FF/FG/Green Government - part 2

smurgen

mikep wrote: »

The reality is that many flaunted or ignored the rules, I personally know families who mixed without any consideration of their own responsibility.
One family has 2 vulnerable elderly parents with a stream of children and grandchildren in and out of the house. Including some coming back from abroad.

No government could ever have shut the country down completely, which I believe should have been done..
I would have totally cancelled Christmas with a strict lockdown with sanctions for those breaking the rules..

The reality is FG released video after video promoting the Christmas reopening. Here's Leo building the safe narrative. Can't blame people for falling sick after following a false narrative.

https://twitter.com/DeayCiaran/status/1345457474032300032?s=19

smurgen

smurgen wrote: »

Nope. Vast majority of population supported control measures. Government defied NPHET'S advice and said socialising and visit pubs and restaurants was grand. Sure of course people thought it was going to be safe. False sense of security. Can't blame people for getting sick after they followed the advice they were given by government. And for the established media cheerleading reopening that would have added to the sense of safety.

You know, Smurgen, some of us can actually think for ourselves. We don’t need the government to tell us how bad things are and that we’re safest staying home and avoiding people, including our children, siblings, etc as the alternative could lead to us never seeing them ever again.

Cluedo Monopoly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The gif here is gonna be how this government is seen. Hard to dispel it now after so many many cock-ups. Brilliant wee gif it is.
https://twitter.com/thelittlegreen6/status/1346493688361451521

That's brilliant!
I wonder does Normal Foley appear at all

Cluedo Monopoly

smurgen wrote: »

The reality is FG released video after video promoting the Christmas reopening. Here's Leo building the safe narrative. Can't blame people for falling sick after following a false narrative.

https://twitter.com/DeayCiaran/status/1345457474032300032?s=19

Well Leo can be thankful that the rest of Europe is comparing themselves to us now.

https://twitter.com/DarranMarshall/status/1346565175185461254?s=20

Cluedo Monopoly

When asked about school closures....

smurgen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You know, Smurgen, some of us can actually think for ourselves. We don’t need the government to tell us how bad things are and that we’re safest staying home and avoiding people, including our children, siblings, etc as the alternative could lead to us never seeing them ever again.

People don't have access to the information government have. Not only that but most don't have the ability to interpret the information accurately. Government should air on the side of caution always.

Bannasidhe

Bishop of hope wrote: »

That might be true in some ways.
But families thought it was safe to intermingle and that they were bubbles of some sort I think.
My sister and her husband would be cautious people.
This was going to happen at Xmas regardless of restrictions.
Included in that family I posted about are professional working people, not what you describe as typical devil may care youngsters.
People who should know better.
A garda, an assistant bank manager, a health care worker, a retired health care worker, a former legal secretary, and a lab technician in a pharmaceutical company.
If you can't get a message through to them you're in trouble.

If the message isn't getting through you need to re-think how that message is being delivered.

The message was - " a wee bit of socialising over Xmas is fine, you can go see close family but in small groups, wash your hands, do not hug anyone. Do some shopping. Wear a mask." The message was - take a few precautions and it will be ok. It wasn't ok.
NPHET were saying it's not going to be ok.
They said opening hospitality and allowing family visits at the same time is not the way to go. Govt decided otherwise. People listened to the Govt message.
It's not that it "didn't get through" - it was the wrong bloody message.

The sad reality is at this stage "people who should know better" should not be listening to whatever message is coming from Govt because govt is listening to lobby groups not health experts.

Floppybits

Where are most of the cases coming from? Is it from people going out to pubs and restaurants over the Christmas period? Thankfully so far no one in my family has got it as yet but we didn't go out to restaurants or pubs over the Christmas and kept our contacts to immediate family and even then it wasn't for long. Looking at a neighbour of mine with 4 kids, the youngest only a few months, having people coming and going all through the Christmas and staying over, they even had a party on New Year's, surprised that no one has been infected yet.

smurgen

smurgen wrote: »

People don't have access to the information government have. Not only that but most don't have the ability to interpret the information accurately. Government should air on the side of caution always.

Shur, we’re all thick. Air heads the lot of us.

