Restore travel (and sanity) within Ireland

JDD

Breezin wrote: »

I agree fully with that on an individual level. But it is not public policy, and my understanding is that only designated carers can visit cocooners or elderly. What if the parent is not over 70 and not ill? What if it's a grandparent or parent wanting to visit their children or grandchildren? What if someone, even a Tom, Dick or Harry - how dreadful! - just needs to travel for its own sake, for recreation, while fully observing social distancing rules?
Where do you draw the line?
It's all very well if we all make up our own rules. That's a natural response to bad law, but it's also a peculiarly Irish fudge. I would much prefer an honest approach.

I've never been much for the argument of "but if we allow this, it will open the floodgates to everything else!". It's the argument used against every social change we've had over the last 100 years. But I guess that's just my personal outlook.

There's no such thing as designated carers when shopping for over 70's. We've delivered groceries to my parents, over 70, outside the 5k zone for the past two months. We have a chat to them from the gate to the front door each time. There's no fudging the rules there, it's perfectly allowed.

If you are over 70, you should not be travelling, end of. The rules are clear on that. If you want to see your children or grandchildren, they have to come to you.

If the parent isn't over 70 and isn't cocooning, well, I think my view still stands. I mean, even in the example above regarding cocooners you're NOT REALLY going to just deliver them groceries. You're going to say hi to them. Yes, doing this for a parent who isn't cocooning or sick is fudging the rules a little bit, and yes, that it is a peculiarly Irish thing. But the people that are going to blatantly flout the rules - big funerals, crowds of teenagers, family driving down to West Cork - aren't going to do so because a small number of people are driving outside their zone to visit their parents. They're going to do it anyway.

The vast majority of people can be trusted to keep to the rules 95% of the time. For those that marginally flout them, there should be some discretion. Those who blatantly flout them should be prosecuted.

the kelt

Breezin wrote: »

I agree fully with that on an individual level. But it is not public policy, and my understanding is that only designated carers can visit cocooners or elderly. What if the parent is not over 70 and not ill? What if it's a grandparent or parent wanting to visit their children or grandchildren? What if someone, even a Tom, Dick or Harry - how dreadful! - just needs to travel for its own sake, for recreation, while fully observing social distancing rules?
Where do you draw the line?
It's all very well if we all make up our own rules. That's a natural response to bad law, but it's also a peculiarly Irish fudge. I would much prefer an honest approach.

But thats the problem, the approach is dreadful lacking any thought whatsoever.

People have the common sense to see that and operate accordingly, as long as theyre not being stupid about it.

A case in point.

The other day i headed off for a cycle, i looked down at my watch and i had travelled just over 7k. Literally the only other humans i encountered within that 7k were 2 tractors on the road. According to some on here i should be shunned.

Yet i can walk from stephens green out as far as UCD today and be in contact with literally hundreds of different people but thats grand!

lalababa

Yearra tis de auld one size fits all rule/law. A sledgehammer to kill a fly.
In normal times tis all the nanny states laws and regulations that are used to keep the normally responsible people pissed off while the irresponsible ones will do what the F**k they want anyway.
The 2k and 5 k rules are mostly junk.
Especially for visiting immediate family. Otherwise tis all in de head. We are living distance travelled wise as we did 60+ years ago. Neighbors are actually meeting each other on the paths and chatting. Kids out the door and off on their bikes. Mammies baking scones.

JDD

We are living distance travelled wise as we did 60+ years ago. Neighbors are actually meeting each other on the paths and chatting. Kids out the door and off on their bikes. Mammies baking scones

I bristled at your last comment as it sounded like you were yearning for the stay-at-home mammies of the fifties.

Until I realized I did actually bake scones last week.

Wibbs

JDD wrote: »

Jesus, if you want to visit your parents (at a social distance, of course) who live 45 minutes away, then just go visit them. Bring a couple of bags of shopping, the gardai aren't going to stop you, you're within the rules if you're shopping for them. I have literally no issue with someone doing this, for their sanity. Sure you can go outside your 5k to pick up a takeaway dinner.

Driving down to Wexford now to spend the weekend in your holiday home is a different story. But if you haven't seen your parents in three months, dear God, off you go in the car. We're adults, have a bit a sense about things and we'll all be okay.

This. If my parents were still alive and 45 minutes away, hell even living the other side of the country, damn right I'd visit them, observing the social distancing thing of course. I'd also shock horror wear a mask when doing so.

On the risk front it's a lot less likely to cause transmission than going to a local busy supermarket where the majority are mask free and quite the number are getting closer than two metres from each other and the potential for contaminated surfaces is much higher(even though supermarket workers aren't dropping like flies, so...).

