Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VII *Read OP For Mod Warnings*

hynesie08

PTH2009 wrote: »

I get that but we will still be in strong restrictions by then

Yes, so what you meant to say was "I won't get to the pub for at least 8 weeks"

JRant

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Based on projections we will have received ca.320,000 doses of the Pfizer vaccine by the end of February. It takes 270,000 doses to vaccinate 135,000 people, and the remaining 50 will have gone in the first dose for the subsequent cohorts. Now can someone explain how it is possible to vaccinate more people than you have vaccines for?

We should have done what the UK, US, Israel, Germany did and pony up for the vaccines to buy a sufficient amount that would enable us to actually vaccinate the population.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So why did you say they would be paying for it for 45 years?

If you expect this will be paid back in 20/25 years, those are 45 now will spend the rest of their working lives paying for this, as well as probably having spent the last 12 years paying for the last recession. With probably no state pension at the end of it, the way things are expected to go.

I never said young people have it easy. Lets make that clear. Getting on the property ladder was never easy, either.

But this dismissive attitude that they are somehow worse off then anyone else in this and that it will be them who will be "paying for this", really annoys me.

You also seem to be assuming that there will be nothing else to pay off.

There was a bank bailout in 08 that is still getting paid. Now this. There will likely be something else in the future.

The Celtic Tiger years that many older generations thrived through are no longer here and won’t be back anytime soon.

A lot of young generations still don’t know what a boom is. We’ll let you know if we ever experience it

sprucemoose

Deleted User wrote: »

So why did you say they would be paying for it for 45 years?

i said working not paying

Deleted User wrote: »

But this dismissive attitude that they are somehow worse off then anyone else in this and that it will be them who will be "paying for this", really annoys me.

i think the nature of time kinda proves that youre incorrect in this one

hynesie08

hynesie08 wrote: »

Yes, so what you meant to say was "I won't get to the pub for at least 8 weeks"

Please knock it off with this nonsense.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Great, we will file your post under 'absolute scutter' so.

Enjoy your swim.

I did, it was beautiful, no mask either amongst us super spreaders out in the bitter Irish sea!
At least I kept my posts and replies to you civil and friendly and didn't resort to mud slinging. There is a distinct lack of civility with some posters which says more about the mental affects of Covid on their state of mind than anything.

(They'd surely never be like this in real life :eek:? )

stay safe there Boggles

Allinall

JRant wrote: »

We should have done what the UK, US, Israel, Germany did and pony up for the vaccines to buy a sufficient amount that would enable us to actually vaccinate the population.

We bought as many as we could.

froog

SusieBlue wrote: »

Versus the person in their 20’s who won’t be able to access a mortgage in the first place, who will have to delay starting families and having kids of their own because they can’t access secure housing?
Things you clearly already have?

We will all suffer without a doubt but it’s ludicrous to suggest that those starting their adult lives won’t be at a greater disadvantage than any other age group, particularly when you admitted yourself that things were already hard for them prior to covid. They’ll be even worse now.
It’s ok to acknowledge that they are among those sacrificing the most on behalf of others in all this, seeing as they are not high risk to this illness.

Yes it will impact everyone of working age but the youth will suffer with the repercussions for longer, because you’re away with the fairies if you think the billions of euro we bothered will be paid off in a few short years.
Access to housing will only become more difficult when the austerity measures are implemented.
I feel sorry for your daughter seeing how you speak of the struggles her age group is facing with such little compassion and consideration, and how you sneer at the fact that so many are stuck living with their parents for far longer than they would if they had a choice.

You want continuous lockdowns, you don’t want anyone to complain about it even if it’s negatively effecting them, you have no sympathy for their struggles and now you’re moaning because people feel more sorry for our young people instead of you.
For a 51 year old it’s quite pathetic and immature that you would post such a reactionary post with the clear intention of getting peoples backs up, I’m only sorry I indulged you and bothered responding to you in the first place.

I think the point is that people in their 20s will be fine as you have little to lose, no mortgage yet, no kids probably, career barely started or not kicked off at all.

People in their 40s stand to lose everything - careers and businesses they have spent 20 years working on, facing losing their house, their savings on top of whatever their kids need.

So yeah its hard to take some of the whining from the younger age group sometimes.

hynesie08

JRant wrote: »

We should have done what the UK, US, Israel, Germany did and pony up for the vaccines to buy a sufficient amount that would enable us to actually vaccinate the population.

Wouldn't we have been waiting till after the EU order was fulfilled? So we would have just received 5 million doses after we've vaccinated the majority?

sprucemoose

froog wrote: »

I think the point is that people in their 20s will be fine as you have little to lose, no mortgage yet, no kids probably, career barely started or not kicked off at all.

