Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Covid 19 Part XXIX-85,394 ROI(2,200 deaths) 62,723 NI (1,240 deaths) (26/12) Read OP

Options
1…1718202223…319

Comments

  • Options
    #572
    Car99
    Registered Users Posts: 2,530 ✭✭✭Car99


    Does level 3 prohibit people from visiting other peoples homes?


  • Options
    #573
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    spookwoman wrote: »
    There is always a risk, ever read the pamphlet that comes with tablets? 65 years ago we didn't travel as much and something like covid would have taken a lot longer to spread. We saw it here in Ireland how a family, 1 of them a doctor managed to infect staff at a hospital and god knows how many more.
    It just proves how important vaccinations are these days.


    from CDC
    There is solid medical and scientific evidence that the benefits of vaccines far outweigh the risks. Despite this, there have been concerns about the safety of vaccines for as long as they have been available in the U.S. This page will explain past vaccine safety concerns, how they have been resolved, and what we have learned.


    https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html

    I'd 100% agree with that sentence regarding established vaccines. I had my flu vaccine last week.

    I'm just pointing out that I, and i'm sure many others, would be reticent about getting a rushed vaccine, that the inventors are fully indemnified against and adverse reaction. That doesn't make someone anti-vax or a 5g conspirator.


  • Options
    #574
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    hmmm wrote: »
    Let them sit around for years in lockdown waiting for Youtube to sign-off on the vaccines.

    If they think vaccines are dangerous, wait till they hear about Covid.

    The virus with a 99.4% survival rate? The deadly killer that over 86% of those tested in the UK don't know that they had? Tell me more. :rolleyes:


    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain-asymptomat/no-symptoms-for-86-of-lockdown-covid-cases-uk-study-says-idUSKBN26T2O7


  • Options
    #575
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 38,300 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    Plumbthedepths wrote:
    I gather from most of your posts you don't venture out much. Shops have been controlling numbers on premises well before Holohan lost the plot six weeks ago. So we shouldn't open this early?? I suspect you'd prefer to leave everywhere closed until a vaccine is available. As I said before on several occasions thankfully your suggestions and views are not mirrored in the real world.
    If you actually read my posts I was saying that it'd be nice to have a Christmas for the kids. Opening up two weeks before Christmas is what I would have liked.
    As far as I'm aware there is no booking systems for shopping times. This needed to be done to stop crowds gathering.


  • Options
    #576
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    eagle eye wrote: »
    If you actually read my posts I was saying that it'd be nice to have a Christmas for the kids. Opening up two weeks before Christmas is what I would have liked.
    As far as I'm aware there is no booking systems for shopping times. This needed to be done to stop crowds gathering.

    The kids having a nice Christmas is down to the attitudes and behaviours of their parents.
    Opening two weeks before Christmas is even more stupid than opening three weeks before. They should have never closed them. Now we see large queues outside and the amount of hysteria on SM due to these crowds will be ridiculous.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #577
    NunianVonFuch
    Registered Users Posts: 615 ✭✭✭NunianVonFuch


    Car99 wrote: »
    Does level 3 prohibit people from visiting other peoples homes?

    No visitors apart from those in the support bubble til Dec 18th.

    https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/ad569-level-3/


  • Options
    #578
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 38,300 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    Plumbthedepths wrote:
    The kids having a nice Christmas is down to the attitudes and behaviours of their parents. Opening two weeks before Christmas is even more stupid than opening three weeks before. They should have never closed them. Now we see large queues outside and the amount of hysteria on SM due to these crowds will be ridiculous.

    But we shouldn't have those crowds.
    As I keep saying, and I said it at the beginning of this lockdown we needed to be organised for reopening.
    Booking times for shops was the way to go to avoid crowds gathering.


  • Options
    #579
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    eagle eye wrote: »
    Hasn't there been an issue recently with the HPV vaccine?
    I don't know much about it, heard a couple of parents talking about it.

    No there hasn't


  • Options
    #580
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    I'd 100% agree with that sentence regarding established vaccines. I had my flu vaccine last week.

