Covid 19 Part XXVII- 62,002 ROI (1,915 deaths) 39,609 NI (724 deaths) (02/11) Read OP

GT89

Wolf359f wrote: »

The point being even Pre-pandemic you had to wear clothes to go into a shop.
Regardless of whether clothes are essential or not.
If his Tesco were selling clothes despite the restrictions, he still should not be allowed into the store dressed or undressed as he is.
He didn't drop out of his mothers womb minutes before taking the video.

Yes you prove my point clothes are essential and should continue to be allowed to be sold.

Riddle me this my local dunnes had the drapery section cordoned off except for the pyjamas, homewares and underwear but turn the corner into the grocery section and the booze aisle is in full swing. So clothes are not essiential but alcohol is now I'm guessing.

khalessi

GT89 wrote: »

Yes you prove my point clothes are essential and should continue to be allowed to be sold.

Riddle me this my local dunnes had the drapery section cordoned off except for the pyjamas, homewares and underwear but turn the corner into the grocery section and the booze aisle is in full swing. So clothes are not essiential but alcohol is now I'm guessing.

Same with Tesco could buy booze but not a coat

Wolf359f

GT89 wrote: »

Yes you prove my point clothes are essential and should continue to be allowed to be sold.

Riddle me this my local dunnes had the drapery section cordoned off except for the pyjamas, homewares and underwear but turn the corner into the grocery section and the booze aisle is in full swing. So clothes are not essiential but alcohol is now I'm guessing.

I'm not saying clothes are not essential, I'm saying someone going shopping in their boxers, pandemic or no pandemic is not right.
When Wales come out of their firebrick lockdown, that guy will still not be allowed enter the store in his boxers.

Wolf359f

khalessi wrote: »

Same with Tesco could buy booze but not a coat

Was there many people buying booze in the boxers or knickers?

khalessi

Wolf359f wrote: »

Was there many people buying booze in the boxers or knickers?

PLenty in the booze aisle

Wolf359f

khalessi wrote: »

PLenty in the booze aisle

In their knickers and boxers? That's what I was asking.

khalessi

Wolf359f wrote: »

In their knickers and boxers? That's what I was asking.

oh i know what you were asking i was ignoring it as i said plenty buying booze

GT89

Wolf359f wrote: »

Was there many people buying booze in the boxers or knickers?

Not the point. Booze is not essential, clothes are. If you argue clothes are not essential then you could also argue food is non essential too.

khalessi

GT89 wrote: »

Not the point. Booze is not essential, clothes are. If you argue clothes are not essential then you could also argue food is non essential too.

Why not block off sweets they arent essential

Wolf359f

GT89 wrote: »

Not the point. Booze is not essential, clothes are. If you argue clothes are not essential then you could also argue food is non essential too.

I never once said clothes are not essential, I was arguing that walking into a shop dressed solely in boxers should warrant a refusal into said shop, pandemic or no pandemic.

Happydays2020

Curtains are essential also.

The point on not selling clothes in supermarkets is the level playing field.

marno21

Can you still get bedclothes in Dunnes and Tesco?

GT89

khalessi wrote: »

Why not block off sweets they arent essential

Yep sweets, crisps, soft drinks, biscuits all non essential food items. In fact it should really be fruit and veg, dairy products, meat and bread on sale as the rest is not essential.

Also supermarket own brand only items as branded items are not essential either.

Wolf359f

GT89 wrote: »

Yep sweets, crisps, soft drinks, biscuits all non essential food items. In fact it should really be fruit and veg, dairy products, meat and bread on sale as the rest is not essential.

Also supermarket own brand only items as branded items are not essential either.

If you want to go you way, the only realistic approach is to ban anything that's not 0% VAT. The government don't have time to go through millions of products and tick a box if they are essential or not. The current VAT rates would be the quickest, but would cause a **** load of issues (services are 13.5% etc... you can't deem them non essential)

Strumms

I’d imagine the reason alcohol is allowed to be sold is on health grounds... but also the government won’t want to be without the revenue. They could just ban cigarettes too...if that was the case.

GT89

Strumms wrote: »

I’d imagine the reason alcohol is allowed to be sold is on health grounds... but also the government won’t want to be without the revenue. They could just ban cigarettes too...if that was the case.

