Off Topic Thread 5.0

The remaining grandparents in my family are going to spend Christmas with siblings that can isolate fully for 10 days before hand. We can't host anyone as my wife will be working through Christmas (nurse). Just going to try and make it as normal as possible for the kids and do what we can over zoom.

sydthebeat

Podge_irl wrote: »

How is he clearly referring to Irish-Americans?

Tens of thousands of Irish people return home for Christmas from all over Europe. I've obeyed the rules and not come back during the year but I'll be damned if I'm spending Christmas in Switzerland. Also does he really think everyone doesn't already have flights booked 6 weeks out!?

Come home with a PCR test result as negative within 72 hours of the flight.

"The request to restrict movements for 14 days can be waived for passengers arriving from an orange region, if they have received a negative/not detected PCR test result during the three days before arriving in Ireland. In this case, passengers are requested to have supporting evidence of the negative test in their possession, according to Irish Government guidelines."

From : https://www.dublinairport.com/flight-information/pre-departure-covid-19-tests

Podge_irl

Well, I'm quarantining for 2 weeks when I go back home so I have no intention of not going.

Ireland has had ill-designed and badly enforced self-isolation requirements all year while things were opened up over summer elsewhere. And while I don't doubt multiple people simply didn't obey it, others obeyed the rules and thus didn't travel home.

Not least the fact they have been foreshadowing bringing in the EU travel protocols. Their messaging is all over the place.

irishbucsfan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think tens of thousands of people (probably a lot more going by previous years) coming back to the country during a short period of time and mingling with relatives is a disaster waiting to happen.

It shouldn't really need to be said either, don't travel unless it's essential - Christmas isn't essential. If people can get tested before departure or isolate on arrival fair enough but I see no harm in discouraging anyone who hasn't decided yet.

There is light at the end of the tunnel with the vaccine on it's way, a post Christmas surge would mean another level 5 lockdown which means more unemployment and death.

This shouldn't be a contentious request from the Government.

The only reason it would be a disaster waiting to happen is if people act like muppets while at home. The travel itself is not the issue.

I’m near a tourist area down in Portugal for the year. Loads of tourists still coming here all year (obviously nothing like the normal figures). Cases are far lower here than the north of the country. When there are outbreaks here, it’s not international travel generally causing it, it’s large family parties from people living here, or else house parties among the same people. The exact same will happen in Ireland over Christmas, absolutely guaranteed. Hopefully the current lockdown can reduce the occurrence of that as much as possible.

If someone goes home and infects their family at Christmas, it makes no difference where they started that journey. Everyone should be isolating in mid-December if they’re going to be with family at christmas. If everyone does safely that there’s no reason at all why families shouldn’t be reunited.

Neil3030

Jaco, wtf is going on in No 10?

You're the only source I trust!

MaybeMaybe

Deleted User wrote: »

The remaining grandparents in my family are going to spend Christmas with siblings that can isolate fully for 10 days before hand. We can't host anyone as my wife will be working through Christmas (nurse). Just going to try and make it as normal as possible for the kids and do what we can over zoom.

how or why do you use zoom for personal use? isn't it entirely business focused?

Yeah_Right

If I can't go home for Xmas then no one should be allowed to!!

I wasnt actually planning on going home for Xmas but that's beside the point!!

Neil3030

MaybeMaybe wrote: »

how or why do you use zoom for personal use? isn't it entirely business focused?

Business or personal, people just end up talking about the election either way...

b.gud

MaybeMaybe wrote: »

how or why do you use zoom for personal use? isn't it entirely business focused?

TBH personal use is all it should really be used for it has far too many security issues to be used in any serious business settings.

But to answer your question it's a video conferencing app so it allows multiple people to be on a video call together so it's ideal for multiple distributed families to spend some time "together". It was used lots by people who did quizes during the early days of the lockdown. Zoom cocktail parties were also quite popular

MaybeMaybe

b.gud wrote: »

TBH personal use is all it should really be used for it has far too many security issues to be used in any serious business settings.

But to answer your question it's a video conferencing app so it allows multiple people to be on a video call together so it's ideal for multiple distributed families to spend some time "together". It was used lots by people who did quizes during the early days of the lockdown. Zoom cocktail parties were also quite popular

But the free version limits group calls to 40 mins. Are people really paying for that just so they can do cocktail parties?

b.gud

MaybeMaybe wrote: »

But the free version limits group calls to 40 mins. Are people really paying for that just so they can do cocktail parties?

