FF/FG/Green Government - part 2

Brendan Bendar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He met with his mates from the factory for a pizza and a few pints blanch and his mother died as a result and his brother is on a ventilator.

Try all you want to lie about that, but that is what happened. The person who spread the invisible virus was not even known to them.

They broke NO law, or NO regulation. They merely took the government at it's word and did what was allowed.

Micheál Martin now admits that allowing that was a mistake.

Francie, I had hoped you wouldn’t sink so low as to go down this line of political argument.

I had hoped you would see the light and the foolishness of someone like me and others arguing about a personal event that I certainly am uncomfortable with. I don’t know these people and I have no business arguing on a message board about their personal grief and attributing blame for their misfortune.

Accordingly I will take no further part in this particular personal area of contention and bereavement.

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Then that's just pure speculation, they could have gotten it anywhere.

Yeh sure...the surge in numbers 'could have have come from anywhere'.

Fairly despicable avoidance going on here. I'm too involved and angry about this. Carry on if it makes you feel good.

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yeh sure...the surge in numbers 'could have have come from anywhere'.

Fairly despicable avoidance going on here. I'm too involved and angry about this. Carry on if it makes you feel good.

So Where's the evidence what you say is true in the case you mentioned.
You say they don't even know who gave it to them.
So how do they know where they got it and why.
If your going to relate a horrific case for point scoring at least get your facts in order and quit pointing fingers somewhere your not even sure is to blame.
Maybe like yourself as they're close to the border they got it from somebody from the north, or maybe the toilet waste from a low flying jet?

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

So Where's the evidence what you say is true in the case you mentioned.
You say they don't even know who gave it to them.
So how do they know where they got it and why.
If your going to relate a horrific case for point scoring at least get your facts in order and quit pointing fingers somewhere your not even sure is to blame.
Maybe like yourself as they're close to the border they got it from somebody from the north, or maybe the toilet waste from a low flying jet?

I said they didn't know the person sitting at the bar who had Covid...the person they were contact traced and told they may be have been infected by. Contract traced because they gave their names under the regs in the pub/restaurant.

Jeez Bish. This is really sad and pathetic. Good luck on this one.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I said they didn't know the person sitting at the bar who had Covid...the person they were contact traced and told they may be have been infected by. Contract traced because they gave their names under the regs in the pub/restaurant.

Jeez Bish. This is really sad and pathetic. Good luck on this one.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He met with his mates from the factory for a pizza and a few pints blanch and his mother died as a result and his brother is on a ventilator.

Try all you want to lie about that, but that is what happened. The person who spread the invisible virus was not even known to them.

They broke NO law, or NO regulation. They merely took the government at it's word and did what was allowed.

Micheál Martin now admits that allowing that was a mistake.

(1) At no stage were people allowed sit at the bar
(2) At no stage were people allowed organise work Christmas gatherings
(3) People were advised that if they wanted to meet elderly family at Christmas, they should keep not socialise pre-Christmas

All of that was clear and unambiguous advice given on multiple occasions by Ministers and public health spokespeople.

You shouldn't be using these people to make disingenuous political points, they are suffering enough.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

(1) At no stage were people allowed sit at the bar
(2) At no stage were people allowed organise work Christmas gatherings
(3) People were advised that if they wanted to meet elderly family at Christmas, they should keep not socialise pre-Christmas

All of that was clear and unambiguous advice given on multiple occasions by Ministers and public health spokespeople.

You shouldn't be using these people to make disingenuous political points, they are suffering enough.

Sorry, I can't let this lying about what was said go.

He and his mates had no control over the guy sitting at the bar. ( I don't even know if that is correct BTW, as I said it as a figure of speech meaning, he was separate to them and not in their company)

At NO stage did I say that it was an 'Organised Christmas Work gathering' he went with a few mates from work to a pub/restaurant for a pizza and a few pints. Mis-representing what was said and clarified AGAIN.

He LIVED WITH HIS MOTHER, it was his home.

Pub/restaurants were OPENED UP by the government, something the Taoiseach now says was a MISTAKE.
I.E. it shouldn't have happened and the consequences SHOULDN'T have happened.

Keep handwaving it away, at least Micheál Martin has the balls to own up.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sorry, I can't let this lying about what was said go.

