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

Boggles wrote: »

No you are just perpetually ranting and raving how they increased whilst bemoaning restrictions.

So you didn't really have anything worthwhile to offer?

That would be a matter of opinion as to whether it is ranting or raving. I don't think it is but others may disagree.

I feel this is getting in the way of the standard nitpicking and pedantry that you so love and is denying others of your amazing insights.

Deleted User wrote: »

I haven't got a crystal ball, can't see into the future. I've no idea if we will even go into any sort of lockdown at all. But, and here's the important part which you previously missed, I'm not the one making paranoid predictions about the certainty of which levels we'll hit.

If you can't see into the future then what give's you the right to call someone else's prediction "paranoid"?

Unless of course you can point me to a Government Minster that has ruled out future lock downs...

Boggles wrote: »

You are looking at it in clinical isolation with the benefit of hindsight.

And TBH given what happened in England this week you would imagine certain people would be far more measured.

If they succumbed to UEFA bully tactics and agreed to their terms, there would have been a collective shít attack nationally by invested groups claiming they wanted the same treatment.

It's exactly what is happening in England this week, the net effective is it sows divisions and píssés large groups off. A line has to be drawn somewhere.

Obviously the narrative on this thread that it's a national embarrassment not to host them and we are a laughing stock of Europe resides only peoples minds, the reality is no one cares.

Yes, hindsight is always an advantage — but it doesn’t negate the expectation that the State shows foresight in its decision-making. The question was only ever whether allowing the Aviva to be 25% full was off-kilter with what the government was planning ahead on doing — and I don’t think that there was ever any serious expectation on their part that outdoor drinking etc would be a big feature by June, especially given that last summer was able to go as far as indoor drinking without vaccines and with less experience of the virus. In addition, it would be interesting to understand how the State applied its foresight in a way which seemed to differ from the other national authorities who decided to host.

The “UEFA bully tactic” line of argument seems deflective. They have no power to compel the State — and creating a narrative of a brave resistance by a sovereign nation against the limited power of some bureaucrats in a sporting association doesn’t seem to ring right. I also don’t agree with this ‘slippery slope’ argument that the floodgates of demands would have rolled in in any way that would have made the decision to host a bad one. The government has quite willingly accepted that the restrictions affect some businesses more than others — and that some business had to remain closed much longer. I do not see how this resolve would have just melted away at the scenario of the Aviva being 25% full — the balance between restriction and relaxation has been bitterly divisive since March 2020 anyway and the government has ploughed on.

I don’t subscribe to the view that it’s a national embarrassment, simply that once again it seems to have been based on a fairly arbitrary level of over-caution

Hooter23 wrote: »

With over 4,000 + vaccine deaths around the world RTE and the media worldwide are now guilty of mass murder by giving false information saying the the vaccines are perfectly safe when they are clearly not

Is that you Gemma?

JRant wrote: »

Good to know you are happy with so many people out of work and over 1 million on waiting lists.

Eh?

So finished with going off on a rant irrelevant to the original comment - you are now telling people what they think?

Well done there .

ArthurDayne wrote: »

The question was only ever whether allowing the Aviva to be 25% full was off-kilter

That certainly may have been the question but the potential consequences are far more nuanced.

But again it's a peripheral issue, that is being falsely made into a substantive one on here, in reality no one cares.

Like I explained if the 4 matches were to proceed here it would have created potential animosity, negative behaviors and a demand by other vested interests to have a level playing field.

Restaurant Associations taken the government to the high court because they opened Hotels and not standalone restaurants a more recent example here.

There has to be a line drawn somewhere, you can argue where you think the line may be, but you can't argue against a line having to exist.

Again it was UEFA who pulled out, the offer to host remained, it just had to be done on our terms.

As for examples in England in cancelling "Freedom Day", it began last week.

"Well there is X-1000 in Wembley, how come I can't have dancing at my wedding"

"Wimbledon will be full but I can only have 6 at my childs birthday party"

Ranting and raving on every platform going forward which will filter down to the general populous and have potential negative outcomes.

JRant wrote: »

That would be a matter of opinion as to whether it is ranting or raving. I don't think it is but others may disagree.

TBH I don't really know what it is.

You are calling the waiting lists caused by the pandemic a failure, but you are also not calling for them to be reduced, but somehow you think less restrictions would have done this.

Go figure.

I can't.

Boggles wrote: »

That certainly may have been the question but the potential consequences are far more nuanced.

But again it's a peripheral issue, that is being falsely made into a substantive one on here, in reality no one cares.

Like I explained if the 4 matches were to proceed here it would have created potential animosity, negative behaviors and a demand by other vested interests to have a level playing field.

Restaurant Associations taken the government to the high court because they opened Hotels and not standalone restaurants a more recent example here.

There has to be a line drawn somewhere, you can argue where you think the line may be, but you can't argue against a line having to exist.

Again it was UEFA who pulled out, the offer to host remained, it just had to be done on our terms.

As for examples in England in cancelling "Freedom Day", it began last week.

"Well there is X-1000 in Wembley, how come I can't have dancing at my wedding"

"Wimbledon will be full but I can only have 6 at my childs birthday party"

Ranting and raving on every platform going forward which will filter down to the general populous and have potential negative outcomes.

This has been the case all through the pandemic, its a stupid reason not to do something, but it has been our general mode of operation.

"Lockdown to avoid lockdown"
"Delay easing of restrictions to avoid having to delay easing of restrictions".
"Don't open up one thing because others will want to open up another thing".

Boggles wrote: »

I don't know any country who has incorporated that nonsensical "mode of operation".

I mean the UK just delayed the easing of restrictions because their scientists are telling them they could be balls deep in a 3rd wave in a couple of weeks.

Obviously you know better?

Nope, the UK are right to delay easing of restrictions, they are mostly open already with not much to go so they might as well hold off a month.

They have delayed with good reason and data.
We delay because maybe we might have to delay. Our default position is "ultra caution" and the "Trials" that we undertake are laughable.

Deleted User wrote: »

We've had large gatherings, but we haven't had large gatherings of 10,000+ people. And it's not just sitting in the stadium. It's the pubs, shops, buses, queues, toilets etc. that are also part of the experience.

You're correct that there is no such thing as a certainty, but if you're hiding behind that to pretend that having tens of thousands of people in close proximity wouldn't cause an increase, then you're lying to yourself in order to lend credence to your argument.

So we should expect a sharp increase in hospitalizations in every city that has held a Euro 2020 game, starting in about a weeks time?

Boggles wrote: »

So you would prefer if we sped up the easing and have to delay in 4 weeks or potentially row back in 4 weeks because of data?

I mean should we not take note of what is actually happening on the rest of these islands and at least take some reassurance from it?

Of course. That approach makes sense. Beats being the slowest in Europe just because of what MIGHT happen (which I note you take for granted would happen.

Things go slightly wrong like in the UK, we probably only have to delay to the point we are doing now anyway.

Things go right as they quite likely would have, we are open 2 months earlier, we likely have an idea what areas actually contribute to rises, what can remain open, what needs to be delayed etc.

And people actually buy into that as they can see the data and rises in hospitalizations etc. Everyone bought into it in Jan and Feb and most in March. Most people that I can know think the pace of easing since then has been ridiculous and have widely ignored them.

The clownish trialling we are doing now could and should have been done in March.