Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

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

1…197198200202203…212

Comments

  • #5972
    Red Silurian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,824 ✭✭✭✭Red Silurian


    facehugger99 wrote: »
    A pro-lockdown poster with a 26 year old friend with no underlying conditions, in hospital, on a ventilator, with Covid.






    Yep, that checks out.

    I think the poster is more anti-travel than pro-lockdown. It could happen - especially if you think of the cause to the effect. Guarantee most anti-smokers are such because they have family members who died of smoking for example
    faceman wrote: »
    You’re misrepresenting reality. Taking case numbers on their own is meaningless at this stage.

    Case numbers matter to a degree but if you take Ireland’s case numbers on their own over the past 2 months it would paint a picture that Ireland is in a rut, unable to get cases down

    That’s why case numbers have to be looked at next to hospital numbers and vaccination rates.

    Looking at all 3 we know a number of things now:

    * Vaccinations work
    * Hospitals are not over crowded
    * Case rates are no longer causing surges

    That's the point I was making... Case numbers aren't as important as they were but they're still relatively important

    FileNotFound wrote: »
    Given that to date information i have read state the vaccinations are effective against current strains (including the ones mentioned above) from a perspective of serious illness/hospitalization, and given that the chance of Ireland being the source of any new dangerous mutations (simple population, hygiene and density relevance) I still find the concern around case numbers odd.

    I mean lockdown was specifically "To stop the hospital system being overwhelmed", unless i missed something that has been achieved.

    Given the lack of compliance in the country, I just feel that we are getting to the point where we need a relevant indicator and to work from it.

    I just hear rubbish about Xmas lockdowns and have to wonder where the logic is for it, now if something relevant changes - a variant as deadly as the first but able to circumvent vaccines - then by all means we can discuss lockdowns etc.

    Right now it is all sounding a bit faff

    Current variants, yes... What I am saying is we don't want a new variant, which you get by having very high case numbers, the USA, Britain, South Africa and India all have in common that their variants were caused by high case loads as the countries didn't really deal with the virus at the time

    Lockdowns stop people congregating and therefore stops the virus from spreading... When there is no vaccine or treatment this also has the added effect of reducing the strain on health services. Vaccines do this also and we are now at a situation where vaccines, not lockdowns are the main weapon against the virus and as you say they will hold up as long as we don't get a resistant variant


  • #5973
    FileNotFound
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,993 ✭✭✭FileNotFound


    Red Silurian wrote: »
    Current variants, yes... What I am saying is we don't want a new variant, which you get by having very high case numbers, the USA, Britain, South Africa and India all have in common that their variants were caused by high case loads as the countries didn't really deal with the virus at the time

    Lockdowns stop people congregating and therefore stops the virus from spreading... When there is no vaccine or treatment this also has the added effect of reducing the strain on health services. Vaccines do this also and we are now at a situation where vaccines, not lockdowns are the main weapon against the virus and as you say they will hold up as long as we don't get a resistant variant

    Indeed new variants are more likely given higher spread, but the spread in Ireland is far lower than more densely populated nations where there is a more realistic risk of variant development.

    While I can accept that theoretically the risk justifies the current state, the practical situation on the ground doesn't really fit in with the theory. Even if we let it run wild we would have relatively small case numbers v Xmas or compared to other nations.

    Lockdowns efficacy v people congregating is starting to wain now as we are witnessing on the news and as we go out and about. As you point out when no vaccine existed the lockdowns had their purpose, but given we have effective vaccines with half the adult population at 1 dose which means there is heavily reduced risk of hospitalization then its hard to use hospitals as an excuse anymore.

    Just given the real world environment, immunity is the only way forward, immunity can only be gained through getting vaccine or virus, over half the adult populous (especially those at risk) now have low/no risk of needing hospital, Lockdown is being ignored by many and maintained by few, the financial impact is now getting worrying for the future.

    All in all time to call a day on the current types of lockdowns and replace with something more applicable and intelligent.


