Covid19 Part XIX-25,802 in ROI (1,753 deaths) 5,859 in NI (556 deaths) (21/07)Read OP

ACitizenErased

https://twitter.com/maryeregan/status/1283409620493574151?s=21

ednwireland

ACitizenErased wrote: »

https://twitter.com/maryeregan/status/1283409620493574151?s=21

yep lets not bother ensuring people quarantine but complusory face masks for a 2 minute visit to the shop

ACitizenErased

ednwireland wrote: »

yep lets not bother ensuring people quarantine but complusory face masks for a 2 minute visit to the shop

Masks should’ve been compulsory in shops weeks ago

stephenjmcd

ACitizenErased wrote: »

https://twitter.com/maryeregan/status/1283409620493574151?s=21

That'll be intersting to see how that goes.

Lots of things seem to get considered at cabinet and not alot of things decided.

Horse has bolted long ago on alot of things

Eod100

ACitizenErased wrote: »

https://twitter.com/maryeregan/status/1283409620493574151?s=21

Interesting this happens only days after UK announced similar.

Jim_Hodge

ZX7R wrote: »

Two types of referendum in Ireland.
Construction referendum
And
Ordinary referendum
It would fall under the second

Not that we've ever had an Ordinary Referendum but it would not be required to change the CTA at all. An Ordinary Referendum allows the Seanad to exercise a check on the Dáil by providing a mechanism for it to prevent the passing of a bill with which it disagrees and, given government appointees to the Seanad, that's unlikely.

But we're drifting off topic, so I'll say no more other than the Dáil can certainly bring legislation to amend the CTA without a referendum.

setanta1984

ACitizenErased wrote: »

https://twitter.com/maryeregan/status/1283409620493574151?s=21

Insanity.

At the very height of daily case numbers, literally the only place people could go to were shops, and very few people wore masks. Almost no staff wore them (at least in my town).
And despite this the cases consistently dropped down as far as single figures to the level we are at now.
Through every stage of reopening of all retail and shops the numbers were unaffected. No masks mandatory.

If that is not concrete proof that they do not need to be forced on the entire population in order for shops to be safe I don't know what is. It's pure PR to keep twitter mobs appeased.

is_that_so

ednwireland wrote: »

yep lets not bother ensuring people quarantine but complusory face masks for a 2 minute visit to the shop

The penalty is draconian. Heard two elderly ladies in Dunnes last week apologising to each other for forgetting their masks.

ednwireland

setanta1984 wrote: »

Insanity.

At the very height of daily case numbers, literally the only place people could go to were shops, and very few people wore masks. Almost no staff wore them (at least in my town).
And despite this the cases consistently dropped down as far as single figures to the level we are at now.
Through every stage of reopening of all retail and shops the numbers were unaffected. No masks mandatory.

If that is not concrete proof that they do not need to be forced on the entire population in order for shops to be safe I don't know what is. It's pure PR to keep twitter mobs appeased.

totally agree , although i suspect my attitude might be different if i lived in a city but we had 1 case in 7 days, i have no problem social distancing in shops, im rarely in them for more than 15 minutes (the joys of the northwest !)

Eod100

is_that_so wrote: »

The penalty is draconian. Heard two elderly ladies in Dunnes last week apologising to each other for forgetting their masks.

It will be interesting to see how many/any people will be fined and if so by how much. I think it's more aimed at a deterrent. When it's not being enforced by transport workers I can't see many being fined. If driver called Gardai say cos someone refused to wear mask onboard don't think anyone's going to wait around to be fined.

is_that_so

Eod100 wrote: »

It will be interesting to see how many/any people will be fined and if so by how much. I think it's more aimed at a deterrent. When it's not being enforced by transport workers I can't see many being fined. If driver called Gardai say cos someone refused to wear mask onboard don't think anyone's going to wait around to be fined.

