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

Valhallapt

fm wrote: »

The Israeli girl came through franfurt

So they question is why she didn’t just say she had been in Frankfurt? Is there a penalty if caught not being honest? What is it?

saabsaab

Valhallapt wrote: »

So they question is why she didn’t just say she had been in Frankfurt? Is there a penalty if caught not being honest? What is it?

Are you suggesting people should lie?

Niner leprauchan

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I would certainly go. Very interesting place I would say

Tel Aviv is an absolutely wonderful city. Mile on mile of beach and boardwalk, a proper ancient old town, hipster parts of town with great coffee and cafes (and the food is amazing), a good shopping district, huge park and river, a serious party and clubbing scene, some proper high end bars and restaurants cheap as chips scooters to get everywhere, sunshine (though avoid high summer) and day trip distance from the Dead Sea, Jerusalem and some beautiful national parks. I’m well travelled and this is probably the only city that I think has something for literally everyone.

If it’s one of the first opportunities for travel, I’d encourage people to go

Valhallapt

saabsaab wrote: »

Are you suggesting people should lie?

Well they are locking up people from places with low covid rates, who have been vaccinated and tested negative, surely being limited with the truth is the only thing to do?

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Tel Aviv is an absolutely wonderful city. Mile on mile of beach and boardwalk, a proper ancient old town, hipster parts of town with great coffee and cafes (and the food is amazing), a good shopping district, huge park and river, a serious party and clubbing scene, some proper high end bars and restaurants cheap as chips scooters to get everywhere, sunshine (though avoid high summer) and day trip distance from the Dead Sea, Jerusalem and some beautiful national parks. I’m well travelled and this is probably the only city that I think has something for literally everyone.

If it’s one of the first opportunities for travel, I’d encourage people to go

I tend to avoid apartheid states for my holliers but sounds lovely all the same

caveat emptor

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It's very obvious they don't think MHQ will stand up in court. I hope we see plenty more cases taken against this in the coming days.

Maybe so but it provides for extenuating circumstances. Some over zealous civil servant or someone afraid to make a decision.

He clearly should be allowed out and Is out. Good result but hopefully the change the process so that people don't have to sue.

FileNotFound

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It's very obvious they don't think MHQ will stand up in court. I hope we see plenty more cases taken against this in the coming days.

Why the hate if it can have a positive safety effect?

Just curious, unless your planning a trip away or planning on someone coming home to visit whats the actual issue?

The constitution should protect the people really, not be a legal get out of Quarantine in this case card.

Just find your opinion at odds with my own

faceman

How often is the MHQ list going to be updated? It’s another part of the transparency issue. I have to return to Ireland soon for some stuff that can no longer be put off but there’s too much uncertainty with Ireland and it’s bull**** system

And before someone says “you’ve to quarantine anyway”. If a country isn’t on the MHQ list you’re released from quarantine after 5 days if you test negative again.

Doctor Jimbob

FileNotFound wrote: »

Why the hate if it can have a positive safety effect?

Just curious, unless your planning a trip away or planning on someone coming home to visit whats the actual issue?

The constitution should protect the people really, not be a legal get out of Quarantine in this case card.

Just find your opinion at odds with my own

Because the positive safety effect is too small compared to the negative effects - denying people the change to see family and pissing off foreign workers for example. Removing all cars from the roads and insisting we all use bicycles or public transport would have a massive effect on road safety. We don't do that though because the negative effects would be too great. That's how I feel about our MHQ implementation.

I'm not against MHQ in general (although I think we're implementing it far, far too late). I'm unhappy with the current, poorly thought out implementation which doesn't allow exemptions or at least reductions in quarantine length for those with vaccines or negative tests.

FileNotFound

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Because the positive safety effect is too small compared to the negative effects - denying people the change to see family and pissing off foreign workers for example. Removing all cars from the roads and insisting we all use bicycles or public transport would have a massive effect on road safety. We don't do that though because the negative effects would be too great. That's how I feel about our MHQ implementation.

I'm not against MHQ in general (although I think we're implementing it far, far too late). I'm unhappy with the current, poorly thought out implementation which doesn't allow exemptions or at least reductions in quarantine length for those with vaccines or negative tests.

I was originally not all that supportive but decided that if the science backs the choice and I think it must if the Gov have bent to putting EU nations (total assumption) on the list, then we should be happy they have tried to introduce.

I do think its badly planned, limited in the way its thought out, brought in too late if the science does back it etc. etc.

But I wouldn't be delighted to see people travelling for any reason and using our constitution as a get out of quarantine clause, I imagine for every 1 good reason there are dozens of totally unnecessary trips (once again total assumption).