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

You know, Smurgen, some of us can actually think for ourselves. We don’t need the government to tell us how bad things are and that we’re safest staying home and avoiding people, including our children, siblings, etc as the alternative could lead to us never seeing them ever again.

And some of us know that driving a car while drunk is a very bad idea so why do we need laws about that?
Everyone should just take personal responsibility and govt should stop with all the ad campaigns, checkpoints, breathalyzer tests etc etc - we don't need govt telling us it's safer to drive sober. We know that... apart from the people who don't know or don't care and put other people at risk... what should govt do about them Maryanne? Shrug and say sure fekkit?

Floppybits

Deleted User wrote: »

Shur, we’re all thick. Air heads the lot of us.

Speaking for yourself there. A lot of people will have restricted contacts over the Christmas period despite the government message. I know of families who told people not to come to their house and also who made arrangements to meet outside at Christmas. So there are lots of folks out there who made sensible decisions despite what the government were saying.

Fact of the matter is that the government opened up despite the warnings and most sensible people knew this would happen. The only time where we can really open up is when the vaccinations start happening. It also seems the vaccination is going slower that what is happening in other countries, they had weeks to get a plan in place for this that should have kicked into action as soon as the vaccines arrived but no the HSE were still fumbling around with paperwork that could have been done prior to the vaccines arriving.

Bannasidhe

Floppybits wrote: »

Where are most of the cases coming from? Is it from people going out to pubs and restaurants over the Christmas period? Thankfully so far no one in my family has got it as yet but we didn't go out to restaurants or pubs over the Christmas and kept our contacts to immediate family and even then it wasn't for long. Looking at a neighbour of mine with 4 kids, the youngest only a few months, having people coming and going all through the Christmas and staying over, they even had a party on New Year's, surprised that no one has been infected yet.

Mother of a friend of mine caught it either in Beaumount hosp, CUH, or while being transported between the two .
She was rushed to Beaumount on Xmas Eve with a life threatening aneurism, stabilised, and back to CUH Stephen's Day.
She's in ICU now on a ventilator.

Her family have been so bloody careful to protect her and now they are terrified she is going to die alone.

mikep

Floppybits wrote: »

Speaking for yourself there. A lot of people will have restricted contacts over the Christmas period despite the government message. I know of families who told people not to come to their house and also who made arrangements to meet outside at Christmas. So there are lots of folks out there who made sensible decisions despite what the government were saying.

Fact of the matter is that the government opened up despite the warnings and most sensible people knew this would happen. The only time where we can really open up is when the vaccinations start happening. It also seems the vaccination is going slower that what is happening in other countries, they had weeks to get a plan in place for this that should have kicked into action as soon as the vaccines arrived but no the HSE were still fumbling around with paperwork that could have been done prior to the vaccines arriving.

Fact of the matter is that if government had gone for hard lockdown they most likely assumed it would be ignored anyway .. also image the wailing from opposition, media etc.

We spent a night in a hotel on the 22nd where all rules were being applied and we were fine, also felt very secure .
Problems occurred where rules were being flaunted..

It's a dammed if you do dammed if you don't scenario..

McMurphy

mikep wrote: »

Fact of the matter is that if government had gone for hard lockdown they most likely assumed it would be ignored anyway .. also image the wailing from opposition, media etc.

We spent a night in a hotel on the 22nd where all rules were being applied and we were fine, also felt very secure .
Problems occurred where rules were being flaunted..

It's a dammed if you do dammed if you don't scenario..

Didn't Leo say something along the lines of "we know people are going to do it anyway" - with regards to people visiting etc, in other words he was assuming that people would break restrictions whether they were in place or not, which was pretty dam presumptuous and condescending imo.

mikep

McMurphy wrote: »

Didn't Leo say something along the lines of "we know people are going to do it anyway" - with regards to people visiting etc, in other words he was assuming that people would break restrictions whether they were in place or not, which was pretty dam presumptuous and condescending imo.

You may see it as condescending and presumptuous, I see it as realistic and turned out to be accurate.

I also knew this was going to happen and I still believe many will die in the coming weeks due to people believing they HAD to have a "normal" Christmas..