There are much bigger numbers to deal with and definitely a lot more potential for conflict. My local shop is largely female-staffed and can't seen them getting into bouncing! As I said the first granny escorted out is bad news!

owlbethere

stephenjmcd wrote: »

That'll be intersting to see how that goes.

Lots of things seem to get considered at cabinet and not alot of things decided.

Horse has bolted long ago on alot of things

Face masks in shops would be a fantastic idea. I was reading the Facebook group for Irish covid sufferers. There's some people there who believe their exposure came from supermarkets because it was during lock down and their movements were reduced.

I went shopping few times and there were incidents of people coughing without covering their mouths. Not a care in the world for other people.

Eod100

is_that_so wrote: »

There are much bigger numbers to deal with and definitely a lot more potential for conflict. My local shop is largely female-staffed and can't seen them getting into bouncing!

Yeah say will be even less likely to be enforced in shops. Lot of places which had people outside counting numbers, making sure people used hand sanatiser etc don't seem to have them anymore so not sure who or how they expect it to be enforced.

But guess it's more about sending message to wear one especially if people already have them for using public transport.

Hurrache

Eod100 wrote: »

Yeah say will be even less likely to be enforced in shops.

Pretty easy, no mask, no service. Many customers are currently refused regularly for other things, this would be no different.

Arghus

political analyst wrote: »

The fact that a deceased person tested positive for Covid is not proof that the person's death was caused by Covid. Niall Boylan has a point.

https://twitter.com/Niall_Boylan/status/1283093428046356480

There's a deep irony in Niall Boylan calling for logical responses, when he himself is completely wrong with his facts there.

113 people under the age of 65 have died from Covid in Ireland, not 8. 113 is roughly 8% of all total deaths.

Basic stuff.

Drumpot

setanta1984 wrote: »

Insanity.

At the very height of daily case numbers, literally the only place people could go to were shops, and very few people wore masks. Almost no staff wore them (at least in my town).
And despite this the cases consistently dropped down as far as single figures to the level we are at now.
Through every stage of reopening of all retail and shops the numbers were unaffected. No masks mandatory.

If that is not concrete proof that they do not need to be forced on the entire population in order for shops to be safe I don't know what is. It's pure PR to keep twitter mobs appeased.

This sort of mindset is very misguided.

As we have seen with this virus, there is still alot we dont know about it and there are contradictions that still have not been explained.

There is no definitive information that explains why Supermarkets and their workers do not appear to of been badly affected. Is it because supermarkets are usually wide spaces with really high roofs which means a dilution of virus ? Is it because even though people were allowed in supermarkets, the amount of people allowed in a shop was severaly restricted and very well monitored (2 metre ques)? Was it actually how well supermarkets regulated customers during a specific peroid ? Do we know how many shop workers got ill and if there is any evidence that we know many didnt have asymptomatic version of the virus ? (maybe shop workers have a stronger immune system because they always work in an environment that exposes themselves to people ?).

Until we know why supermarkets were not responsible for clusters, its irresponsible and naieve to presume its an area we dont need to concern ourselves.

A mask is proven to reduce the spread of a cough or sneeze. That is scientific fact.

The mask argument seems to basically revolve around people who just dont want to wear masks out of inconvenience, versus the scientific evidence that basically isnt definitive on "how effective" they are. So they help, but we just dont know to what degree.

In the absence of knowing for sure, it makes a lot more sense to make masks mandatory. But its a cultural issue of inconvenience that people in western countries just dont seem to be able to grasp.

stephenjmcd

Eod100 wrote: »

It will be interesting to see how many/any people will be fined and if so by how much. I think it's more aimed at a deterrent. When it's not being enforced by transport workers I can't see many being fined. If driver called Gardai say cos someone refused to wear mask onboard don't think anyone's going to wait around to be fined.

Gardai already basically said they weren't going to go chasing buses and trains around. Can't see them legging it to every shop that calls them.

Unless its done properly it'll be another thing of unions representing retail workers saying we aren't enforcing this and the Gardaí saying the same.