People in their 40s stand to lose everything - careers and businesses they have spent 20 years working on, facing losing their house, their savings on top of whatever their kids need.

So yeah its hard to take some of the whining from the younger age group sometimes.

as opposed to younger people not having the chance to earn such things are now being in an increasingly difficult position to obtain them? that sounds fair....

froog

froog wrote: »

I think the point is that people in their 20s will be fine as you have little to lose, no mortgage yet, no kids probably, career barely started or not kicked off at all.

People in their 40s stand to lose everything - careers and businesses they have spent 20 years working on, facing losing their house, their savings on top of whatever their kids need.

So yeah its hard to take some of the whining from the younger age group sometimes.

I think you have misunderstood those posts completely.

It really isn’t just a few 20 year olds living at home that are struggling.

It goes right up to 40 and that sort of bracket. People who have been struggling since 08.

SusieBlue

froog wrote: »

I think the point is that people in their 20s will be fine as you have little to lose, no mortgage yet, no kids probably, career barely started or not kicked off at all.

People in their 40s stand to lose everything - careers and businesses they have spent 20 years working on, facing losing their house, their savings on top of whatever their kids need.

So yeah its hard to take some of the whining from the younger age group sometimes.

I’m sure the fact that they ‘never had anything to lose anyway’ will be of great comfort to the people in their mid to late 20’s (and older) who can’t get mortgages, who will struggle to ever get on the property ladder and who will have to put off starting their own families now.
Sure you can’t miss what you never had, and if you never get to have it as a result of all this debt and missed opportunities, well tough sh*t cause there’s no sympathy anyway.
Warm words of encouragement indeed.
We’re all in this together, right?

pjohnson

SusieBlue wrote: »

I’m sure the fact that they ‘never had anything to lose anyway’ will be of great comfort to the people in their mid to late 20’s (and older) who can’t get mortgages, who will struggle to ever get on the property ladder and who will have to put off starting their own families now.
Sure you can’t miss what you never had, and if you never get to have it as a result of all this debt and missed opportunities, well tough sh*t cause there’s no sympathy anyway.
Warm words of encouragement indeed.
We’re all in this together, right?

As Jac says above the housing fùckfest has been as issue for over a decade before Covid. Why/How exactly you think the two are related is kinda adorable I guess. Do you generally try to blame Covid for the 2008 recession?

JRant

JRant wrote: »

I certainly can't but I'll defer to the experts on this one.

https://www.advisory.com/en/daily-briefing/2020/09/01/covid-tests

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30453-7/fulltext

Maybe The Lancet and Havard are wrong on this one.

I think its pretty clear given we had a 0.3% positive rate at one stage that we adhere to the best pracitices as outlined in the lancet

To summarise, false-positive COVID-19 swab test results might be increasingly likely in the current epidemiological climate in the UK, with substantial consequences at the personal, health system, and societal levels (panel). Several measures might help to minimise false-positive results and mitigate possible consequences. Firstly, stricter standards should be imposed in laboratory testing. This includes the development and implementation of external quality assessment schemes and internal quality systems, such as automatic blinded replication of a small number of tests for performance monitoring to ensure false-positive and false-negative rates remain low, and to permit withdrawal of a malfunctioning test at the earliest possibility. Secondly, pretest probability assessments should be considered, and clear evidence-based guidelines on interpretation of test results developed. Thirdly, policies regarding the testing and prevention of virus transmission in health-care workers might need adjustments, with an immediate second test implemented for any health-care worker testing positive.

And from the second article - well we dont report as result as positive with a CT over 35

Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California-Riverside, said she believes any test with a cycle threshold over 35 is too sensitive. "I'm shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive," she said.

Do people think the NVRL are amateurs?

In fact we produce clear guidance on this including the following nuggets

The Ct value for a given sample will be different in different laboratories
depending on the test platform. In general terms for this report a Ct value of 30 or greater is
considered a high Ct value and a value of 35 or greater is considered a very high Ct value.
It is appropriate for laboratories to adjust these thresholds based on their experience with the
platform they are using.
For the purposes of this paper a “positive test” means that the test result meets appropriate
criteria to be reported as positive. In general terms, in an assay detecting multiple targets,
detection of a single target at a high or a very high Ct value should be: (a) reported as either
equivocal or not detected based on the reporting policy of the laboratory and their experience
with the platform and assay in use or; (b) retested on the same or a second platform before
reporting. In an assay detecting a single target, detection of that target at a high or very high Ct
value should result retesting on the same or a second platform before reporting.

If the sample has a Ct value of less than 30, even if asymptomatic, the person should generally
be managed as a confirmed infectious case unless an individual assessment is made by an
appropriate specialist that the result can be considered to be consistent with residual viral
nucleic acid

https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/guidance/outbreakmanagementguidance/PCR%20weak%20results%20guidance.pdf

That should put an end to this nonsense. It wont however, I give a hour before someone else goes down the casedemic blackhole

josip

Deleted User wrote: »

You think they'll drag out paying for this for 45 years? Okay then.