I didn't realise that, I've been on a couple of zooms that were over that limit. My guess would be that they either removed this restriction during the pandemic to try and lure in new users, or the person who organised it had a paid zoom account at work and used that to set up the meeting

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The only reason it would be a disaster waiting to happen is if people act like muppets while at home. The travel itself is not the issue.

I’m near a tourist area down in Portugal for the year. Loads of tourists still coming here all year (obviously nothing like the normal figures). Cases are far lower here than the north of the country. When there are outbreaks here, it’s not international travel generally causing it, it’s large family parties from people living here, or else house parties among the same people. The exact same will happen in Ireland over Christmas, absolutely guaranteed. Hopefully the current lockdown can reduce the occurrence of that as much as possible.

If someone goes home and infects their family at Christmas, it makes no difference where they started that journey. Everyone should be isolating in mid-December if they’re going to be with family at christmas. If everyone does safely that there’s no reason at all why families shouldn’t be reunited.

Tourists will have accommodation arranged but people visiting over Christmas often stay with family. The two scenarios aren't really the same and if there are limits on household numbers in place at Christmas people would break the covid rules in that scenario.

If you can get tested beforehand fair enough but controlling that with large numbers would be hard.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

Tourists will have accommodation arranged but people visiting over Christmas often stay with family. The two scenarios aren't really the same and if there are limits on household numbers in place at Christmas people would break the covid rules in that scenario.

If you can get tested beforehand fair enough but controlling that with large numbers would be hard.

Yes, people often stay with family at Christmas. So they should isolate before going to stay with them. That's true whether or not its christmas.

Not sure what a limit on a household number is or how that would be remotely feasible.

If people follow the guidelines, there's no increased risk just because its christmas. The answer is to reinforce the importance of the guidelines, not change them.

irishbucsfan

b.gud wrote: »

I didn't realise that, I've been on a couple of zooms that were over that limit. My guess would be that they either removed this restriction during the pandemic to try and lure in new users, or the person who organised it had a paid zoom account at work and used that to set up the meeting

The limit isn't applied if its the persons first time organising a meeting

jacothelad

Neil3030 wrote: »

Jaco, wtf is going on in No 10?

You're the only source I trust!

0200497003587788



Nation shocked to discover Downing Street full of childish arseholes who hate each other


The UK is reeling after finding out that people at the very heart of government have been behaving in an unpleasant manner.
Amid rumours of rising tensions in Boris Johnson’s team, it has been reported that a chant of ‘fight, fight, fight’ was heard from within Number 10 along with the sounds of some sort of scuffle.

Shortly afterwards Lee Cain, a leading adviser to Boris Johnson, announced his resignation.

“I was just packing up the camera,” said journalist Simon Williams who was outside Number 10 when the events took place.

“I heard someone shout ‘twat’ and then someone else shout ‘tosser.’ It was pretty clear that there were some hot tempers in Number 10.

“About a minute later, I heard a man shout ‘you stay out of it, you posh cow’ and then there was just this general shouting that sort of coalesced into a chant of ‘fight, fight, fight’.

“This went on for a minute or so and you could hear some grunting and the occasional cry of ‘bastard’ and ‘fat ****’.

“It finally stopped when a female voice screamed – ‘Leave it Lee, he’s not worth it. Just leave it’.

“Then everything fell quiet and I’ve since heard that Lee Cain had resigned. I’ve no idea if there was any connection or anything.”

It is understood that Dominic Cummings will not be resigning in support of his colleague Mr Cain, but he has issued a warning that ‘this ain’t over, and if anyone wants to start something then you know where I am. Twats.’In-fighting, backstabbing, self-interest, spite, vindictiveness… not behaviours one would ordinarily associate with a Conservative government.
However, it has now been revealed – via the sudden resignation of Director of Communications Lee Cain – that Number 10 is far from immune from the darker impulses of human nature.


“As far as the British public was concerned, Boris, Cummings and Cain were the best of friends,” said Political Analyst Simon Williams.
“A group of chums who enjoyed building treehouses, having a kickabout with jumpers for goalposts and letting their imaginations run wild by making up stories in order to convince people to Vote Leave.