He and his mates had no control over the guy sitting at the bar. ( I don't even know if that is correct BTW, as I said it as a figure of speech meaning, he was separate to them and not in their company)

At NO stage did I say that it was an 'Organised Christmas Work gathering' he went with a few mates from work to a pub/restaurant for a pizza and a few pints. Mis-representing what was said and clarified AGAIN.

He LIVED WITH HIS MOTHER, it was his home.

Pub/restaurants were OPENED UP by the government, something the Taoiseach now says was a MISTAKE.
I.E. it shouldn't have happened and the consequences SHOULDN'T have happened.

Keep handwaving it away, at least Micheál Martin has the balls to own up.

(1) The pub broke the rules if it had someone sitting at the bar.
(2) A few mates from work is an organised Christmas work do.
(3) If he lived with his mother, then he shouldn't have gone.

That was the advice that was clear and unambiguous. Personal responsibility, not blaming the government for every little thing.

I have elderly parents who I wanted to visit for Christmas. I met nobody in a restaurant during the two weeks before Christmas because I listened to the advice. I am safe, they are safe, all the consequences of the actions we took. Personal responsibility means that I listened carefully and acted safely to protect my family.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

(1) The pub broke the rules if it had someone sitting at the bar.
(2) A few mates from work is an organised Christmas work do.
(3) If he lived with his mother, then he shouldn't have gone.

That was the advice that was clear and unambiguous. Personal responsibility, not blaming the government for every little thing.

I have elderly parents who I wanted to visit for Christmas. I met nobody in a restaurant during the two weeks before Christmas because I listened to the advice. I am safe, they are safe, all the consequences of the actions we took. Personal responsibility means that I listened carefully and acted safely to protect my family.

The 'advice' was 'not to travel home for Christmas' but you still did it.

I want to repeat our thanks to everyone for playing their part so far. If I stand back and think about it, it really is hard to believe I am standing here ahead of Christmas, asking people to limit who they have to their homes, to avoid meeting too many people or not to travel home for Christmas.

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/379ac-briefing-on-the-governments-response-to-covid-19-monday-7-december-2020/#issues-concerns-and-clarification

Bubbaclaus

What seems to be lost in the above back and forth is that mixing with other households wasn't allowed until 18 December, and even after then was limited to 2 other households. Lots of people disregarded that rule and went out to the pub with a bunch of friends from multiple households. Up to 18 December anyone at your table in the bar/restaurant should have been from your own household.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55364744

Bishop of hope

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Where was any of the above advised??


30th novembr...6 allowed at a meal,no mention on not allowing work mate
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/coronavirus-what-s-allowed-and-what-to-avoid-this-christmas-1.4423646%3fmode=amp

Dec 20th (including on visit of elderly relatives)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/ireland-christmas-dinner-rules-number-23195962.amp


Government offial advice
https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/e3b9e-safe-christmas/?referrer=http://www.gov.ie/SafeChristmas/


Nphet advice a full week before xmas to close pubs....they stayed open until.xmas eve

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/nphet-advise-government-to-close-pubs-and-restaurants-again-on-december-28-39875917.html


Government advice nov 27 edited december 4...allowing upto 15 to meet indoors
https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/5b068-ireland-placed-on-level-3-of-the-plan-for-living-with-covid-with-special-measures-for-a-safe-christmas/




How anyone can honestly try to claim.the living with covid plan is anything other than a complete and utter failure is beyond me

You cannot live sustainably with something prone to expodential growth,in same light,you cannot outrun it via vaccinations either

So, what can you do?
Just learn to live with it, is that not anti mask stuff in the last two paragraphs?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

You cant live with community transmission of a highly transmissible virus prone to expodential growth...it deosnt stand to logic

Be like claiming yous can walk around a burning building with a can of petrol,its not a case of if,but when it will explode




That is not anti-mask stuff...its commonsense

Just like staying home until vaccinated is common sense. Just because grocery stores are open doesn’t mean that we should go there every day. Common sense tells me to do a big shop once a month and get milk once a week. Simple, common sense.

Bishop of hope

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You cant live with community transmission of a highly transmissible virus prone to expodential growth...it deosnt stand to logic

Be like claiming yous can walk around a burning building with a can of petrol,its not a case of if,but when it will explode




That is not anti-mask stuff...its commonsense

It's anti mask stuff!