For the record I do not think the sale of alcohol should be banned. I think all shops should allowed to open whether they sell whatever the government deems essential or not.

stevenup7002

Most people have enough fat reserves to go several days or even weeks without food, so if you ask me, it's time to start seriously thinking about closing down supermarkets and eateries completely to drive cases down as much as possible.

The lack of food-buying for several weeks would allow the government to substantially reduce the Pandemic Unemployment Payment and these extra funds could then be redirected towards the HSE. It would also very quickly solve the obesity epidemic and reduce its role as a comorbidity.

Irish Steve

GT89 wrote: »

Yep sweets, crisps, soft drinks, biscuits all non essential food items. In fact it should really be fruit and veg, dairy products, meat and bread on sale as the rest is not essential.

Also supermarket own brand only items as branded items are not essential either.

Depending on the situation, what you deem as non essential food items may well be essential to another family due to circumstances that you clearly know absolutely nothing about.

There are many children who through specific diagnosed medical conditions will only eat specific brands of some foods, and will end up hungry if those brands cannot be purchased. Some brands may not be tolerated due to additives contained in them, which may cause serious reactions to some people.

In the same vein, someone who is working in essential services may well require clothing items to replace items that have been contaminated or damaged at work and can no longer be worn. How do you suggest they should be dealt with?

Happydays2020

stevenup7002 wrote: »

Most people have enough fat reserves to go several days or even weeks without food, so if you ask me, it's time to start seriously thinking about closing down supermarkets and eateries completely to drive cases down as much as possible.

The lack of food-buying for several weeks would allow the government to substantially reduce the Pandemic Unemployment Payment and these extra funds could then be redirected towards the HSE. It would also very quickly solve the obesity epidemic and reduce its role as a comorbidity.

That’s a novel strategy. Should we start with withdrawing potatoes?

Chicke

Cant believe rhat over a million people dead since the beginning of this year as a result of this virus.Without the restrictions/lockdowns it is frightening to think of how much bigger a number that would have been.

Sheepdish1

khalessi wrote: »

Think the clothes one is a bit daft, needed leggings for one of the kids went in today to get food shop and leggings no joy. will just have to squash into old ones but they dont fit.

In particular children’s shoes should be deemed as essential. I feel they are essential particularly for children at the stage where they are growing at a fast rate eg age 1-5 years. They can go up a size in the space of a few weeks. It’s one thing them wearing clothes too small but wearing shoes too small can be harmful to feet .

I’m surprised that certain clothing eg coats and shoes haven’t been deemed as essential this time around. It can be argued they can be bought on line but it’s important shoes are tried on to check size fits. It really is bizarre. It seems some retail shops have had enough and are offering click and collect as opposed to closing down completely. The shops that are on street entrances as opposed to shopping centres can hopefully do this.

I thought the reason we opened up so slow was to determine the “safe services” that didn’t cause increase in cases. I don’t understand why retail has been closed this time around. Perhaps they are trying to keep people from leaving their areas? It doesn’t make sense as to why we opened up so slow and not use the experience and data. Retailers overall did a fantastic job from what I saw. Same as barbers etc.

Sheepdish1

Chicke wrote: »

Cant believe rhat over a million people dead since the beginning of this year as a result of this virus.Without the restrictions/lockdowns it is frightening to think of how much bigger a number that would have been.

Has there been any estimates to what it would have been without the restrictions?

46 Long

GT89 wrote: »

Not the point. Booze is not essential, clothes are. If you argue clothes are not essential then you could also argue food is non essential too.

I agree that clothes are essential.

But they'll never, ever stop off-license sales. Ireland is estimated to have just over 2% of the population dependent on alcohol. With a ROI population of 5 million, you're looking at approx 100,000 desperate people descending on GPs and hospitals all over the country with acute withdrawal, seizures and DTs.

Graces7

[QUOTE=hmmm;115056593]I don't want to sound like a politician, but I have great faith in Irish people to do the right thing if it is communicated properly to them. I think families will meet up over Christmas, but it might not be at the same table as their grandparents, and definitely won't be in pubs.

It's time to start communicating a message that at Christmas this year we will need to be careful, and it can't be like previous years.

There's also a message about ventilation and the safety of indoors vs outdoors which for some reason is not being communicated by our public health people.[/QUOTE]

They stressed that meeting family outdoors was allowed but not indoors.