  • #5974
    saabsaab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,910 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    FileNotFound wrote: »
    Indeed new variants are more likely given higher spread, but the spread in Ireland is far lower than more densely populated nations where there is a more realistic risk of variant development.

    While I can accept that theoretically the risk justifies the current state, the practical situation on the ground doesn't really fit in with the theory. Even if we let it run wild we would have relatively small case numbers v Xmas or compared to other nations.

    Lockdowns efficacy v people congregating is starting to wain now as we are witnessing on the news and as we go out and about. As you point out when no vaccine existed the lockdowns had their purpose, but given we have effective vaccines with half the adult population at 1 dose which means there is heavily reduced risk of hospitalization then its hard to use hospitals as an excuse anymore.

    Just given the real world environment, immunity is the only way forward, immunity can only be gained through getting vaccine or virus, over half the adult populous (especially those at risk) now have low/no risk of needing hospital, Lockdown is being ignored by many and maintained by few, the financial impact is now getting worrying for the future.

    All in all time to call a day on the current types of lockdowns and replace with something more applicable and intelligent.


    Local lockdowns? Flying column vaccination vans?


  • #5975
    Red Silurian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,824 ✭✭✭✭Red Silurian


    FileNotFound wrote: »
    Indeed new variants are more likely given higher spread, but the spread in Ireland is far lower than more densely populated nations where there is a more realistic risk of variant development.

    While I can accept that theoretically the risk justifies the current state, the practical situation on the ground doesn't really fit in with the theory. Even if we let it run wild we would have relatively small case numbers v Xmas or compared to other nations.

    Lockdowns efficacy v people congregating is starting to wain now as we are witnessing on the news and as we go out and about. As you point out when no vaccine existed the lockdowns had their purpose, but given we have effective vaccines with half the adult population at 1 dose which means there is heavily reduced risk of hospitalization then its hard to use hospitals as an excuse anymore.

    Just given the real world environment, immunity is the only way forward, immunity can only be gained through getting vaccine or virus, over half the adult populous (especially those at risk) now have low/no risk of needing hospital, Lockdown is being ignored by many and maintained by few, the financial impact is now getting worrying for the future.

    All in all time to call a day on the current types of lockdowns and replace with something more applicable and intelligent.

    The likelihood is small but it does only take one sick person to start a variant, of course in the last 18 months we have over 20 known variants, many of them less transmissable and eventually died out, be nice if we got a more transmissable and less deadly strain, we'd have every country in Europe looking for our tourism then

    The vaccines are the more applicable and more intelligent thing that replaces lockdown, for now and hopefully into the future


  • #5976
    DaSilva
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 696 ✭✭✭DaSilva


    Red Silurian wrote: »
    The likelihood is small but it does only take one sick person to start a variant, of course in the last 18 months we have over 20 known variants ...

    I'm not trying to be pedantic for the sake of it, but more because its really interesting imo, but the number known of variants is in the thousands


  • Advertisement
  • #5977
    Red Silurian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,824 ✭✭✭✭Red Silurian


    DaSilva wrote: »
    I'm not trying to be pedantic for the sake of it, but more because its really interesting imo, but the number known of variants is in the thousands

    It's assumed there are millions of variants, there probably is... And you are correct, it's really interesting


  • #5978
    fun loving criminal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,527 ✭✭✭fun loving criminal


    I see more countries are being added to the MHQ list from the 8 of June.

    Does anyone understand the reasoning behind adding countries but giving a few days notice like this? If a country is diseased, how do people get to land here now and not do mandatory quarantine until the 8th?


  • #5979
    saabsaab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,910 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    I guess it's the more infectious/more deadly variants people take into account. Maybe a harmless variant would be a good thing and confer a measure of immunity on those that catch it.


  • #5980
    Tenger
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 10,187 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tenger


    saabsaab wrote: »
    I guess it's the more infectious/more deadly variants people take into account. Maybe a harmless variant would be a good thing and confer a measure of immunity on those that catch it.

    A "harmless variant" is probably undetectable,
    Either because it infe tion rate drops drastically of because it becomes so mild to be UN-noticeable.