I suppose i get where you are coming from and can understand, would like to see improvements rather than it scrapped if it could help is all..

Doctor Jimbob

FileNotFound wrote: »

I was originally not all that supportive but decided that if the science backs the choice and I think it must if the Gov have bent to putting EU nations (total assumption) on the list, then we should be happy they have tried to introduce.

I do think its badly planned, limited in the way its thought out, brought in too late if the science does back it etc. etc.

But I wouldn't be delighted to see people travelling for any reason and using our constitution as a get out of quarantine clause, I imagine for every 1 good reason there are dozens of totally unnecessary trips (once again total assumption).

I suppose i get where you are coming from and can understand, would like to see improvements rather than it scrapped if it could help is all..

From that post I don't think our stances are all that different when it comes down to it, we're just coming at it from different angles.

I'd also rather see it improved than scrapped altogether.

Valhallapt

FileNotFound wrote: »

Why the hate if it can have a positive safety effect?

Its a net negative effect - maybe 18 months ago there was some merit to it. But it's half baked and half implemented. When the US locked up asian looking people in WW2 - most people thought it was a positive safety effect.

namloc1980

FileNotFound wrote: »

Why the hate if it can have a positive safety effect?

Just curious, unless your planning a trip away or planning on someone coming home to visit whats the actual issue?

The constitution should protect the people really, not be a legal get out of Quarantine in this case card.

Just find your opinion at odds with my own

Yes it should protect people from being arbitrarily detained by the State.

is_that_so

FileNotFound wrote: »

I was originally not all that supportive but decided that if the science backs the choice and I think it must if the Gov have bent to putting EU nations (total assumption) on the list, then we should be happy they have tried to introduce.

I do think its badly planned, limited in the way its thought out, brought in too late if the science does back it etc. etc.

But I wouldn't be delighted to see people travelling for any reason and using our constitution as a get out of quarantine clause, I imagine for every 1 good reason there are dozens of totally unnecessary trips (once again total assumption).

I suppose i get where you are coming from and can understand, would like to see improvements rather than it scrapped if it could help is all..

The Constitution is there to make sure we don't get bad laws and trample all over people's rights and that is how this should be characterised. A concern around the legislation is that the Health Act can now be used for whatever you like once you get the backing of the Dail. The need to resort to this approach is also the lack of robustness in home isolation.

The USA does not meet the 2.5X factor, Donnelly said on morning ireland, that within the EU its about variants, outside the EU Case load 2.5X

this is nuts.

FileNotFound

Valhallapt wrote: »

Its a net negative effect - maybe 18 months ago there was some merit to it. But it's half baked and half implemented. When the US locked up asian looking people in WW2 - most people thought it was a positive safety effect.

I'd say there not really the same but i think i get the jist of what you are meaning. Todays good idea is a bad one tomorrow, you may be right. I do agree if there is merit for it now, it should have been in a long time back.

namloc1980 wrote: »

Yes it should protect people from being arbitrarily detained by the State.

But is it arbitrary if it protects the people of our nation? I would argue that the temporary stay that is quarantine protects us (if the science really does stack up, far from expert enough to argue the nuances). Also its a self imposed detention as anyone entering is aware of it pre arrival, choice does exist. Or Belfast for the desperate.

is_that_so wrote: »

The Constitution is there to make sure we don't get bad laws and trample all over people's rights and that is how this should be characterised. A concern around the legislation is that the Health Act can now be used for whatever you like once you get the backing of the Dail. The need to resort to this approach is also the lack of robustness in home isolation.

Is it really trampling all over our rights, was international travel enshrined into the constitution? I did see other argue the concept of home quarantine was also unconstitutional?

I suppose in general the concept of limitation of freedoms is plain wrong and crosses a dangerous line. But is it fair that people come in and out of the country freely if they pose a risk to the people of the nation?

Even the opposition are not against this move, in fact they are all for, when i see pretty much the entire dail that love tearing each other down agree a move in general is good, I tend to think that maybe it has merit!

timmyntc

MHQ is worthless unless we are going for a zero-covid approach.

Travel accounts for a miniscule number of cases, transmission within Ireland is the big driver.
The benefit to MHQ is that you can stop the cases getting in in the first place, but only worth doing if you stop cases getting in indefinitely from everywhere.

As for variants of concern - if a variant is vaccine evasive or more transmissible, it will over time become the dominant strain worldwide. So trying to block out the variants is pointless as most will die out anyways, and the more transmissible ones will become dominant globally and inevitably get in - only way to stop it is full on zero covid approach (Which is madness)

faceman

Donnelly has said he can’t rule out capping entry if hotels reach capacity.

From an EU perspective this would be a blatant breach of the free movement of people as the cap on entry would be on capacity grounds rather than health grounds.

