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

the kelt

Charles Babbage wrote: »

So it is OK to thump somebody or run them over, or in this case give them a disease, because you need the money?

If you thump somebody its assault, its very definite. Similar if you run someone over, again very definite.

Now tell me if i go further than 5 k from my home how definite is it i will get covid?

If i go for lunch with my family, again how definte?

etc etc.

If its defintely safe to go to woodies to buy a hammer why is it not defintely safe to go in and buy a set of Christmas lights.

If its definitely safe for a teacher to stand in a room full of 30 unmasked children for 6 hours a day why is it not safe for said same teacher to buy a pair of jeans?

You do get the difference? As you have typed to have this idea that your going to give someone a disease unless you do everything to the letter is troubling really!

Mitch Connor

BeefeaterHat wrote: »

The government put these people out of work in the first place so it's their responsibility to compensate them. Also €350 a week won't exactly cover a mortgage payment along with other household costs so let's not act as if the government broke their hearts. Also classy referring to working class people as 'waste'

It would cover my mortgage payment.

Also, his post is criticing your comment that (implies,arguably) that the 24B was flushed down the drain by being given to the 'working class' as you say.

So your retort about waste, is realy just a criticism of yourself.

growleaves

Charles Babbage wrote: »

So it is OK to thump somebody or run them over, or in this case give them a disease, because you need the money?

Going about one's life isn't a form of violence.

Its wrong to take away the right to work. Its wrong to ban trade and destroy livelihoods. Its wrong to give your support to this.

amandstu

What is the story with inter county travel in the Republic versus travel from a county here into one in the North?

Is a distinction made?

Ginger n Lemon

Charles Babbage wrote: »

So it is OK to thump somebody or run them over, or in this case give them a disease, because you need the money?

You are absolutely insane. Where do you get this assumption that most people have covid to give to others?

This is 2020 at its finest. People have 0 ability to calculate %s or probabilities. Big Tony says covid spreads in household - public assumes its 100% certain and starts nodding along.

BeefeaterHat

Mitch Connor wrote: »

It would cover my mortgage payment.

Also, his post is criticing your comment that (implies,arguably) that the 24B was flushed down the drain by being given to the 'working class' as you say.

So your retort about waste, is realy just a criticism of yourself.

If the government didn't take the sledgehammer approach and lock down everything at the drop of a hat those businesses could still be open. Implying that I'm somehow calling for PUP payments to stop by criticising government spending is just twisting words.

Charles Babbage

the kelt wrote: »

If you thump somebody its assault, its very definite. Similar if you run someone over, again very definite.

But people generally do not just run someone over, they consider their business to be so important that they drive too fast and run someone over as a consequence. Likewise people consider their own selfish interests so important that they do not care if they give someone Covid.

Now tell me if i go further than 5 k from my home how definite is it i will get covid?

If i go for lunch with my family, again how definte?

etc etc.

If its defintely safe to go to woodies to buy a hammer why is it not defintely safe to go in and buy a set of Christmas lights.
as
If its definitely safe for a teacher to stand in a room full of 30 unmasked children for 6 hours a day why is it not safe for said same teacher to buy a pair of jeans?

You do get the difference? As you have typed to have this idea that your going to give someone a disease unless you do everything to the letter is troubling really!

It isn't rocket science, if people break the rules then Covid increases, whatever point you want to make any about any particular situation.
You can make a similar point in relation to road safety, perhaps 51 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood is not so different from 50, but the point still holds that drunk driving regulations do save lives.

BeefeaterHat

Charles Babbage wrote: »

But people generally do not just run someone over, they consider their business to be so important that they drive too fast and run someone over as a consequence. Likewise people consider their own selfish interests so important that they do not care if they give someone Covid.





It isn't rocket science, if people break the rules then Covid increases, whatever point you want to make any about any particular situation.

What 'rules' were broken on the hospital wards and care homes to cause outbreaks there? Did covid not get the memo?

Thats me

BeefeaterHat wrote: »

What 'rules' were broken on the hospital wards and care homes to cause outbreaks there? Did covid not get the memo?

It is not too difficult to imagine all these places are served/visited by people and some proportion of them were ignorant enough to let the virus in.

drunkmonkey

Charles Babbage wrote: »

It isn't rocket science, if people break the rules then Covid increases, whatever point you want to make any about any particular situation.

Bullcrap, Covid doesn't give two hoots about a €9 meal.

RobitTV

https://twitter.com/oconnellhugh/status/1331971596458860550
https://twitter.com/JRD0000/status/1329545233495945217

BeefeaterHat

Thats me wrote: »

It is not too difficult to imagine all these places are served/visited by people and some proportion of them were ignorant enough to let the virus in.

Define 'let the virus in' did someone leave a door or window open?

Charles Babbage

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Bullcrap, Covid doesn't give two hoots about a €9 meal.

Yet internationally there is evidence that the conduct of people in restaurants is less likely to spread Covid than in pubs.

And it stands to reason, the sloshed often act the bollix.

BeefeaterHat

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Yet internationally there is evidence that the conduct of people in restaurants is less likely to spread Covid than in pubs.

And it stands to reason, the sloshed often act the bollix.

It's amazing how pubs have been turned into this eternal menace despite being open 2 weeks in the past 10 months nearly.