VonLuck

is_that_so wrote: »

I really don't think you understand at all seeing as you're accusing them of virus spreading and all sorts by the end of the post. I'm aware of a number of people who have continued to visit, some outside the mandated restrictions. I trust their acknowledgement of personal responsibility. From their perspective it is the right decision and it has been of great psychological benefit to all.

I did not accuse anyone of spreading the virus. Don't put words in my mouth. But you can't deny the risk is increased.

Why not remove all restrictions with the exception of social distancing? By your logic you trust people's personal responsibility so there shouldn't be any issues.

JDD wrote: »

Jesus, if you want to visit your parents (at a social distance, of course) who live 45 minutes away, then just go visit them. Bring a couple of bags of shopping, the gardai aren't going to stop you, you're within the rules if you're shopping for them. I have literally no issue with someone doing this, for their sanity. Sure you can go outside your 5k to pick up a takeaway dinner.

Driving down to Wexford now to spend the weekend in your holiday home is a different story. But if you haven't seen your parents in three months, dear God, off you go in the car. We're adults, have a bit a sense about things and we'll all be okay.

You can make any argument if you tag "for their sanity" to it. What if someone needs a break from their city living and go to their holiday home on a beach in Wexford "for their sanity"?

The restrictions are there for a reason. They're not there for you to make your own interpretation of them.

osarusan

Visited my mother (in her 70s) twice since it all started, both times to bring a load of food.

The first time I put it all into the front porch while she stayed in the kitchen, and we communicated through a closed window for a while.

The second time she said 'I'm not going to catch this virus from you' and came outside and had me doing a whole load of jobs around the garden, moving plants and digging holes.

We did keep our distance though, but I was the one making sure that happened.

Ballso

JDD wrote: »

Jesus, if you want to visit your parents (at a social distance, of course) who live 45 minutes away, then just go visit them. Bring a couple of bags of shopping, the gardai aren't going to stop you, you're within the rules if you're shopping for them. I have literally no issue with someone doing this, for their sanity. Sure you can go outside your 5k to pick up a takeaway dinner.

Driving down to Wexford now to spend the weekend in your holiday home is a different story. But if you haven't seen your parents in three months, dear God, off you go in the car. We're adults, have a bit a sense about things and we'll all be okay.

If I live 45 minutes from my holiday home can I go for the weekend? This will help greatly with "my sanity". What if my parents are staying in my holiday home, can I go then?

robbiezero

Can some of you not read?

He/She literally said "Driving down to Wexford now to spend the weekend in your holiday home is a different story"

is_that_so

VonLuck wrote: »

I did not accuse anyone of spreading the virus. Don't put words in my mouth. But you can't deny the risk is increased.

Why not remove all restrictions with the exception of social distancing? By your logic you trust people's personal responsibility so there shouldn't be any issues.

Seeing as you've lumped us all in as Tom, Dick or Harry, clearly you don't see any personal responsibility at work and that's perfectly fine as a standpoint. Just leave out the faux empathy.

VonLuck

robbiezero wrote: »

Can some of you not read?

He/She literally said "Driving down to Wexford now to spend the weekend in your holiday home is a different story"

Yes, but my point is why is it a different story? Who decides what rules are suddenly exempt because of their "sanity"?

is_that_so wrote: »

Seeing as you've lumped us all in as Tom, Dick or Harry, clearly you don't see any personal responsibility at work and that's perfectly fine as a standpoint. Just leave out the faux empathy.

Sorry, maybe you don't understand the phrase " any Tom, Dick or Harry". It means anyone, not everyone. Undoubtedly some people can be responsible, but would you trust everyone to be responsible?

Also I'm not sure what you're on about with the "faux empathy" comment. None of my comments are trying to portray empathy to anyone. If anything it's the opposite!

Breezin

JDD wrote: »

I've never been much for the argument of "but if we allow this, it will open the floodgates to everything else!". It's the argument used against every social change we've had over the last 100 years. But I guess that's just my personal outlook.

There's no such thing as designated carers when shopping for over 70's. We've delivered groceries to my parents, over 70, outside the 5k zone for the past two months. We have a chat to them from the gate to the front door each time. There's no fudging the rules there, it's perfectly allowed.

If you are over 70, you should not be travelling, end of. The rules are clear on that. If you want to see your children or grandchildren, they have to come to you.

