Relaxation of Restrictions, Part V - Read OP for Mod Warnings

road_high · 31-07-2020 2:13pm

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Passenger numbers down 97% at Dublin Airport for June!
Is that 'lockdown' enough for our tourist industry?

Lot of people only look at the lockdown through their own prisms- so long as they can do what they can do then lockdown is over.

Penfailed · 31-07-2020 2:15pm

road_high wrote: »

Is this what is being proposed?

No.

road_high · 31-07-2020 2:16pm

Penfailed wrote: »

No.

Good. Do you know what they are on about? I thought face coverings had been made compulsory indoors but the legislation still had to follow

31-07-2020 2:20pm

Penfailed wrote: »

Opinion polls.

I haven't seen too many opinion polls recently. But a lot of our well known media are extremely pro state so thats something to be aware of. The thing on the pubs last night was disgraceful. Why was nobody "investigating" the nursing homes or the hospitals to find out why we have the highest infection rate of healthcare staff?

For people that are Pro restrictions though, I do wonder

1) Would you feel the same if your own personal circumstances changed such as losing job/income etc?

2) Would you feel the same if the PUP payment was cancelled? (which it will have to be at some point)

3) If you were granted a pay holiday from your mortgage/loans, would you feel the same if you were forced to pay it again.

4) Would you feel the same if a vaccine was a year away from first rolling out?

Lots of people are supporting the restrictions because they haven't seen the bill yet.

FintanMcluskey · 31-07-2020 2:26pm

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

You know as little about opinion polling as you do about many other topics it would seem

Do enlighten me?

ixoy · 31-07-2020 2:28pm

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

I would imagine the type of people that spend their time completing opinion polls would be in favour of restrictions alright

I believe the polls. It doesn't mean people are happy with the restrictions - why would anyone be happy with them? It just means they see them as better than the alternatives.

It also doesn't mean those who agreed are actually following the advice...

road_high · 31-07-2020 2:34pm

ixoy wrote: »

I believe the polls. It doesn't mean people are happy with the restrictions - why would anyone be happy with them? It just means they see them as better than the alternatives.

It also doesn't mean those who agreed are actually following the advice...

As rightly said the bill hasn’t been seen yet. Once the opportunity cost of all this hits individuals and hard I can see the tide turning. It’s still seem as virtuous and morally superior to support lockdown measures as the consequences are contained currently. That can only last so long

LuckyLloyd · 31-07-2020 2:42pm

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Passenger numbers down 97% at Dublin Airport for June!
Is that 'lockdown' enough for our tourist industry?

Domestic Lockdown =/ International Travel

There will be a significant return of travel volume back through Dublin Airport during July and August. However, we will not return to normal volumes of International travel and tourism until there is a vaccine or substantially improved treatment protocols. This is nothing to do with lockdown however, and it is beyond the individual control of the Irish government.

facehugger99 wrote: »

Cool - better let the Govt know they're paying 350,000 people the Covid emergency payment in error so.:rolleyes:

Again 350k people claiming the covid payment =/ Domestic Lockdown

We have had a substantial reopening of the economy and key structural drivers of economic productivity are open for business and operating normally. The remaining sectors not operating have low barriers to entry, lower skill levels, more temporary / transient employees. Pubs being closed is not of long term economic concern. It is easy to reopen once public health concerns are out of the way, as it is a low barrier to entry industry.

Lockdown is over and the vast majority of restrictions that are going to be lifted have been, with schools confirmed for a reopening at the normal commencement of the school year.

This is as far as we're going to go and we can only cross our fingers that our case load will remain sustainable in this context. It is very far from lockdown and very far from normality. The Government is fully aware of what they are doing and the trade offs involved.

FintanMcluskey · 31-07-2020 2:42pm

road_high wrote: »

As rightly said the bill hasn’t been seen yet. Once the opportunity cost of all this hits individuals and hard I can see the tide turning. It’s still seem as virtuous and morally superior to support lockdown measures as the consequences are contained currently. That can only last so long

There is 2 groups of people, those believing the restrictions saved lives or whatever bolix the media are telling them.

