 15 mins if you're in close proximity anyway, so 105mins won't make much more of a difference.


  • #2100
    iamwhoiam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,248 ✭✭✭✭iamwhoiam


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    It seems pretty arbitrary but to be fair the industry needs to have some kind of limit while table service is the only thing allowed. How do you take bookings if you have no idea how long someone is going to be using the table, and if you let customers set their own times you'll get people who want the table for the night just in case but end up leaving after a few drinks, and now you've refused people with the belief that the table was full for the night.
    And in fairness most bars seemed to bend the limit if it was a quiet night and no one was waiting for your table but that had to be a courtesy rather than an expectation.

    So nothing to do with Covid or health reasons then ?


  • Advertisement
  • #2101
    Atlantic Dawn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,189 ✭✭✭✭Atlantic Dawn
    GDY151


    Proposed 105 minutes restriction is mad, if a group is on a night out they will make 3 separate bookings and then mix in 3 different places throughout the night spreading any virus they have where in turn those customers they interact with will be doing the same thing.


Advertisement