    The "Spanish Flu" essentially disappeared in 1920/21.

    There is also an older "Russian flu" from approx 1880-1890 (going on memory here) that is no longer fatal or illness causing. But we all carry it. It killed 100s of 1000s 130 years ago.


  • #5981
    Red Silurian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,824 ✭✭✭✭Red Silurian


    fun loving criminal wrote: »
    I see more countries are being added to the MHQ list from the 8 of June.

    Does anyone understand the reasoning behind adding countries but giving a few days notice like this? If a country is diseased, how do people get to land here now and not do mandatory quarantine until the 8th?

    It seems to be the way we do things in this country. Announce, wait, implement

    Last October it was announced that the country would move to lv5 on a Thursday to take effect the following Wednesday. MHQ was announced in February and after weeks of debate was introduced in April.

    Last September it was proposed that PCR testing should be introduced to anybody coming in, it was introduced in January

    Now I'm not saying that it's a bad system but there are 5,000 dead


  • Advertisement
  • #5982
    Valhallapt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,222 ✭✭✭Valhallapt


    Red Silurian wrote: »
    Now I'm not saying that it's a bad system but there are 5,000 dead

    The central statistics office put the excess mortality rate at less that half that. Every single communicable disease got here somehow.


  • #5983
    faceman
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,681 CMod ✭✭✭✭faceman


    Tenger wrote: »

    There is also an older "Russian flu" from approx 1880-1890 (going on memory here) that is no longer fatal or illness causing. But we all carry it. It killed 100s of 1000s 130 years ago.

    Wow you’re way older than I thought :p


  • #5984
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,132 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    fun loving criminal wrote: »
    I see more countries are being added to the MHQ list from the 8 of June.

    Does anyone understand the reasoning behind adding countries but giving a few days notice like this? If a country is diseased, how do people get to land here now and not do mandatory quarantine until the 8th?

    Afghanistan and Sri Lanka are the countries.


  • #5985
    cnbyz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 101 ✭✭cnbyz


    should i expect the MHQ abolished from Jul 19th when intl travel is allowed ? I need to travel to Turkey on July 21st. Btw not sure i understand why Turkey is still on the list.


  • #5986
    faceman
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,681 CMod ✭✭✭✭faceman


    cnbyz wrote: »
    should i expect the MHQ abolished from Jul 19th when intl travel is allowed ? I need to travel to Turkey on July 21st. Btw not sure i understand why Turkey is still on the list.

    No, MHQ will be around and isn’t up for review until November. It could be extended further then.


  • #5987
    maestroamado
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,425 ✭✭✭maestroamado


    faceman wrote: »
    No, MHQ will be around and isn’t up for review until November. It could be extended further then.


    You one of the bosses so you likely know everything.
    Is there a big risk of being issued a big fine at Dublin Airport....


  • #5988
    sheroman01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,753 ✭✭✭sheroman01


    My partner had a flight back home to France on Tuesday. She had the text message from the HSE to confirm she was negative. They wouldn't accept it, despite it being official and with a referral number on it too.

    Had to change flight to Wednesday morning. New test taken at Randox that day, €69, results received midnight.

    Wednesday morning comes and....she wasn't asked once for her negative test result!! Just went straight through!

    Within 24 hours, it went from refusing entry to your flight for your negative test not being official enough, to not even checking your test result at all!


  • #5989
    Blut2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,467 ✭✭✭Blut2


    ^Thats one of the reasons the system is so pointless, and so irritating. Theres no consistency applied to it at any point.

    Its all down to the luck of the draw on which gate agent you get, which garda you get leaving Dublin, which immigration officer you get arriving back in Dublin...


  • #5990
    saabsaab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,910 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    Until the vaccinations are past a certain point it's best not to travel abroad. Until end of June at least.


  • #5991
    Valhallapt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,222 ✭✭✭Valhallapt


    saabsaab wrote: »
    Until the vaccinations are past a certain point it's best not to travel abroad. Until end of June at least.