They should probably learn from the lack of engagement with the likes of the NBRU etc on the transport legislation

ACitizenErased

Member of the navy has tested positive at Haulbowline Naval Base.
https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/Member-of-Navy-in-Haulbowline-tests-positive-for-coronavirus-03dfc81c-d498-461a-af9c-60a0b1f0a98f-ds

Eod100

Hurrache wrote: »

Pretty easy, no mask, no service. Many customers are currently refused regularly for other things, this would be no different.

That's how it was meant to be on public transport too. If they get to the til til it's already too late, not sure if someone behind counter wants to get abused for refusing service. Hasn't been made clear how people prove exceptions either, take their word or letter from GP say?

stephenjmcd

This includes the 26 from the weekend before
https://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1283416736310743041?s=19

Eod100

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Gardai already basically said they weren't going to go chasing buses and trains around. Can't see them legging it to every shop that calls them.

Unless its done properly it'll be another thing of unions representing retail workers saying we aren't enforcing this and the Gardaí saying the same.

They should probably learn from the lack of engagement with the likes of the NBRU etc on the transport legislation

Not a hope. I can't see shops calling them either unless someone went balistic and even then. I guess the hope is that the deterrent works to make people wear one.

I think tbf, working in retail can be stressful enough without having to enforce this and risk potential conflict with abuse or worse

stephenjmcd

Eod100 wrote: »

That's how it was meant to be on public transport too. If they get to the til til it's already too late, not sure if someone behind counter wants to get abused for refusing service. Hasn't been made clear how people prove exceptions either, take their word or letter from GP say?

Thats actually a good point on the medical front, they said medical exceptions but never actually said do you need a GP letter or what. A bus driver isn't going to be checking for GP letters nor is a shop worker if we're being realistic.

Have seen a few tweets to Dublin bus with people asking similar and its just a bog standard reply with a link to the hse website

ninebeanrows

stephenjmcd wrote: »

https://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1283416736310743041?s=19

Imagine this is a headline in 2020

Sickening we have regressed so far in such a short time

D.Q

The mask issue is crazy. How is it even inconvenient to wear a bit of fabric, grow up and put the mask on. Of all the hills to die on.

I'd understand if the main health guidance was:

"ok guys, we're not certain, but carrying this massive rock around all day might help save lives. We know its an inconvenience, but it could be worth the effort if it helps to save lives and stop the spread"

but its not a massive rock, its a bit of ****ing cloth and elastic.

And even if they are wrong and it doesn't save lives or even stop the spread, so what? we can all laugh about it down the line. the masks don't leave permanent scars, its a minor minor inconvenience you absolute freaks.

Eod100

stephenjmcd wrote: »

This includes the 26 from the weekend before
https://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1283416736310743041?s=19

Imagining scenes like this.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B21IDMoWCg

is_that_so

Hurrache wrote: »

Pretty easy, no mask, no service. Many customers are currently refused regularly for other things, this would be no different.

Shopping comes in many forms. Lots of quick pop ins. It'll need to be a balanced approach.

lalababa

The wearing of masks in indoor public places (save restaurant s and pubs) would be grand. No problem to do it and see how things are a month down the road. Willy nilly Foreign travel and tourists is another matter.
Also crazy drunken idiots around pubs and of course the 'youff'

setanta1984

Drumpot wrote: »

There is no definitive information that explains why Supermarkets and their workers do not appear to of been badly affected.

Except the only 100% concrete irrefutable evidence we do have is that it is NOT because of masks. That is indisputable. Because it's the only thing that was 100% not done up to this point.

How anyone can argue with this makes no sense to me.

It's so backwards it's hilarious - the only time when it may have been understandable to mandate something like this, at the very beginning when thousands there were thousands of cases, and everyone was scared witless, we actively discouraged them. And the case numbers plummeted anyway. Now that we have almost no incidence of the disease in the country, we're talking about imposing on 5 million people they can't buy a bottle of milk from the corner shop without one? For how long? We're never going to be in a better position than we are now, so it's facemasks for 5 million people indefinitely until global eradication??