Open to correction, but I think that's the way most governments finance debt.
They rarely pay it off, just roll it over into newer debt and rely on inflation to diminish the original nominal debt value.

eg.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-30306579

JRant

JRant wrote: »

We should have done what the UK, US, Israel, Germany did and pony up for the vaccines to buy a sufficient amount that would enable us to actually vaccinate the population.

Germany's additional vaccines wont be available to them until the EU order is filled

SusieBlue

SusieBlue wrote: »

Versus the person in their 20’s who won’t be able to access a mortgage in the first place, who’ll be stuck paying €1800 a month on rent with no security, or else having people like you looking down on them & judging them for living with their parents?
People who will have to delay starting families and having kids of their own because they can’t access secure housing?
Things you clearly already have?

We will all suffer without a doubt but it’s ludicrous to suggest that those starting their adult lives won’t be at a greater disadvantage than any other age group, particularly when you admitted yourself that things were already hard for them prior to covid. They’ll be even worse now.
It’s ok to acknowledge that they are among those sacrificing the most on behalf of others in all this, seeing as they are largely not high risk to this illness.

Yes it will impact everyone of working age but the youth will suffer with the repercussions for longer, because you’re away with the fairies if you think the billions of euro we borrowed to fund all this will be paid off in a few short years.
Access to housing will only become more difficult when the austerity measures are implemented.
I feel sorry for your daughter seeing how you speak of the struggles her age group is facing with such little compassion and consideration, and how you sneer at the fact that so many are stuck living with their parents for far longer than they would if they had a choice.

You want continuous lockdowns, you don’t want anyone to complain about it even if it’s negatively effecting them, you have no sympathy for their struggles and now you’re moaning because people feel more sorry for our young people instead of you.
For a 51 year old it’s quite pathetic and immature that you would post such a reactionary post with the clear intention of getting peoples backs up, I’m only sorry I indulged you and bothered responding to you in the first place.

You've no need to feel sorry for my daughter, she is well taken care of now and and will be in the future.

You're making assumptions about my wanting continuous lockdowns etc. I, in fact, have never said that. All I have ever asked of anyone, was that they follow the restrictions in place, and do their best to reduce transmission.

I lost sympathy for YOU specifically, when you openly posted that you weren't prepared to do anything to put yourself out to reduce transmission and basically didn't care about anyone outside your own circle of family and friends.

I see no reason why you should then expect that I care about you, when you've been very open and honest that you only care about yourself or people in the same situation as you.

And, according to you, I'm the one with the horrible attitude! :rolleyes:

SusieBlue

pjohnson wrote: »

As Jac says above the housing fùckfest has been as issue for over a decade before Covid. Why/How exactly you think the two are related is kinda adorable I guess.

Well I’ll start. You need to have a secure continuous for at least two years before being considered for mortgage approval with most banks.
If you are or were on the wage subsidy scheme you can be seen as a high risk applicant, I know one person who had approval in principal only for the bank for revoke it when she went on the WSS.
So now imagine you lost your job in March and haven’t been able to find another one. Or that you’re in one of the many industries yo-yoing in and out of being shutdown, and have been laid off 3 times since last year.
Do you really think the banks would consider lending to someone in those circumstances?

It’s still cute, isn’t it? Sure what’s another two years of paying astronomical rent or sponging off your parents?

Whiplash85

Deleted User wrote: »

Really sad scenes at my SuperValu today. Queue was absolutely huge. First PUP payment in 2 weeks and child benefit.

Sad to see this level poverty in the country.

Was at Smyths click and collect earlier picking up a present for the little ones birthday. The amount of young fellas and even fellas in their 30's queuing up to get the latest computer games was incredible. A constant flow. It is sad to see the levels of young people out of work at the moment with nothing better to be doing. There will have to be an end to lockdowns as they have utterly failed us and the long term effects will be disastrous.

JRant

hynesie08 wrote: »

Wouldn't we have been waiting till after the EU order was fulfilled? So we would have just received 5 million doses after we've vaccinated the majority?

There was absolutely nothing stopping us from buying as much of the vaccine as won't. Our leaders just decided to leave it to the behemoth of bureaucracy that is the EU.

https://www.politico.eu/article/the-vaccination-blame-game-is-it-all-the-eus-fault/

froog

froog wrote: »

I think the point is that people in their 20s will be fine as you have little to lose, no mortgage yet, no kids probably, career barely started or not kicked off at all.

People in their 40s stand to lose everything - careers and businesses they have spent 20 years working on, facing losing their house, their savings on top of whatever their kids need.