    Absolutely no harm in travelling to another EU country now.


  • Advertisement
  • #5992
    TefalBrain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 706 ✭✭✭TefalBrain


    saabsaab wrote: »
    Until the vaccinations are past a certain point it's best not to travel abroad. Until end of June at least.

    If you are young this virus is about as harmful as a fart in an elevator, if you are older or old you are either fully vaccinated or will be very soon.

    The situation couldn't be more different than a few short months ago.


  • #5993
    sprucemoose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,643 ✭✭✭sprucemoose


    TefalBrain wrote: »
    If you are young this virus is about as harmful as a fart in an elevator

    hyperbole


  • #5994
    Valhallapt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,222 ✭✭✭Valhallapt


    TefalBrain wrote: »
    If you are young this virus is about as harmful as a fart in an elevator, if you are older or old you are either fully vaccinated or will be very soon.

    The situation couldn't be more different than a few short months ago.

    Maybe it’s just a coincidence, but since the pubs have reopened, my farts have become horrific, eye watering horrific.


  • #5995
    OwenM
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 860 ✭✭✭OwenM


    sprucemoose wrote: »
    hyperbole

    true though.


  • #5996
    TefalBrain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 706 ✭✭✭TefalBrain


    Valhallapt wrote: »
    Maybe it’s just a coincidence, but since the pubs have reopened, my farts have become horrific, eye watering horrific.

    Gasvariant?


  • #5997
    sprucemoose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,643 ✭✭✭sprucemoose


    OwenM wrote: »
    true though.

    not true


    the likelihood is that younger people will experience much less negative effects. however many young people have and will have very dangerous experiences if they contract the disease


  • #5998
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,330 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    sprucemoose wrote: »
    hyperbole
    Not particularly. If we use the cut off of "young" as under 35, in Ireland since the pandemic hit fourteen young people have died from Covid 19. We have no idea of their medical history or underlying cofactors and it was a tragedy in each and every case. However out of the nearly 266,000 people who tested positive for covid 19 that comes out as 0.005% of that whole. By the way that number alone is lower than the risk with the "ordinary" flu season. And that actual whole will be much larger when we consider those exposed and infected and not tested for positives. While I'd not be so flippant to equate it to a fart in a lift, certainly not for the loved ones involved that is an absolutely miniscule number/level of risk in the young. In the very young who returned positives it seems they weren't even very good vectors for transmission in the community. The hyperbole is much more in suggesting it was/is such a danger to the young.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #5999
    TefalBrain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 706 ✭✭✭TefalBrain


    sprucemoose wrote: »
    hyperbole

    It's not. The vast majority brush it off like nothing. RTE look around for the very rare cases of a young person who is very sick (accompanied by slow sad music of course for effect) and try and make it seem common when it isn't.

    The damage caused to young peoples mental health by the strictest lockdown in the world will have much more damaging effect on them long term.


  • #6000
    OwenM
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 860 ✭✭✭OwenM


    sprucemoose wrote: »
    not true


    the likelihood is that younger people will experience much less negative effects. however many young people have and will have very dangerous experiences if they contract the disease

    read this: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=117398569&postcount=6038


  • Advertisement
  • #6001
    sprucemoose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,643 ✭✭✭sprucemoose


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Not particularly. If we use the cut off of "young" as under 35, in Ireland since the pandemic hit fourteen young people have died from Covid 19. We have no idea of their medical history or underlying cofactors and it was a tragedy in each and every case. However out of the nearly 266,000 people who tested positive for covid 19 that comes out as 0.005% of that whole. By the way that number alone is lower than the risk with the "ordinary" flu season. And that actual whole will be much larger when we consider those exposed and infected and not tested for positives. While I'd not be so flippant to equate it to a fart in a lift, certainly not for the loved ones involved that is an absolutely miniscule number/level of risk in the young. In the very young who returned positives it seems they weren't even very good vectors for transmission in the community. The hyperbole is much more in suggesting it was/is such a danger to the young.

    .....you realise dying isnt the only danger right?


Advertisement