The second group are able to think for themselves

Leroy42 · 31-07-2020 2:49pm

skelly22 wrote: »

For a start, that my attitude is "to hell with the facts". It's my understanding of the facts that will ensure I will never wear a face mask upon opening my front door. You'll be an easy sell though I reckon.

I'm sorry that your own words work against you but that is your fault not mine.

You stated that you would not be convinced to wear a mask. Therefore, it doesn't matter what the facts are, or another way to say it 'to hell with the facts'

I asked you three simple questions, which of course you have not been able to even attempt to answer.

Not sure why you threw in the childish remark at the end. I think masks are a good idea for the following reasons;

I understand that particles travel in the air and that having a covering limits the spread. Do you disagree with that?
I understand that people may have the virus without having symptoms and as such may be producing said particles to infect others. Do you agree with that?
I understand that the person at the door, in your example may or may not have immunity, I have no way of knowing. Do you accept this?
I understand that should the other person have the virus and pass it to me I can inadvertently infect my family, friends and colleagues before I know I have it. Do you agree with that?
I have listened to some of the experts (as in not every single one) and the broad consensus appears to be that whilst the effects of masks may be limited, they do no harm to the wearer? Do you think they cause harm?

Given all that, and then just on the personal level of not wanting to get infected myself, I think it is a good idea to lower the risk and that masks play a role in that.

So I don't think I have simply blindly accepting anything.

Care you detail out your reasoning behind not ever wanting to wear a mask at your front door?

FintanMcluskey · 31-07-2020 2:54pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

Given all that, and then just on the personal level of not wanting to get infected myself, I think it is a good idea to lower the risk and that masks play a role in that.

Fear for personal safety is a huge, albeit misguided, motivation for many throughout this

ixoy · 31-07-2020 2:55pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

Care you detail out your reasoning behind not ever wanting to wear a mask at your front door?

To be fair, we're meant to be listening to the experts and, in an Irish context, those experts are not telling, or advising, us to wear masks outdoors right now.

skelly22 · 31-07-2020 3:08pm

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

There is 2 groups of people, those believing the restrictions saved lives or whatever bolix the media are telling them.

The second group are able to think for themselves

I imagine control of the planet will eventually come down to a straightforward battle: Face Mask & Head Visor Wearers -v- Tin Hat Wearers.
One side has a definite head start in terms of already being kitted out.

Penfailed · 31-07-2020 3:10pm

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

There is 2 groups of people, those believing the restrictions saved lives or whatever bolix the media are telling them.

The second group are able to think for themselves

It's completely wrong to say that those believing that the restrictions saved lives cannot think for themselves. Just because they think differently from you, does not equate to lacking independent thought.

skelly22 · 31-07-2020 3:20pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

I'm sorry that your own words work against you but that is your fault not mine.

You stated that you would not be convinced to wear a mask. Therefore, it doesn't matter what the facts are, or another way to say it 'to hell with the facts'

I asked you three simple questions, which of course you have not been able to even attempt to answer.

Not sure why you threw in the childish remark at the end. I think masks are a good idea for the following reasons;

I understand that particles travel in the air and that having a covering limits the spread. Do you disagree with that?
I understand that people may have the virus without having symptoms and as such may be producing said particles to infect others. Do you agree with that?
I understand that the person at the door, in your example may or may not have immunity, I have no way of knowing. Do you accept this?
I understand that should the other person have the virus and pass it to me I can inadvertently infect my family, friends and colleagues before I know I have it. Do you agree with that?
I have listened to some of the experts (as in not every single one) and the broad consensus appears to be that whilst the effects of masks may be limited, they do no harm to the wearer? Do you think they cause harm?

Given all that, and then just on the personal level of not wanting to get infected myself, I think it is a good idea to lower the risk and that masks play a role in that.

So I don't think I have simply blindly accepting anything.

Care you detail out your reasoning behind not ever wanting to wear a mask at your front door?