McMurphy

mikep wrote: »

You may see it as condescending and presumptuous, I see it as realistic and turned out to be accurate.

I also knew this was going to happen and I still believe many will die in the coming weeks due to people believing they HAD to have a "normal" Christmas..

How did it turn out to be accurate? That is impossible to say.

Lockdown was temporarily lifted, it was condescending and presumptuous to assume if it was kept in place - many people would have ignored it. I and my family have followed all the rules and regulations, no matter how pissed off and annoying some might have been (I haven't seen my parents since Feb 19)

I am stating a fact you are speaking hypothetically.

Floppybits

mikep wrote: »

Fact of the matter is that if government had gone for hard lockdown they most likely assumed it would be ignored anyway .. also image the wailing from opposition, media etc.

We spent a night in a hotel on the 22nd where all rules were being applied and we were fine, also felt very secure .
Problems occurred where rules were being flaunted..

It's a dammed if you do dammed if you don't scenario..

I don't think so. We can all accept the people were going to visit other people in their homes which may have been restricted to either family or close friends. The issue is the mingling with everyone in the likes of restaurants or pubs and then bringing it back to the home. I think the government were right to open up home visits but were wrong to open up restaurants and pubs. Retail I have no real issue with, most people will be in and out of the shops and wear masks so it is as safe as can be.

I think the wailing from opposition or the media is the blunt approach that the government is taking to all of this, its either all closed or all open. I would have thought that lessons would have been learned from lockdown in April. Take sports of instance the likes of Tennis and Golf are socially distant activities and should not be shut down. Yes close the club houses and that means people will turn up and play and then go on their way when finished, no hanging around for a chat in club house. This is the frustrating bit and this is what is turning people against the lock downs.

FrancieBrady

mikep wrote: »

Fact of the matter is that if government had gone for hard lockdown they most likely assumed it would be ignored anyway .. also image the wailing from opposition, media etc.

We spent a night in a hotel on the 22nd where all rules were being applied and we were fine, also felt very secure .
Problems occurred where rules were being flaunted..

It's a dammed if you do dammed if you don't scenario..

You cannot shop in shops that are closed, I find.

mikep

McMurphy wrote: »

How did it turn out to be accurate? That is impossible to say.

Lockdown was temporarily lifted, it was condescending and presumptuous to assume if it was kept in place - many people would have ignored it. I and my family have followed all the rules and regulations, no matter how pissed off and annoying some might have been (I haven't seen my parents since Feb 19)

I am stating a fact you are speaking hypothetically.

As I mentioned previously I know people who ignored the rules.
It also was a partial lifting of lockdown which was tightened before Christmas..

People carried on as normal..

I recently hard a member of NPHET saying that the current infection levels are from people gathering in numbers..

Hopefully people will go back to taking things seriously again...

crafty dodger

Can anyone let me know why we are not getting info on the numbers actually vaccinated on a daily basis?
We are given numbers of tests carried out, number of positive tests in near realtime...i.e at the end of each day.

What is so difficult about tracking and releasing the number who have actually received the vaccine and the planned rollout for the coming days?
Is it because of no IT tracking system? Is it because the 'run rate' is embarrassingly low and might shine a light on on shambolic preperation for a vaccine program?

Can someone enlighten me?

FrancieBrady

crafty dodger wrote: »

Can anyone let me know why we are not getting info on the numbers actually vaccinated on a daily basis?
We are given numbers of tests carried out, number of positive tests in near realtime...i.e at the end of each day.

What is so difficult about tracking and releasing the number who have actually received the vaccine and the planned rollout for the coming days?
Is it because of no IT tracking system? Is it because the 'run rate' is embarrassingly low and might shine a light on on shambolic preperation for a vaccine program?

Can someone enlighten me?

Think they said they will start doing that at the daily briefings shortly.

Probably sent Paschal to PC World to get a computer capable of doing it.

Floppybits

crafty dodger wrote: »

Can anyone let me know why we are not getting info on the numbers actually vaccinated on a daily basis?
We are given numbers of tests carried out, number of positive tests in near realtime...i.e at the end of each day.