Graces7

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Can't see how the PPE and hand sanitizer can be blamed on him under any sort of logical argument.

scapegoat syndrome :rolleyes:

Graces7

aziz wrote: »

All these countries had it bad first time around but came out of restrictions a lot faster than we did,

which is why they are in this mess now. :rolleyes:

ThunbergsAreGo

normanoffside wrote: »

Teflon Tony strongly advises against unnecessary travel and says we should only go outside for exercise within 5km from home.

.. And late late show appearances.....

Graces7

podgeandrodge wrote: »

Proactive fine. But with some logical approach/explanation of the various closures. Nobody in Govt. has ever said that general retail is an issue, yet they are closed. Nphet forecasts cases to get back down to manageable levels in a few weeks (hopefully) but this can happen with a lot of "essential" retail open.

I'd have liked if they had tried some things out over the last couple of months and seen which restrictions have biggest impact.

For now, I'm convinced it's large numbers in confined spaces (i.e. younger people mainly) bringing it back to their houses and families. Not getting a product in non essential retail.

Logical; if the shops are all open then many more people will be out and mingling, which is dangerous for infection< If eg clothes shops etc are closed then people will stay home. Any environment where people are in confined spaces together carries a high infection risk

GooglePlus

Strumms wrote: »

I’d imagine the reason alcohol is allowed to be sold is on health grounds... but also the government won’t want to be without the revenue. They could just ban cigarettes too...if that was the case.

I'd say the hospitals would fill up quicker than ever if alcohol was banned with people from every walk of life suffering from withdrawals. There's plenty of highly functional alcoholics in our country but that's all dependent on them still getting to the supp.

Graces7

igCorcaigh wrote: »

We could have been more proactive had our government heeded the advice a couple of weeks ago.

That hesitancy must have led to bad health outcomes for some people, yet the economic cost is the same.

Numbers were still going down and stabilising. As soon as numbers rose they acted swiftly and effectively

All perfectly correct.

Graces7

DubInMeath wrote: »

Most scripts, especially those issued under a medical card are held in the pharmacy for repeat prescriptions.

Still have to request it be released to prevent abuse. And the Gardaí can check with the pharmacy..

Graces7

marno21 wrote: »

Can you still get bedclothes in Dunnes and Tesco?

Being cocooned I just ordered bedclothes online... Easy

Kermit.de.frog

France enters a nightmare, Italy not far behind.



In Ireland, we need to keep on our current course which is the correct one. Countries in Europe now have serious decisions to make that we too would have to make but for the actions taken here proactively.

The price is not paid today across the continent - it's paid in two weeks time in overwhelmed hospitals and increased deaths and also severe restrictions on people's lives.

We are in a far better place thankfully even though we should have taken action earlier. But that's spilt milk...

Goldrickssan

If we didn't have so many multinationals we would never be able to do what we're doing.

I still don't know how we're going to afford it but having an inflated tax take helps more than people know. 12.5 billion estimated corporate tax receipts this year in a pandemic. **** your apple tax

vickers209

Wife was saying that she heard of someone had a 21st party in a dublin house saturday night,

Guards arrived at i they told owner of the house they be getting a fine in the post and left
Party continued on for rest of the night no attempt to shut it down

Kermit.de.frog

vickers209 wrote: »

Wife was saying that she heard of someone had a 21st party in a dublin house saturday night,

Guards arrived at i they told owner of the house they be getting a fine in the post and left
Party continued on for rest of the night no attempt to shut it down

They'll reconsider their moral compass when they see the bill.

Gruffalux

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

They'll reconsider their moral compass when they see the bill.

Don't know about that. 50 people say at a party. Everyone throws 20 quid in the kitty on the way in to offset potential fines. Etcetera.

Gael23

Tribunal into the Cervical Check scandal to start shortly, should be interesting

Hector Savage

What the hell is going on in Melbourne ? no new cases, no new deaths yet restrictions still in place ?

Hector Savage

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

France enters a nightmare, Italy not far behind.



In Ireland, we need to keep on our current course which is the correct one. Countries in Europe now have serious decisions to make that we too would have to make but for the actions taken here proactively.

The price is not paid today across the continent - it's paid in two weeks time in overwhelmed hospitals and increased deaths and also severe restrictions on people's lives.