I'd be curious to know what it would actually take for you to maybe say "Hmmmm.....that's a bit strange" with regard to govt-imposed restrictions. You seem to have a high tolerance level. Would you tolerate shopping at Tesco in a Space Suit, for example, if the man on the telly says the current mask design is insufficient as it leaves your eyes uncovered? Genuine question.

growleaves · 31-07-2020 3:24pm

Penfailed wrote: »

It's completely wrong to say that those believing that the restrictions saved lives cannot think for themselves. Just because they think differently from you, does not equate to lacking independent thought.

In some cases though, it has been said "I trust [other people to do my thinking for me]". (Paraphrase of "I trust the experts")

That is ceding independent thought to trusted authorities, and is considered responsible, and every independent attempt to get at the truth is met with appeals to the weight of authority, itself heavily mediated by politicians and journalists.

Leroy42 · 31-07-2020 3:44pm

skelly22 wrote: »

I'd be curious to know what it would actually take for you to maybe say "Hmmmm.....that's a bit strange" with regard to govt-imposed restrictions. You seem to have a high tolerance level. Would you tolerate shopping at Tesco in a Space Suit, for example, if the man on the telly says the current mask design is insufficient as it leaves your eyes uncovered? Genuine question.

I'd be curious to know whether you have any actual basis for your position that wearing masks is pointless.

You seem incapable of answering any questions.

I have stated numerous times that I have looked for answers, asked questions. Just because I have a different opinion to yours does not mean I haven't asked questions. If anything it appears you don't seem to want to engage in any questions, again going back to your line that nothing will convince you.

I would happily admit that masks are pointless if that can be shown to be the case. Whilst there are certainly different opinions on it, the risk factor would suggest that taking precautions is the better option until we can say definitely one way or the other.

You think wearing a face mask is something that is particular difficult or requires a high tolerance? I assume you weat seatbelts, put life jackets on when in a boat, teach your children to cross at designated crossing and wait for the green man. Do you stop at red lights?

All of these are imposed on you, yet you adhere to them, seemingly without question.

In terms of the face mask covering the eyes, I see that medical personnel wear them. In many cases they are actually easier to wear, I see hairdresser etc wearing them.

Depends who the man on the telly is and on what basis he is claiming it. Does he think it will help stop the spread? Is their evidence from other places that it would work?

Critical thinking doesn't just mean you take the opposite position of experts. You need to question it, look at the evidence and evaluate it, as much as possible within the confines of ones knowledge.

There may well come a time when something so infectious and dangerous comes along that we would have to wear hazmat suits to walk into a shop. I don't think we are there, but if it ever did arise then yes, I would take the precautions necessary.

Leroy42 · 31-07-2020 3:51pm

growleaves wrote: »

In some cases though, it has been said "I trust [other people to do my thinking for me]". (Paraphrase of "I trust the experts")

That is ceding independent thought to trusted authorities, and is considered responsible, and every independent attempt to get at the truth is met with appeals to the weight of authority, itself heavily mediated by politicians and journalists.

There is a big difference in saying one trusting the experts (which we all do to varying degrees every day) and not questioning it. I trust the pilot of the plane because of the safety record, the regulations, the training programs etc. I don't trust them personally simply because they are a pilot.

The issue is not with the questioning of experts, that is perfectly fine and what we should be doing. But there is a big difference between questioning and simply refusing to believe.

The line - 'simply accepting without question' or varities of it has been thrown out a number of times without any reasoning behind it. It seems that some people seem to think that disbelieving experts put them ahead of everyone else, but sfor no other reason that to be seen to be 'thinking independently'.

skelly22 · 31-07-2020 4:12pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

I'd be curious to know whether you have any actual basis for your position that wearing masks is pointless.

You seem incapable of answering any questions.

I have stated numerous times that I have looked for answers, asked questions. Just because I have a different opinion to yours does not mean I haven't asked questions. If anything it appears you don't seem to want to engage in any questions, again going back to your line that nothing will convince you.

I would happily admit that masks are pointless if that can be shown to be the case. Whilst there are certainly different opinions on it, the risk factor would suggest that taking precautions is the better option until we can say definitely one way or the other.

You think wearing a face mask is something that is particular difficult or requires a high tolerance? I assume you weat seatbelts, put life jackets on when in a boat, teach your children to cross at designated crossing and wait for the green man. Do you stop at red lights?