“However, Carrie Symonds may now prove to be the Yoko Ono who broke up this particular band. She reacted to Boris’ suggestion that Cain should be promoted to Chief of Staff by stamping on the PM’s foot and shouting, ‘No! Not that silly poopy-head!’



“Keen to side with his girlfriend because she occasionally kisses him and stuff, Boris withdrew the offer.


“Cummings then responded by telling Boris – in no uncertain terms – that he was ‘not his best friend anymore’.


“Boris then called Cummings ‘ugly’ and informed him he had ‘smelly pants’.
“Cummings’ brilliant retort was, ‘I am rubber, you’re glue, your words bounce off me and stick to you’.


“Meanwhile, Cain had stormed out of Downing Street in tears having phoned his mum to come and pick him up.
“Fears that Cummings would soon follow suit seemed to be allayed when the PM offered him a reconciliatory pickled onion Monster Munch.
“However, there are obviously still a number of vitally important issues that need to be resolved behind that big black door. No doubt Boris will make them his top priority.”
In other less important news, another 500 people have died of Coronavirus.

Neil3030

I thought SNL were on the ball when they got the Biden/Harris skit ready within 3 hours of the acceptance speech.

But good lord, Jaco gets this out, with an image and text formatting, within an hour?

Next level.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yes, people often stay with family at Christmas. So they should isolate before going to stay with them. That's true whether or not its christmas.

Not sure what a limit on a household number is or how that would be remotely feasible.

If people follow the guidelines, there's no increased risk just because its Christmas. The answer is to reinforce the importance of the guidelines, not change them.

I don't think compliance has been good enough across the board to suggest that there is no increased risk. People don't follow the guidelines, if they did we'd be at level 1.

Household limits have been part of the restrictions throughout in terms of the number of visitors from different households etc. Someone who lives abroad would be considered coming from a different household.

Again - if people are conscientious there is no issue. But that has been too big an if for many.

Either way - this is a recommendation at the moment, not a rule.

Bazzo

I don't see why testing negative before departing allows you to waive isolation. What about catching covid in the perfect viral incubator that is an aeroplane? Having to isolate for 5 days after landing and then test negative (which is what I'd heard so far) makes sense.

Anyway it's ****e but I'm going to be spending my first Christmas abroad. The other half is the same, and my sister in Italy is not heading home either. Hoping to be able to make it home in March for a visit. If nothing else I'll be able to take enough time to properly isolate then which I can't do over Christmas.

Podge_irl

Bazzo wrote: »

I don't see why testing negative before departing allows you to waive isolation. What about catching covid in the perfect viral incubator that is an aeroplane? Having to isolate for 5 days after landing and then test negative (which is what I'd heard so far) makes sense.

There have been fairly few cases of confirmed transmission on a plane. Pubs/Gyms/Restaurants/Homes are much bigger issues.

Neil3030

I wouldn't want to be stuck on a long haul flight, in economy, beside a maskless mouthbreather.

But I think otherwise air travel is relatively safe. Most if not all airplanes will be fitted with a HEPA air filter, and passengers should all be wearing masks.

Especially for a short hop within Europe, it's less risk than taking a bus or train, I reckon.

pickarooney

I was hoping to go home for the first time in about 9 years but that's in the bin.

Bazzo

Podge_irl wrote: »

There have been fairly few cases of confirmed transmission on a plane. Pubs/Gyms/Restaurants/Homes are much bigger issues.

Ok, what about the airport either side then...? The travel itself is a significant risk.

Neil3030

Neil3030 wrote: »

I wouldn't want to be stuck on a long haul flight, in economy, beside a maskless mouthbreather.

But I think otherwise air travel is relatively safe. Most if not all airplanes will be fitted with a HEPA air filter, and passengers should all be wearing masks.

Especially for a short hop within Europe, it's less risk than taking a bus or train, I reckon.

You're more likely to catch it in the airport apparently. The more common areas, the more likely the spread. Just don't go to the toilet at all on your trans-Atlantic flight. Easy

Podge_irl

Bazzo wrote: »

Ok, what about the airport either side then...? The travel itself is a significant risk.