There is no logic there, based on concrete statistics, no matter what mental gymnastics you want to attempt.

Eod100

Sleety_Rain wrote: »

Imagine this is a headline in 2020

Sickening we have regressed so far in such a short time

That the pubs broke the rules? Or that rules had to be there in first place?

fire_man

My brother was tested today. How quick are they getting results out at the moment?

gabeeg

gabeeg wrote: »

There's very little evidence in either direction.

So we assume its this magical killer virus that impacts every system in the body of everyone infected?

Most viruses have the potential to cause long term impacts in a small proportion of those infected even after recovery from the virus itself. This is well known and studied, if not fully understood. When a huge pandemic impacts large numbers of a population in a short space of time, such as in Lombardy, of course more of these cases are going to show up. It doesn't mean that these sort of reactions are any more likely with Covid however. Anecdotes from physicians does not equal scientific evidence.

US2

How can they tell us for 3 months that masks are actually more dangerous, now forcing us to wear them.

is_that_so

lalababa wrote: »

The wearing of masks in indoor public places (save restaurant s and pubs) would be grand. No problem to do it and see how things are a month down the road. Willy nilly Foreign travel and tourists is another matter.
Also crazy drunken idiots around pubs and of course the 'youff'

That news report is very vague on the where. It kind of suggests the stringent distancing rules in some places were poorly thought out if a mask is suddenly added to the equation.

Eod100

lalababa wrote: »

The wearing of masks in indoor public places (save restaurant s and pubs) would be grand. No problem to do it and see how things are a month down the road. Willy nilly Foreign travel and tourists is another matter.
Also crazy drunken idiots around pubs and of course the 'youff'

I guess they're making a difference between pubs and restaurants and shops is the action but also that say elderly and people with illnesses have to shop for groceries and other things. Might not have relatives dropping them stuff or be able to use online. Whereas pubs or restaurants might be seen as bit more of an optional activity.

I've no issue wearing mask for the few minutes I'd be in a shop. Sure the shorter you're in anyway is the shorter you'd be wearing one for so it's grand

stephenjmcd

is_that_so wrote: »

That news report is very vague on the where. It kind of suggests the stringent distancing rules in some places were poorly thought out if a mask is suddenly added to the equation.

If its like the majority of Europe it'll be shops. Restaurants and bars in France for example you don't need to wear one if your sitting at your table, same in Spain I believe

is_that_so

US2 wrote: »

How can they tell us for 3 months that masks are actually more dangerous, now forcing us to wear them.

The evidence was weak and even now it's just that droplets can spread, nobody has proved it with COVID-19.

Drumpot

setanta1984 wrote: »

Except the only 100% concrete irrefutable evidence we do have is that it is NOT because of masks. That is indisputable. Because it's the only thing that was 100% not done up to this point.

How anyone can argue with this makes no sense to me.

It's so backwards it's hilarious - the only time when it may have been understandable to mandate something like this, at the very beginning when thousands there were thousands of cases, and everyone was scared witless, we actively discouraged them. And the case numbers plummeted anyway. Now that we have almost no incidence of the disease in the country, we're talking about imposing on 5 million people they can't buy a bottle of milk from the corner shop without one? For how long? We're never going to be in a better position than we are now, so it's facemasks for 5 million people indefinitely until global eradication??

There is no logic there, based on concrete statistics, no matter what mental gymnastics you want to attempt.

We don’t know why supermarkets have not yet been found to be responsible for massive clusters. Nothing is 100% proven or disproven, including the potential benefits of masks Being worn in that environment.

You can’t declare something to be something 100% accurate when you don’t have answers to the reason why this might be the case. Again, misguided presumptions that ignores a common sense approach.

Eod100

Wonder does that mean masks will need to be worn in other settings like workplaces?