What is so difficult about tracking and releasing the number who have actually received the vaccine and the planned rollout for the coming days?
Is it because of no IT tracking system? Is it because the 'run rate' is embarrassingly low and might shine a light on on shambolic preperation for a vaccine program?

Can someone enlighten me?

You would think the government would be getting the vaccine numbers out as quickly as possible to build up positivity. The only thing I can think off is that it is not happening and the government are not reporting it because it doesn't suit them to report it.

Bishop of hope

Floppybits wrote: »

You would think the government would be getting the vaccine numbers out as quickly as possible to build up positivity. The only thing I can think off is that it is not happening and the government are not reporting it because it doesn't suit them to report it.

It's the Hse job to vaccinate not the Govts Tbf.
I hope they are getting on with it, but it's important to update people too of course.

I see the justice minister has tested positive, I hope for the best for her and her baby and family.
No cabinet upset as such as no contact except virtual since before Xmas.

https://m.independent.ie/news/pregnant-justice-minister-helen-mcentee-has-tested-positive-for-covid-19-39937898.html

smurgen

Bishop of hope wrote: »

It's the Hse job to vaccinate not the Govts Tbf.
I hope they are getting on with it, but it's important to update people too of course.

I see the justice minister has tested positive, I hope for the best for her and her baby and family.
No cabinet upset as such as no contact except virtual since before Xmas.

https://m.independent.ie/news/pregnant-justice-minister-helen-mcentee-has-tested-positive-for-covid-19-39937898.html

Hope she's and her baby are safe. It goes to show that a person can be safe and follow guidelines all the want. To express personal responsibility also but if the environment around you has become more dangerous then there's very little individuals can do.

Bishop of hope

smurgen wrote: »

Hope she's and her baby are safe. It goes to show that a person can be safe and follow guidelines all the want. To express personal responsibility also but if the environment around you has become more dangerous then there's very little individuals can do.

I'd accept that Smurgen.

McMurphy

Bishop of hope wrote: »

It's the Hse job to vaccinate not the Govts Tbf.
I hope they are getting on with it, but it's important to update people too of course.

I see the justice minister has tested positive, I hope for the best for her and her baby and family.
No cabinet upset as such as no contact except virtual since before Xmas.

https://m.independent.ie/news/pregnant-justice-minister-helen-mcentee-has-tested-positive-for-covid-19-39937898.html

I wish her and her family a speedy recovery.

One wonders if the same lads bemoaning MLMD for isolating for having "a head cold" and "disappearing" will be screaming the same things about Helen, now the shoes on the other foot?

James Brown

mikep wrote: »

100% true.

The general population decided that socialising was more important than protecting themselves and their loved ones.

If any government had tried a lockdown over Christmas it would have been ignored.

I find it utterly depressing that so many decided that their social life was that important and now it's"the government's" fault...

We cannot change health restrictions based on 'ah sure'. We have people who continue to drive drunk that doesn't mean we don't bother with check points.

Myself and everyone I know are in family bubbles and have not socialised outside of them. Like the 'we went mad', 'We all partied' spin, do we know the general population flouted advice or was it just politicians?

blanch152

McMurphy wrote: »

How did it turn out to be accurate? That is impossible to say.

Lockdown was temporarily lifted, it was condescending and presumptuous to assume if it was kept in place - many people would have ignored it. I and my family have followed all the rules and regulations, no matter how pissed off and annoying some might have been (I haven't seen my parents since Feb 19)

I am stating a fact you are speaking hypothetically.

A whole year before Covid? I don't think you can blame the virus for that.

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

We cannot change health restrictions based on 'ah sure'. We have people who continue to drive drunk that doesn't mean we don't bother with check points.

Myself and everyone I know are in family bubbles and have not socialised outside of them. Like the 'we went mad', 'We all partied' spin, do we know the general population flouted advice or was it just politicians?

Family bubbles?

A bubble is meant to be two households, no more.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Family bubbles?

A bubble is meant to be two households, no more.

I live with my family Blanch :rolleyes:
We don't even socialise with one other household. Personally I think expanding to two is not worth the risk. It's playing odds.

Ignoring the discussion/comments to try find holes to dig....