Stormyteacup

Charles Babbage wrote: »

But people generally do not just run someone over, they consider their business to be so important that they drive too fast and run someone over as a consequence. Likewise people consider their own selfish interests so important that they do not care if they give someone Covid.





It isn't rocket science, if people break the rules then Covid increases, whatever point you want to make any about any particular situation.
You can make a similar point in relation to road safety, perhaps 51 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood is not so different from 50, but the point still holds that drunk driving regulations do save lives.

You might consider that there isn’t a Covid Handbook of Rules or any definitive guide that has been distributed to every country in the World and all are following same book to the letter. There’s been a large variation in restrictions applied all around the World and their successes or lack thereof have been thrashed out for ten months or more.

It’s perfectly rational to question if our government have got it right or wrong or to what degree (very wrong imo). Case positives are not a measure of successfully living with Covid.

Thats me

BeefeaterHat wrote: »

Define 'let the virus in' did someone leave a door or window open?

Someone contaminated is the open door for virus. Something contaminated is the open window for virus.

I heard about successful nursing home which had no occurrence during 1st wave. To reach this they closed whole home with staff inside. Supplies from outside were quarantined. Same i do in my home BTW.

bloopy

BeefeaterHat wrote: »

Define 'let the virus in' did someone leave a door or window open?

Didn't you know?
Catching the virus is akin to a sin now and means you've done something bad or wrong.

Stormyteacup

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Yet internationally there is evidence that the conduct of people in restaurants is less likely to spread Covid than in pubs.

And it stands to reason, the sloshed often act the bollix.

I’d be very interested to see any evidence from any country that imposed the exact same restrictions on pubs as on restaurants that showed more transmission in those pubs.

BeefeaterHat

bloopy wrote: »

Didn't you know?
Catching the virus is akin to a sin now and means you've done something bad or wrong.

Actually the ancient Jews used to believe the diseased and ill were condemned by god and sickness was his punishment. Glad to see we've regressed back to that line of thinking

BeefeaterHat

Thats me wrote: »

Someone contaminated is the open door for virus. Something contaminated is the open window for virus.

I heard about successful nursing home which had no occurrence during 1st wave. To reach this they closed whole home with staff inside. Supplies from outside were quarantined. Same i do in my home BTW.

So you want nursing home staff detained within the care homes? Jesus Christ.

_Kaiser_

drunkmonkey wrote: »

More stalling...

The Garda Siochána will roll out the introduction of these enforcement measures as the relevant systems will be adjusted over the coming week to accommodate the additional offences.

These will fall over in court if challenged. They've no right to restrict healthy people.

Also, although the tagline mentions €100 fine for travelling, it's not mentioned in the article itself. Simple oversight or more smoke and mirrors to threaten people into compliance where no law exists?

Mr. Karate

drunkmonkey wrote: »

More stalling...

The Garda Siochána will roll out the introduction of these enforcement measures as the relevant systems will be adjusted over the coming week to accommodate the additional offences.

These will fall over in court if challenged. They've no right to restrict healthy people.

If the Garda Commissioner and the Minister of Justice had any backbone they would do like the NY Sheriffs and would come out and say they were not enforcing anymore of this nonsense.

Thats me

BeefeaterHat wrote: »

So you want nursing home staff detained within the care homes? Jesus Christ.

Why you think i want it? Nothing in my life depends on nursing home, so it makes no difference to me. But natives of the elderly people who got covid in nursing home should definately send their damnation to these people who allowed virus to get in.

BeefeaterHat

Thats me wrote: »

Why you think i want it? Nothing in my life depends on nursing home, so it makes no difference to me. But natives of the elderly people who got covid in nursing home should definately send their damnation to these people who allowed virus to get in.

How dare those nursing home staff leave work and live their own lives. What do you suggest, keep them in chains when theyre not working? I find the whole fire and brimstone attitude people are developing very odd.

_Kaiser_

Mr. Karate wrote: »

If the Garda Commissioner and the Minister of Justice had any backbone they would do like the NY Sheriffs and would come out and say they were not enforcing anymore of this nonsense.

Commissioner maybe. He's already said previously that AGS didn't want or need more powers on this issue.

McEntee though is one of FG's "rising stars" - although like Harris, Murphy and Varadkar himself, if this is the best they've to offer then it's no wonder they only ever manage to make FF electable again, as they did last time out!

_Kaiser_

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Also, although the tagline mentions €100 fine for travelling, it's not mentioned in the article itself. Simple oversight or more smoke and mirrors to threaten people into compliance where no law exists?

Govt have already been warned by the law society that they're blurring the lines of what's advised and what's criminal.They'll get the hand slapped but then how would it look if you're up in front of a judge who's golf buddy was out in the thick of it back in golfgate?? it's terrible from an optics standpoint.

Rrrrrr2

bloopy wrote: »

Didn't you know?
Catching the virus is akin to a sin now and means you've done something bad or wrong.

Covid is a religion- of course catching it is a sin silly

MOH

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Yet internationally there is evidence that the conduct of people in restaurants is less likely to spread Covid than in pubs.

No, there isn't.

speckle

I normally do not berate indidivuals so I will try and put this politely... Conkers should go and volunteer in Ebola struck areas like our famiy friends do.... mmmh actually, even though he might actually learn something about humanity.... I wouldn't even wish him on them. Time to retire.

the kelt

Possibly up to 2000 missed cancer cases due to restrictions from Covid!