All of these are imposed on you, yet you adhere to them, seemingly without question.

In terms of the face mask covering the eyes, I see that medical personnel wear them. In many cases they are actually easier to wear, I see hairdresser etc wearing them.

Depends who the man on the telly is and on what basis he is claiming it. Does he think it will help stop the spread? Is their evidence from other places that it would work?

Critical thinking doesn't just mean you take the opposite position of experts. You need to question it, look at the evidence and evaluate it, as much as possible within the confines of ones knowledge.

There may well come a time when something so infectious and dangerous comes along that we would have to wear hazmat suits to walk into a shop. I don't think we are there, but if it ever did arise then yes, I would take the precautions necessary.

At no point have I said masks are pointless. You continue to mis-quote me. I said I won't be forced to wear one in public should it come to it. Nothing else.

growleaves · 31-07-2020 4:16pm

Leroy42,

I see little recognition or acknowledgement of expert over-certainty, even in the teeth of multiple reversals and updates.

The predictions and proscriptions which remain unvalidated hypotheses (even though people believe that this or that correlation 'settles the matter', 'its all the proof I need' etc.) should be admitted to be unproven, and not taken on faith, merely as a technical matter.

I think I've said it before, but since lockdown is inherently bad there is actually no reason for anyone to want it to be crucially necessary (bar a few famous politicians and scientists who staked their reputations on it.) Therefore with a basic understanding of falsifiability (sadly lacking in many) we should all be lockdown sceptics.

Instead we have people who are partisans in favour of lockdown. They deliberately blur the definition of scientific proof (one poster in the megathread wanted to apply "proof of concept" to a scientific question, uh huh) and seize on correlative phenomena in lieu of a real scientific investigation. Why do they do that?

In theory, no one has any reason to do so but in practice mass panic and the irrational desire to 'do something' and now the desire to feel vindicated and that something was done AND to want to feel that nature is controllable through political actions (it isn't) all contribute imo.

bucketybuck · 31-07-2020 8:36pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

I would happily admit that masks are pointless if that can be shown to be the case.

To play devils advocate, during the worst of the pandemic in March/April/May, masks were not required and were not worn by the general public. During that time food shops remained open and were busier than ever for obvious reasons.

The virus was in the community at that stage, so why was it not rampant throughout those open shops? Why weren't Tesco employees dropping like flies with the virus?

Since they were not dropping like flies then and still aren't today, why then are masks now required? Logic would say that they are a bit pointless at this stage, no?

You say "if it can be shown to be the case", I would suggest that perhaps it has been shown to be the case.

bucketybuck · 31-07-2020 8:42pm

I see that the pattern continues with RTE's headlines.

When there are deaths that is the headline, front and centre. But when there are no deaths, which is more common than not these days, does the headline say that? No, it says "Some not self-isolating, risk spreading virus - Glynn". Or "Any spike in Covid-19 cases is concerning - Taoiseach".

I am no tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist but I'm not stupid either, anybody who cannot see the spin in place from the national broadcaster is being wilfully ignorant.

FintanMcluskey · 31-07-2020 8:43pm

bucketybuck wrote: »

To play devils advocate, during the worst of the pandemic in March/April/May, masks were not required and were not worn by the general public. During that time food shops remained open and were busier than ever for obvious reasons.

The virus was in the community at that stage, so why was it not rampant throughout those open shops? Why weren't Tesco employees dropping like flies with the virus?

Since they were not dropping like flies then and still aren't today, why then are masks now required? Logic would say that they are a bit pointless at this stage, no?

You say "if it can be shown to be the case", I would suggest that perhaps it has been shown to be the case.

Lack of evidence doesnt have any bearing on a lack of compliance.

I understand the mechanics of the catholic church era in Ireland now

hamburgham · 31-07-2020 9:13pm

Deleted User wrote: »

This is a key point that tends to get forgotten.
The will of the people is ultimately the most important thing.

I can't put a timeline on it, but eventually things will start to boil over.
People are at breaking point.