We are in a far better place thankfully even though we should have taken action earlier. But that's spilt milk...

Let's see in 2 weeks so ....

Quit your scaremongering, these are case numbers, the vast majority of these people will barely feel it.

PowerToWait

Gael23 wrote: »

Tribunal into the Cervical Check scandal to start shortly, should be interesting

Interesting to see the mob who couldn’t tell you the first thing about that scandal, and cared not a whit, use it as a stick with which to beat Tony Holohan.

pjohnson

Hector Savage wrote: »

Let's see in 2 weeks so ....

Quit your "scaremongering", these are case numbers, the vast majority of these people will barely feel it.

Do some genuinely think 'scaremongering' is a new word for facts?

iamwhoiam

Sheepdish1 wrote: »

In particular children’s shoes should be deemed as essential. I feel they are essential particularly for children at the stage where they are growing at a fast rate eg age 1-5 years. They can go up a size in the space of a few weeks. It’s one thing them wearing clothes too small but wearing shoes too small can be harmful to feet .

I’m surprised that certain clothing eg coats and shoes haven’t been deemed as essential this time around. It can be argued they can be bought on line but it’s important shoes are tried on to check size fits. It really is bizarre. It seems some retail shops have had enough and are offering click and collect as opposed to closing down completely. The shops that are on street entrances as opposed to shopping centres can hopefully do this.

I thought the reason we opened up so slow was to determine the “safe services” that didn’t cause increase in cases. I don’t understand why retail has been closed this time around. Perhaps they are trying to keep people from leaving their areas? It doesn’t make sense as to why we opened up so slow and not use the experience and data. Retailers overall did a fantastic job from what I saw. Same as barbers etc.

I absolutely think shoe shops should be open . My grandchild is just about starting to walk . She will need to be measured and fitted for shoes very soon . That cannot be done online

leanin2019

Hector Savage wrote: »

What the hell is going on in Melbourne ? no new cases, no new deaths yet restrictions still in place ?

And we thought Australia was the go to place with a much better health system than Ireland

screamer

PowerToWait wrote: »

Interesting to see the mob who couldn’t tell you the first thing about that scandal, and cared not a whit, use it as a stick with which to beat Tony Holohan.

Regardless of your feelings towards “the mob” heads needs to roll over that disgraceful situation. Time will tell whose heads roll, but those women and indeed the women of Ireland deserve better.

Ficheall

Hector Savage wrote: »

Let's see in 2 weeks so ....

Quit your scaremongering, these are case numbers, the vast majority of these people will barely feel it.

What is the threshold for deaths that you would feel warrants concern? Ballpark figure.

leanin2019

"Silent majority" backs lockdown - Business Post

A "silent majority" of the population backs strict level 5 restrictions and the use of fines to stop the spread of the COVID-19 virus, the latest Business Post/Red C poll shows.

Some 66 percent of people support the move to lock down the country, with just 18 percent opposed. An equal number backs the use of fines...

pjohnson

screamer wrote: »

Regardless of your feelings towards “the mob” heads needs to roll over that disgraceful situation. Time will tell whose heads roll, but those women and indeed the women of Ireland deserve better.

They possible deserve their own thread on the matter.

Beanybabog

Graces7 wrote: »

[/B]

Logical; if the shops are all open then many more people will be out and mingling, which is dangerous for infection< If eg clothes shops etc are closed then people will stay home. Any environment where people are in confined spaces together carries a high infection risk

My OH has it and he works from home, and doesn’t appear to be a contact of a case (he passed it on but we assume he had it first). We assume it’s a case of community transmission and the only places he’s gone are the gym and supermarket. Also the playground but I assume that’s more unlikely. I reckon when case numbers are so high no indoor spaces are low risk

PowerToWait

Hector Savage wrote: »

Let's see in 2 weeks so ....

Quit your scaremongering, these are case numbers, the vast majority of these people will barely feel it.

I think it’s about time more people got a dose of reality. This is a scary time. Adults need to face up to it and stop whinging about ‘scare mongering’ like a petulant toddler.

A small percentage will become gravely ill. This small percentage is nonetheless a large number of people. They will require hospitalisation, for weeks and months. This then has serious implications for the non-COVID diagnoses, treatments and care.

So, thousands will die of covid and thousands more will die because of covid.

These are the facts of the situation, and will not change because some people don’t like it.