SmokyMo

Deleted User wrote: »

Commomsense also tells me,that until we are 15 days with zero community transmission....we havnt this virus under control

Common sense would also tell you that the human cost of lockdowns is fat tailed which drowns whatever 'advantages' we gain at the moment.

blanch152

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

What seems to be lost in the above back and forth is that mixing with other households wasn't allowed until 18 December, and even after then was limited to 2 other households. Lots of people disregarded that rule and went out to the pub with a bunch of friends from multiple households. Up to 18 December anyone at your table in the bar/restaurant should have been from your own household.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55364744

Common sense would tell you not to mix with several mates from work
Common sense would tell you to leave a pub that was allowing people to sit at the bar.
Common sense would tell you not to socialise in a pub if you are living with a person vulnerable to Covid-19.

Then again, why use common sense, when it is all the government's fault.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Common sense would tell you not to mix with several mates from work
Common sense would tell you to leave a pub that was allowing people to sit at the bar.
Common sense would tell you not to socialise in a pub if you are living with a person vulnerable to Covid-19.

Then again, why use common sense, when it is all the government's fault.

Advice said 'not to travel home' YET you did.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Advice said 'not to travel home' YET you did.

Sorry? Are you mixing me up with someone else?

SmokyMo

Deleted User wrote: »

Would the 1200 odd deaths from a limited reopening...not kind of sink proposals to do away with lockdowns


Mind you lockdowns with out international quaratines,are naive and pointless.....we're all locked down,to facilitate people to come here for summer holidays,it seems

These are short term death. They are painful because they are in the moment.

We are not talking about 400% increase in patents waiting for operations/ in call appointment. We not talking about missed cancer diagnoses. We are not talking about 60% increase people waiting for critical eyes treatment. Over 70% increase in calls from people with eating disorders. The list is as long as my arm. This is even before I get into mental health cost. Domestic violence, drug abuse... Then lastly economic cost.

Deaths from reasons mentioned above, they are 'abstract', no newspaper articles, no moany radio interviews, they wont feel impactful... its a lot harder to relate to them.

As I said, cost of lockdowns is fat tailed.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

All this handwringing and whinging and moaning about everything doesn't do any good.

I have said from the start that we won't really know how this government had handled the crisis until it is over, and we have the figures to hand. To date, we have kept the case rate and death rate below most of our neighbours, that is a good thing, while at the same time, we have managed to keep a fair chunk of our economy going, and the mental wellbeing of all relatively intact. That is a precarious balance. Too much of a lockdown and you get poor mental health outcomes and a tanking economy. Too little of a lockdown and you get too many deaths from Covid.

Along the way, there will be periods when you oscillate from one extreme to the other, all the while keeping a balance. Throughout that time, you rely on the behaviour of ordinary people. Those who are critcising now should be looking to other countries and be glad that we don't live there.

Government defy NPHET advice numbers spiral. Government and supports blame the public for following government advice. People point this out as bogus. Government supporters tell us to move on sure it's worse elsewhere :rolleyes:

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Nobody wanted them, look at the Greens, they chose to go in with FF and FG because the offering from Sinn Fein was so dismal.

Not enough money in it.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

(1) The pub broke the rules if it had someone sitting at the bar.
(2) A few mates from work is an organised Christmas work do.
(3) If he lived with his mother, then he shouldn't have gone.

That was the advice that was clear and unambiguous. Personal responsibility, not blaming the government for every little thing.

I have elderly parents who I wanted to visit for Christmas. I met nobody in a restaurant during the two weeks before Christmas because I listened to the advice. I am safe, they are safe, all the consequences of the actions we took. Personal responsibility means that I listened carefully and acted safely to protect my family.

And if Francie said the barman was on a unicycle you'd make up something about no clowns, (outside of FF/FG/Greens).
Desperate effort to deflect.

Government said it was okay to socialise and attend restaurants or pubs with food.

FrancieBrady

James Brown wrote: »

And if Francie said the barman was on a unicycle you'd make up something about no clowns, (outside of FF/FG/Greens).
Desperate effort to deflect.

Government said it was okay to socialise and attend restaurants or pubs with food.

I've put myself in bad humour engaging with these apologists TBH. Not healthy.

Bubbaclaus

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

What seems to be lost in the above back and forth is that mixing with other households wasn't allowed until 18 December, and even after then was limited to 2 other households. Lots of people disregarded that rule and went out to the pub with a bunch of friends from multiple households. Up to 18 December anyone at your table in the bar/restaurant should have been from your own household.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55364744

Just realised I put up a BBC link regarding the restrictions rather than an official government source, so just wanted to update my prior post.