Mask wearing in airports and on planes seems to be near enough 100% as opposed to lower rates on other transport. The WHO remain pretty against international travel bans once something is endemic.

Ultimately gathering at homes and in crowded areas seems worse.

kuang1

(apologies Thomond)

There could be worse to come in the US in 4 years time.

Imagine the scenario where Trump sets up his own TV station (very plausible, rumoured to be already under consideration according to CNN reports) soon after leaving the Whitehouse in January and runs for election in 2024.

A lot of his core supporters reported to have turned away from FOX now. (mainly due to them calling the election for Biden, and cutting off Kayleigh McEnany mid-stream last week)
There's a void there to be filled. A Trump run TV/news station would not have trouble with viewing figures.

And add to that a likely situation of Trump running against Kamala Harris...

That is a tinderbox sitting on a barrel of petrol perched on a truck filled with dynamite in a warehouse full of C4 in a city made of TNT in a country full of...well...let's face it, they like to smoke.

kuang1

kuang1 wrote: »

(apologies Thomond)

There could be worse to come in the US in 4 years time.

Imagine the scenario where Trump sets up his own TV station (very plausible, rumoured to be already under consideration according to CNN reports) soon after leaving the Whitehouse in January and runs for election in 2024.

A lot of his core supporters reported to have turned away from FOX now. (mainly due to them calling the election for Biden, and cutting off Kayleigh McEnany mid-stream last week)
There's a void there to be filled. A Trump run TV/news station would not have trouble with viewing figures.

And add to that a likely situation of Trump running against Kamala Harris...

That is a tinderbox sitting on a barrel of petrol perched on a truck filled with dynamite in a warehouse full of C4 in a city made of TNT in a country full of...well...let's face it, they like to smoke.

Pretty much any business initiative setup by Trump has been a failure - some dramatically so.

He's going to make a huge mess on the way out the door but once gone he's going to be fighting a significant number of personal and commercial legal challenges. May even be subject to criminal charges.

I think he's now at his peak popularity or at least I hope that is the case. I don't even know if he'll be healthy or cognizant enough in 2024 to run, he's notably deteriorated the last few years in the public sphere and is noticeably less coherent than when he ran for the Republican primary.

Bazzo

kuang1 wrote: »

(apologies Thomond)

There could be worse to come in the US in 4 years time.

Imagine the scenario where Trump sets up his own TV station (very plausible, rumoured to be already under consideration according to CNN reports) soon after leaving the Whitehouse in January and runs for election in 2024.

A lot of his core supporters reported to have turned away from FOX now. (mainly due to them calling the election for Biden, and cutting off Kayleigh McEnany mid-stream last week)
There's a void there to be filled. A Trump run TV/news station would not have trouble with viewing figures.

And add to that a likely situation of Trump running against Kamala Harris...

That is a tinderbox sitting on a barrel of petrol perched on a truck filled with dynamite in a warehouse full of C4 in a city made of TNT in a country full of...well...let's face it, they like to smoke.

Or, fingers crossed, the schism splits the republican vote neatly into the crazies and the more moderates.

kuang1

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Pretty much any business initiative setup by Trump has been a failure - some dramatically so.

He's going to make a huge mess on the way out the door but once gone he's going to be fighting a significant number of personal and commercial legal challenges. May even be subject to criminal charges.

I think he's now at his peak popularity or at least I hope that is the case. I don't even know if he'll be healthy or cognizant enough in 2024 to run, he's notably deteriorated the last few years in the public sphere and is noticeably less coherent than when he ran for the Republican primary.

I don't think his past record in business should be relied upon to guarantee any future endeavours to fail.

I also don't think that a narrative of "ah he'll be too distracted with legal proceedings to do anything else" is one to rely on becoming reality.
His peak popularity could be sustained with his own TV station.

His medical health may deteriorate sufficiently to prevent my doomsday vision alright.
Christ it's terrible to wish anyone ill, but get sick fast you prick.

kuang1

Bazzo wrote: »

Or, fingers crossed, the schism splits the republican vote neatly into the crazies and the more moderates.

That'd be nice alright.

Stheno

Bazzo wrote: »

Or, fingers crossed, the schism splits the republican vote neatly into the crazies and the more moderates.

Will Trump even be alive/compos mentos in four years? I'd be more inclined to Ivanka or Don Jnr running