If the parent isn't over 70 and isn't cocooning, well, I think my view still stands. I mean, even in the example above regarding cocooners you're NOT REALLY going to just deliver them groceries. You're going to say hi to them. Yes, doing this for a parent who isn't cocooning or sick is fudging the rules a little bit, and yes, that it is a peculiarly Irish thing. But the people that are going to blatantly flout the rules - big funerals, crowds of teenagers, family driving down to West Cork - aren't going to do so because a small number of people are driving outside their zone to visit their parents. They're going to do it anyway.

The vast majority of people can be trusted to keep to the rules 95% of the time. For those that marginally flout them, there should be some discretion. Those who blatantly flout them should be prosecuted.

The visiting of parents in such circumstances is a no-brainer and hardly needs discussion. I would do it if I were in that situation. The rules seem quite ambiguous, and even as they are relayed on the national broadcaster there is an element of uncertainty to them.

But I think the debate needs to be opened up to more routine scenarios of everyday life, from just visiting grandchildren to travel for the sake of it. Life for the Toms, Dicks and Harrys, as those prone to moral judgments would term them.

The Cliffs of Moher were mentioned. I would like to be free to travel there (and not jump off, yet), or to similar destinations, purely for recreation and with no great moral insulation for doing so. I want do to that because it is fulfilling and fun, on a rather slow motorcycle, because that is my hobby. I will not try to explain why this hobby is important any more than I would want particularly to listen to someone else tell me at length why marathon running or stamp collecting or breeding cockapoos is so gratifying, but to me it is important.

I would pursue this activity in perfect social isolation, with helmet, visor, gloves, face scarf, snood. I'm not pushed about going to a pub or fancy restaurant, even if that would be pleasant, but I might stop for a socially-distanced takeaway and/or for petrol. I would even make it a round day trip if accommodation were not yet available. People could do the same driving cars, alone or with household members.

I have no moral defence for wanting to travel. I just want to do it because I find 5km severely limiting and oppressive. Some people like small spaces, others find them claustrophobic. I'm in the latter camp.

In that respect, yes, I am 'selfish'. If you want to preach to me about that, knock yourself out - paper never refused ink, and the Internet never refused opinion - but I won't be wasting any Internet replying. But this is about more than me. We should be able to see the collective value of people simply being able to travel.

I am not proposing beach parties, caravan park barbecues, outlandish funerals or raves in parks. I am not trying to mount some daft ideologically-driven libertarian cause, a la Waters and O'Doherty, or those gun-toting loons in the US (see Woodie Guthrie's guitar in the original post).

I am talking purely about re-legalising safe, sensible, responsible travel, for its own sake.

na1

Paddygreen wrote: »

I said at the start of this and I will say it again.. we need secure detention centers to quarantine the non compliant until there is a vaccine. There is no room for dissent when we are at war.

Shouldn't it be opposite:
The people who liked to be locked up for no reason, should be locked?

robbiezero

VonLuck wrote: »

Yes, but my point is why is it a different story? Who decides what rules are suddenly exempt because of their "sanity"?

Can you not see why a rule allowing you to visit your parents safely might be a different story to visiting your holiday home?

The poster is solely talking about visiting parents.

batman_oh

What I don't understand about the 5km nonsense and those that are defending it is what exactly do they expect to have changed by July 20th? Is the virus going to be gone from planet Earth? No. So how is it safer then. All the private hospitals that were taken over are completely empty now and the rest have lots of capacity. Surely this is the time to try move things forward when the capacity is available.

Or we wait until god knows when, coming into flu season again and then give it a go. Sure what could go wrong there - it'll be cured!

na1

Hoffmans wrote: »

It shows how much unnecessary travel people were taking before lockdown that we can survive when distances are restricted,
of course theres the patriot rebels buzzing around with a copy of the constitution in their laps giving no thought to the 1500 already succumbed to the deadly virus

this 1500 number is just for uneducated people, these numbers have nothing to do with the real damage made by COVID-19!

If the old person diagnosed with COVID dies in a nursing home it doesn't mean that the covid was the reason of death.

The only real figures are: the mortality rates across different age groups in different areas.

For example compare the death rate across age group 80-90 in April 2019 vs April 2020, this will give you the real numbers.
Especially ones need to compare the death rate across 80-90 in nursing homes vs the death rate across 80-90 in private houses.

But these stats figures are not available to the public unfortunately.
I would like to see them?

I really don't understand how my driving around the country could contribute to the old person gets infected & died in a nursing home.

sideswipe

sideswipe wrote: »

People who don't clap are the lowest of the low Paddy:pac::D

Keep up the good work, those curtains won't twitch themselves;)

They were selling telescopes the other week in Lidl. Maybe these could be trained on offenders’ houses to keep and eye on them

d15ude

na1 wrote: »

this 1500 number is just for uneducated people, these numbers have nothing to do with the real damage made by COVID-19!