Blaz previously linked to this press release:

https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/5b068-ireland-placed-on-level-3-of-the-plan-for-living-with-covid-with-special-measures-for-a-safe-christmas/

"From 1 December:
households should not mix with any other households outside those within their bubble

From 18 December:
households can mix with up to two other households"

So basically, anyone mixing with another household prior to 18 December was breaking restrictions, at a bar table (e.g pints with friends)
or elsewhere. Any socialising with another household post that date was using up one of your max two households that you were allowed mingle with for the christmas period.

Personally, I broke restrictions on 8 December by going for drinks with 3 friends that were from 2 separate households. Fully aware I was breaking them at the time and conscious of potentially spreading Covid amongst households further, I then restricted my movements in the 14 days prior to visiting my parents for Christmas.

James Brown

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Just realised I put up a BBC link regarding the restrictions rather than an official government source, so just wanted to update my prior post.

Blaz previously linked to this press release:

https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/5b068-ireland-placed-on-level-3-of-the-plan-for-living-with-covid-with-special-measures-for-a-safe-christmas/

"From 1 December:
households should not mix with any other households outside those within their bubble

From 18 December:
households can mix with up to two other households"

So basically, anyone mixing with another household prior to 18 December was breaking restrictions, at a bar table (e.g pints with friends)
or elsewhere. Any socialising with another household post that date was using up one of your max two households that you were allowed mingle with for the christmas period.

Personally, I broke restrictions on 8 December by going for drinks with 3 friends that were from 2 separate households. Fully aware I was breaking them at the time and conscious of potentially spreading Covid amongst households further, I then restricted my movements in the 14 days prior to visiting my parents for Christmas.

TBF the restrictions when not being flouted by politicians were/are changing on an almost daily basis. People were told they could socialise and dine out/go shopping over the Christmas run up. They did.

Bubbaclaus

James Brown wrote: »

TBF the restrictions when not being flouted by politicians were/are changing on an almost daily basis. People were told they could socialise and dine out/go shopping over the Christmas run up. They did.

Yes they were allowed dine out, but with their own household only, prior to 18 December. A singular household heading for a meal/drinks together. No relaxation of restrictions allowed meeting up with a bunch of friends from all different households for a few pints. People seemed to have not followed this for the most part (myself included, as set out in my post)

blanch152

James Brown wrote: »

TBF the restrictions when not being flouted by politicians were/are changing on an almost daily basis. People were told they could socialise and dine out/go shopping over the Christmas run up. They did.

People were not told that, you are making up nonsense.

The clear information and guidance has been posted to this thread.

Anyone that I know who ended up with Covid (and there are plenty) broke the guidelines in one way or another.

A majority of people I know stuck to the rules and didn't get Covid.

James Brown

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Yes they were allowed dine out, but with their own household only, prior to 18 December. A singular household heading for a meal/drinks together. No relaxation of restrictions allowed meeting up with a bunch of friends from all different households for a few pints. People seemed to have not followed this for the most part (myself included, as set out in my post)

The weeks before Christmas seem to have been the bigger issue.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

People were not told that, you are making up nonsense.

The clear information and guidance has been posted to this thread.

Anyone that I know who ended up with Covid (and there are plenty) broke the guidelines in one way or another.

A majority of people I know stuck to the rules and didn't get Covid.

You are saying people were not told they could socialise and dine out/go shopping in the Christmas run up? Or is this one of those times were you imagine what I said and give out about that?

It's very unlikely people coming home from abroad, mixing with co-workers because of their job, service industry staff, frontline workers, suppliers, people in LTCH and covid cluster factory workers played less of a roll in the numbers than people breaking the rules.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Election was one year ago today,what has been your biggest disappointment

https://mobile.twitter.com/NatalieORegan1/status/1358687300226588674

My biggest disappointment is the increased use of Twitter on Boards. Some posters seem unable to think for themselves.

James Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

My biggest disappointment is the increased use of Twitter on Boards. Some posters seem unable to think for themselves.

Was a time people said the same about the internet. Times change.
Using a form of social media doesn't mean you can't think for yourself Maryanne. Give it a go sure.

RandomViewer

Lots of people paying more tax since January
SIMI getting cartel status thanks to VRT + to stop imports,
25% unemployment,
Austerity Budget looming in October
Cost of living will be the decider in the next election, not looking good