Sharpyshoot

I think it’s time for Stephen Donnelly to be reigned in. The bit of power he has is gone to his head.

lawred2

FileNotFound wrote: »

I was originally not all that supportive but decided that if the science backs the choice and I think it must if the Gov have bent to putting EU nations (total assumption) on the list, then we should be happy they have tried to introduce.

I do think its badly planned, limited in the way its thought out, brought in too late if the science does back it etc. etc.

But I wouldn't be delighted to see people travelling for any reason and using our constitution as a get out of quarantine clause, I imagine for every 1 good reason there are dozens of totally unnecessary trips (once again total assumption).

I suppose i get where you are coming from and can understand, would like to see improvements rather than it scrapped if it could help is all..

Science doesn't "back" anything.. it's entirely position free.

Scientists and medics however use science in manners that prove, support and justify their own positions!

But two scientists can use the same datasets to support two entirely different positions.

Father Hernandez

Sharpyshoot wrote: »

I think it’s time for Stephen Donnelly to be reigned in. The bit of power he has is gone to his head.

He's dangerous IMO.

Shown up to chase power where he can originally moving to FF, the incident where he had his special adviser block certain ournalists from press conference back in Feb and now everything with MHQ. Stupidly dangerous.

FileNotFound

lawred2 wrote: »

Science doesn't "back" anything.. it's entirely position free.

Scientists and medics however use science in manners that prove, support and justify their own positions!

But two scientists can use the same datasets to support two entirely different positions.

Well NZ would be the worlds biggest case study and it showed it to be pretty effective no?

That would just be from mine own ignorant standpoint.

I would have to say that doing quarantine for some nations v not for others and allowing the Belfast loophole would most certainly reduce the intended effectiveness - whether this justifies MHQ existence is for smarter peeps than me to answer.

Donald Trump

faceman wrote: »

Donnelly has said he can’t rule out capping entry if hotels reach capacity.

From an EU perspective this would be a blatant breach of the free movement of people as the cap on entry would be on capacity grounds rather than health grounds.

Depends on how high the cap is Faceman. The cap would need to be lower than the number of EU citizens wanting to come in.


If they get near the cap, they could just not allow in from non-EU

Valhallapt

FileNotFound wrote: »

Well NZ would be the worlds biggest case study and it showed it to be pretty effective no?

That would just be from mine own ignorant standpoint.

I would have to say that doing quarantine for some nations v not for others and allowing the Belfast loophole would most certainly reduce the intended effectiveness - whether this justifies MHQ existence is for smarter peeps than me to answer.

The republic is not an island, that’s the fundamental flaw in MHQ. We have an unsupervised 400km border where airports will be busier than ever this summer

lawred2

FileNotFound wrote: »

Well NZ would be the worlds biggest case study and it showed it to be pretty effective no?

That would just be from mine own ignorant standpoint.

I would have to say that doing quarantine for some nations v not for others and allowing the Belfast loophole would most certainly reduce the intended effectiveness - whether this justifies MHQ existence is for smarter peeps than me to answer.

I think NZ would be the biggest case study in how being an isolated island miles for anywhere is a natural barrier to airborne disease.

FileNotFound

Valhallapt wrote: »

The republic is not an island, that’s the fundamental flaw in MHQ. We have an unsupervised 400km border where airports will be busier than ever this summer

Very valid point. Even the well known "Fly to Belfast to avoid" is a giant hole in the plan.

I suppose its little more than a deterrent to unnecessary travel so?

smurfjed

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

A negative test doesn't say much though. You can still carry covid and still infect others on the flight. I don't understand how that is so difficult to understand.

Have you got statistics about the number of people who have picked up Covid ONBOARD a flight ?

joseywhales

Zackary Scruffy Thumb wrote: »

The USA does not meet the 2.5X factor, Donnelly said on morning ireland, that within the EU its about variants, outside the EU Case load 2.5X

this is nuts.

Yeah I don't understand, once the argument is perceived prevalence of variants, the minister has given himself carte blanche to quarantine whomever he wants in a non evidence based way. noone wants this power, it can only lead to a disaster. By eliminating oversight and justification this could turn into a lot of lawsuits. Like surely the first thing you do when implementing a solution is to state the problem you are trying to solve. "We want to quarantine people travelling from countries with a prevalence of x%", he clearly plans to move the goal posts as we go.

joseywhales

Out of interest, the flying into belfast option, do you need a UK passport for that post brexit?

Feria40

joseywhales wrote: »

Out of interest, the flying into belfast option, do you need a UK passport for that post brexit?

Don't see why you would. You don't need a specific passport anywhere else in or out of the EU