If the old person diagnosed with COVID dies in a nursing home it doesn't mean that the covid was the reason of death.

The only real figures are: the mortality rates across different age groups in different areas.

For example compare the death rate across age group 80-90 in April 2019 vs April 2020, this will give you the real numbers.
Especially ones need to compare the death rate across 80-90 in nursing homes vs the death rate across 80-90 in private houses.

But these stats figures are not available to the public unfortunately.
I would like to see them?

I really don't understand how my driving around the country could contribute to the old person gets infected & died in a nursing home.

Think the term is 'mortality displacement'.

But you are right, I could not find any new data for Ireland.
In Germany for instance mortality displacement is basically unchanged for March 2020.

na1

Yester wrote: »

I can't until they lift the travel restrictions.

If you tell the gardai about the purpose of your travel, they might consider this an essential family reason?

Dial Hard

zoe 3619 wrote: »

Thought the 5km applied to walking and excercise?
I have to drive more than that to get to a shop.
I think the laws were passed in a hurry and I'll certainly abide by the spirit of them,but have no problem dropping shopping to an elderly friend 20km away.

It does, and that is literally all it applies to.

The 2km/5km "travel ban" has to be the most misinterpreted, misunderstood and misquoted rule this country has ever seen.

You can go as far as you like for any of the other permitted reasons. Is travelling 100km to deliver shopping to your cocooning parents if you have another sibling closer to them who could do it within the spirit of the law? Probably not. But is it within the letter of the law? Abso-fcuking-lutely.

Breezin

Dial Hard wrote: »

It does, and that is literally all it applies to.

The 2km/5km "travel ban" has to be the most misinterpreted, misunderstood and misquoted rule this country has ever seen.

You can go as far as you like for any of the other permitted reasons. Is travelling 100km to deliver shopping to your cocooning parents if you have another sibling closer to them who could do it within the spirit of the law? Probably not. But is it within the letter of the law? Abso-fcuking-lutely.

Sigh. No one is seriously disagreeing with that.

What about when you haven't got a high-minded excuse and just want to travel?

Ballso

robbiezero wrote: »

Can you not see why a rule allowing you to visit your parents safely might be a different story to visiting your holiday home

No, that's why I asked. Are we all free to make up our own interpretations of the rules?

robbiezero

Ballso wrote: »

No, that's why I asked. Are we all free to make up our own interpretations of the rules?

I think we can agree that you should definitely follow the restrictions to the letter.

VonLuck

robbiezero wrote: »

Can you not see why a rule allowing you to visit your parents safely might be a different story to visiting your holiday home?

The poster is solely talking about visiting parents.

Yes, but there are no separate rules for visiting parents and visiting holiday homes.

Ballso

robbiezero wrote: »

I think we can agree that you should definitely follow the restrictions to the letter.

Smart answer. I could potentially pack up the household and supplies, head to the holiday home for the weekend, see nobody. Compare this to visiting another household. One is acceptable, the other one isn't, and this is down to "common sense" apparently.

Ballso

VonLuck wrote: »

Yes, but there are no separate rules for visiting parents and visiting holiday homes.

Posters here are saying it's ok to visit parents but not holiday homes. This is supposedly common sense.

robbiezero

Ballso wrote: »

Smart answer. I could potentially pack up the household and supplies, head to the holiday home for the weekend, see nobody. Compare this to visiting another household. One is acceptable, the other one isn't, and this is down to "common sense" apparently.

As I said, I would strongly advise anyone who cannot differentiate between spending a few hours chatting in a parents garden while social distancing and spending a weekend in holiday home in wexford, to obey to the letter all restrictions.
Also try not to use any sharp objects.

Sandz066

I live in Cork but home is Kerry.. I haven't seen my parents, nieces, nephews or friends since early February.

It is likely to be July before I see them face to face again. I saw them more frequently when I lived in Spain for a year even though they're only an hour down the road.

We all have to do our bit to keep the spread of infection as low as possible. Stop whinging and being selfish and wait until the health experts and Government say it is ok to travel.

wakka12

d15ude wrote: »

Think the term is 'mortality displacement'.

But you are right, I could not find any new data for Ireland.
In Germany for instance mortality displacement is basically unchanged for March 2020.

And in most of western Europe, it is much higher

Paddygreen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They were selling telescopes the other week in Lidl. Maybe these could be trained on offenders’ houses to keep and eye on them

I have a dossier on the non compliant in my neighborhood as I’m sure many other concerned citizens have. I can get a very clear view from my landing window of comings and goings in my vicinity. Nothing escapes my attention.