So yeah its hard to take some of the whining from the younger age group sometimes.

In a nutshell.

Windmill100000

Saying tbe young will suffer most is bs. Im in my 40s, I will be paying this off for a good 20 years if I live long enough to retire.

Those seeking mortgages down the line will receive assistance. Banks want to give people mortgages, they make a fortune off them, so it won't be all doom and gloom for the young.

I do feel for those in middle age that have lost jobs and careers. It happened to me 10 years ago and it was horrendous going back to study and then fighting for positions with people much younger than myself. I did it but it took a real mental toll.

froog

SusieBlue wrote: »

Well I’ll start. You need to have a secure continuous for at least two years before being considered for mortgage approval with most banks.
If you are or were on the wage subsidy scheme you can be seen as a high risk applicant, I know one person who had approval in principal only for the bank for revoke it when she went on the WSS.
So now imagine you lost your job in March and haven’t been able to find another one. Or that you’re in one of the many industries yo-yoing in and out of being shutdown, and have been laid off 3 times since last year.
Do you really think the banks would consider lending to someone in those circumstances?

It’s still cute, isn’t it? Sure what’s another two years of paying astronomical rent or sponging off your parents?

Which is worse do you think? Being delayed in buying your first house or losing a house you've lived in for 20 years?

Amirani

JRant wrote: »

There was absolutely nothing stopping us from buying as much of the vaccine as won't. Our leaders just decided to leave it to the behemoth of bureaucracy that is the EU.

https://www.politico.eu/article/the-vaccination-blame-game-is-it-all-the-eus-fault/

Why would we go off on one on our own to buy a vaccine that hadn't been approved yet? That would be stupid.

JRant

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Germany's additional vaccines wont be available to them until the EU order is filled

I haven't seen that in any article to be honest.

froog

froog wrote: »

Which is worse do you think? Being delayed in buying your first house or losing a house you've lived in for 20 years?

You are missing the issue. For lots of people, it won’t be a delay... they’ll just never be able to get the house.

The average age that people buy houses and start families is now mid 30s.

We can’t afford for that to move any further... or it will become a choice. Keep pushing for a house or have kids and accept high risk rental market.

SusieBlue

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You've no need to feel sorry for my daughter, she is well taken care of now and and will be in the future.

You're making assumptions about my wanting continuous lockdowns etc. I, in fact, have never said that. All I have ever asked of anyone, was that they follow the restrictions in place, and do their best to reduce transmission.

I lost sympathy for YOU specifically, when you openly posted that you weren't prepared to do anything to put yourself out to reduce transmission and basically didn't care about anyone outside your own circle of family and friends.

I see no reason why you should then expect that I care about you, when you've been very open and honest that you only care about yourself or people in the same situation as you.

And, according to you, I'm the one with the horrible attitude! :rolleyes:

This is just more hyperbolic nonsense, and a disgraceful accusation to boot. Please quote where I said that I said I wasn’t prepared to put myself out or do anything to reduce transmission? Absolute BS of the highest order, you are telling outright lies.

What I did say was that my position on all this came from a position of self interest and the interests of my loved ones, just as you came to yours in the exact same way.
You endorse lockdowns because you benefit from them, I don’t because they actively negatively effect my life and the lives of my family.
There is no shame in admitting that, even though you refuse to do it.
I know you fancy yourself as some covid champion for the vulnerable and the needy, but you’re not.
We are all coming from a position of self interest here, yourself included.

froog

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You are missing the issue. For lots of people, it won’t be a delay... they’ll just never be able to get the house.

The average age that people buy houses and start families is now mid 30s.

We can’t afford for that to move any further... or it will become a choice. Keep pushing for a house or have kids and accept high risk rental market.

Thats not a covid issue though. Housing was ****ed well before that.

sprucemoose

sprucemoose wrote: »

as opposed to younger people not having the chance to earn such things are now being in an increasingly difficult position to obtain them? that sounds fair....

Life isn't fair. Get over it. Every generation has its struggles.

It wasn't fair in the 80s with desperate poverty and unemployment or in the 90s when people on average wages were borrowing ten times their incomes to try and to put a roof over their heads at massively inflated prices.

You'd swear the way some go on the current generation is the only one to have struggles.

Windmill100000

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You are missing the issue. For lots of people, it won’t be a delay... they’ll just never be able to get the house.

The average age that people buy houses and start families is now mid 30s.

We can’t afford for that to move any further... or it will become a choice. Keep pushing for a house or have kids and accept high risk rental market.

I dont believe this. They may not get a house in the specific area they want, they may not live in a city centre and may have to commute for work but if you want a home and are prepared to compromise saying it is impossible is simply not true.

Astronomical rent has long been a problem in Ireland. Its probably a factor in many people moving abroad to get work experience.