Jim_Hodge

stephenjmcd wrote: »

If its like the majority of Europe it'll be shops. Restaurants and bars in France for example you don't need to wear one if your sitting at your table, same in Spain I believe

I wonder would churches be included.

Hurrache

is_that_so wrote: »

Shopping comes in many forms. Lots of quick pop ins. It'll need to be a balanced approach.

Not really, you're either in a shop, or not in a shop.

is_that_so

Eod100 wrote: »

Wonder does that mean masks will need to be worn in other settings like workplaces?

This will need a lot of clarification.

spookwoman

spookwoman wrote: »

Ref Long term effects of the virus, the number must be high enough for them to notice that it is happening. Even a small % means probably more people are going to need more medical care as they get older which is going to put more of a strain on a system that is near breaking point. It was mentioned a few months ago that more people are probably going to need lung transplants as well and we don't need to look far to read about it. People need to cop on, just because there are no definitive numbers on long term effects doesn't mean it's not happening.

Cork consultant: Patients already presenting in need of lung transplants after surviving Covid
https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/Cork-consultant-Patients-already-presenting-in-need-of-lung-transplants-after-surviving-Covid-2a3a2602-2c84-408f-a8ad-63a30ccc4b63-ds

Covid can cause interstitial pneumonia. Suffering from Interstitial pneumonia can require lung transplant in the longer term. This is neither new information, nor people who had mild symptoms who suddenly need a transplant

Arghus

Drumpot wrote: »

There is no definitive information that explains why Supermarkets and their workers do not appear to of been badly affected.

The death rate from Covid amongst retail workers is higher in the UK than in the general population.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/14/english-mask-plan-will-help-tackle-high-covid-death-rate-for-shop-staff-matt-hancock

Drumpot

Eod100 wrote: »

Wonder does that mean masks will need to be worn in other settings like workplaces?

I think over the coming months, masks will become more common place.

Some will be dragged kicking and screaming into using them but it will become more socially unacceptable to not wear them in certain environments.

As more evidence shows where masks are most successful, we will amend use.

But right now we don’t know enough to make any confident calls.

stephenjmcd

Hurrache wrote: »

Not really, you're either in a shop, or not in a shop.

I think he means there's a difference between running in and out of the local shop for milk or something where your in and out in 2 minutes compared to being in a supermarket for a good while.

I won't be putting one on if I happen to be out and want to get a drink in the newsagents for example. I'm in and out in less than a minute

ACitizenErased

ACitizenErased wrote: »

Masks should’ve been compulsory in shops weeks ago

Are poeple who cannot wear a mask for legitimate reasons not allowed go to the shops?

Hurrache

stephenjmcd wrote: »

I think he means there's a difference between running in and out of the local shop for milk or something where your in and out in 2 minutes compared to being in a supermarket for a good while.

I won't be putting one on if I happen to be out and want to get a drink in the newsagents for example. I'm in and out in less than a minute

I know what he means, but like I said, you're either in the shop, or you're not. If it's mandatory there's no discussion as to if you're just grabbing a loaf of bread, or you're doing a weekly shop.

Why do you think you're exempt?

Eod100

is_that_so wrote: »

This will need a lot of clarification.

Which hasn't been their strongest skill so far.

I don't know why they don't have a focus group of say 10 random people from public and would think all these questions would come up naturally then. Seems to be an afterthought with them.

Arghus

Drumpot wrote: »

I think over the coming months, masks will become more common place.

Some will be dragged kicking and screaming into using them but it will become more socially unacceptable to not wear them in certain environments.

The ones that will take the most dragging will be those most against restrictions.

Hate restrictions, also hate the masks that give us the best shot of avoiding further restrictions.

Make Ireland Great Again!

stephenjmcd

Eod100 wrote: »

Wonder does that mean masks will need to be worn in other settings like workplaces?

Depends probably on whatever the company say and the setting.

In my own place all the distancing is set up, contact tracing, same people in the building daily, one way system around the building. Desks are being partitioned off now as well, so in our case couldn't see a need for them.