Are they though? I cannot get over the number of people I meet who have swallowed the scare stories lock stock and barrel. Nor can I get over the fact that there is no outcry over the travel situation. Even people who have lost money cancelling holidays are fairly nonchalant about it.

jimmycrackcorm · 01-08-2020 12:30am

hamburgham wrote: »

Are they though? I cannot get over the number of people I meet who have swallowed the scare stories lock stock and barrel. Nor can I get over the fact that there is no outcry over the travel situation. Even people who have lost money cancelling holidays are fairly nonchalant about it.

I think the stories that came out during the height of the crisis in Italy, of people dying at home without even making it to hospital and the army having to take away coffins, made people feel glad we didn't end up the same.

Quantum Erasure · 01-08-2020 1:08am

It's easy to forget all that though, it was months ago

FintanMcluskey · 01-08-2020 1:14am

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I think the stories that came out during the height of the crisis in Italy, of people dying at home without even making it to hospital and the army having to take away coffins, made people feel glad we didn't end up the same.

Harrowing images indeed.

The fact they weren't witnessed in ireland had more to do with demographics than restrictions however.

The region in Italy that seen those images was in northern Italy where 10m citizen's lived in an area the size of munster. The age profile in this region was one of the highest in Europe if I remember correctly and the hospitals got over crowded very quickly.

The point I'm making is, the restrictions did not prevent this happening in Ireland, it was the fact the demographics of Ireland were vastly different

irishproduce · 01-08-2020 1:23am

bucketybuck wrote: »

I see that the pattern continues with RTE's headlines.

When there are deaths that is the headline, front and centre. But when there are no deaths, which is more common than not these days, does the headline say that? No, it says "Some not self-isolating, risk spreading virus - Glynn". Or "Any spike in Covid-19 cases is concerning - Taoiseach".

I am no tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist but I'm not stupid either, anybody who cannot see the spin in place from the national broadcaster is being wilfully ignorant.

An excellent observation and you're not wrong.

Quantum Erasure · 01-08-2020 2:12am

"bad news makes headlines shocker"

Leroy42 · 01-08-2020 9:09am

bucketybuck wrote: »

To play devils advocate, during the worst of the pandemic in March/April/May, masks were not required and were not worn by the general public. During that time food shops remained open and were busier than ever for obvious reasons.

The virus was in the community at that stage, so why was it not rampant throughout those open shops? Why weren't Tesco employees dropping like flies with the virus?

Since they were not dropping like flies then and still aren't today, why then are masks now required? Logic would say that they are a bit pointless at this stage, no?

You say "if it can be shown to be the case", I would suggest that perhaps it has been shown to be the case.

It was a very different situation. The entire country was in lockdown. The number of people going to work was vastly reduced, schools closed, sport stopped. Older people were cocooned.

The shops were not busier than normal. People were certainly buying more each time they went, they they were going less often. There were pretty tough restrictions in place. 2 metres, hand sanitizer, perspex. Kids were not allowed into most shops.

But the main difference was the reduced number of different interactions. People were effectively in a bubble for the vast majority of the time.

Once the harshest restrictions were lifted it is well known that people tend to relax. You can see it everywhere. People are less concerned about distance, more people are going shopping, work, sports etc etc. This the risk level is increased. The use of masks is to try to bring something in to reduce that risk level.

I also, think, and this is nothing but an opinion of mine, that given the public's rush to buy toilet paper, hand gels etc, and the shortage of PPE across the world, a decision was taken that calling for masks at a time when lock down was in place would only drive another shortage and could lead to additional panic. Some decisions need to be made based on how people will react not just on the science.

But lets us say that your devils advocate position is perfectly correct. To what end do you think the governments around the world are calling for facemasks to be worn? Do you really believe this is the start of a move to total control?

That they using this to test the limits they can push and control the populations.

So on one hand we have the knowledge that face coverings reduce the risk of the spread of particulate diseases. On the other we have a global population control conspiracy.

The flaw in the argument is that we know that face masks stop the spread of particulants. It is why people put their hand up when coughing or sneezing. Nobody has been able to show me anything that shows that facemasks don't help in this regard.

Relaxation of Restrictions, Part V - **Read OP for Mod Warnings**

Comments

Relaxation of Restrictions, Part V - Read OP for Mod Warnings