    I'm just pointing out that I, and i'm sure many others, would be reticent about getting a rushed vaccine, that the inventors are fully indemnified against and adverse reaction. That doesn't make someone anti-vax or a 5g conspirator.

    Its wasn't rushed


  • Options
    #581
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 38,300 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    Deleted User wrote:
    No there hasn't

    Statement of fact.

    Ok, I don't know what all those parents were talking about then.
    That's the vaccine given to first year students right?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #582
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    eagle eye wrote: »
    But we shouldn't have those crowds.
    As I keep saying, and I said it at the beginning of this lockdown we needed to be organised for reopening.
    Booking times for shops was the way to go to avoid crowds gathering.

    Really? We wouldn't have those crowds if a kneejerk reaction didn't occur. I think businesses have enough costs to contend with at present without more regulatory nonsense being implemented.
    I doubt you'll be in any 'q's.


  • Options
    #583
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    eagle eye wrote: »
    Statement of fact.

    Ok, I don't know what all those parents were talking about then.
    That's the vaccine given to first year students right?

    The usual my child had the vaccine, my child got sick 12 months later, therefore the vaccine caused my child to get sick. It cannot be ruled out the immune response to the vaccine triggered conditions in a tiny number of teenagers, however it did not cause an increased rate of these conditions. The conditions get triggered by normal pathogens all the time


  • Options
    #584
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Its wasn't rushed

    Been working for years on a vaccine for a novel virus they'd never heard of until late last year? Not worried about getting it out before the competition? :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #585
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 38,300 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    Plumbthedepths wrote:
    Really? We wouldn't have those crowds if a kneejerk reaction didn't occur. I think businesses have enough costs to contend with at present without more regulatory nonsense being implemented. I doubt you'll be in any 'q's.

    So something that would make sense to avoid crowds is 'more regulatory nonsense'.
    Honestly you get lost in your own stubbornness quite a bit.

    As for me, there's no chance. Last Christmas present I had to buy was ordered over the phone from D.I.D. on Friday and I collected it yesterday. I've bought online from Irish vendors and I was in contact with my local stores and arranged pick up of items too.


  • Options
    #586
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    eagle eye wrote: »
    So something that would make sense to avoid crowds is 'more regulatory nonsense'.
    Honestly you get lost in your own stubbornness quite a bit.

    As for me, there's no chance. Last Christmas present I had to buy was ordered over the phone from D.I.D. on Friday and I collected it yesterday. I've bought online from Irish vendors and I was in contact with my local stores and arranged pick up of items too.

    Life would be great if everyone thought and acted just like you, eh?
    Anyway I'm not having a two and fro with you. Have a good one.


  • Options
    #587
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 38,300 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    Deleted User wrote:
    The usual my child had the vaccine, my child got sick 12 months later, therefore the vaccine caused my child to get sick. It cannot be ruled out the immune response to the vaccine triggered conditions in a tiny number of teenagers, however it did not cause an increased rate of these conditions. The conditions get triggered by normal pathogens all the time

    But there was an issue then.

    It's things like this that make people hold off.

    I'm not one of them, I'm all for the vaccine and can't wait to get it.


  • Options
    #588
    bb1234567
    Registered Users Posts: 5,501 ✭✭✭bb1234567


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The vaccine that is still on the market to protect against H1N1 if its circulating and other vaccines are not available? The one the contained a protein from the H1N1 virus? A protein within the H1N1 virus that can also triggers narcolepsy on infection in the absence of vaccine? The one where a spike in Narcolepsy was observed in China and Taiwan after the pandemic started but prior to vaccine rollout? The one that triggered the condition at a rate of 0.005%?

    People being more hesitant about taking a vaccine that has not killed anyone or caused any known side effects than contracting a virus that has killed 1.5 million (along with hundreds of thousands of additional excess deaths) is just mind-bogglingly irrational stance to hold


  • Options
    #589
    Wolf359f
    Registered Users Posts: 5,805 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    The virus with a 99.4% survival rate? The deadly killer that over 86% of those tested in the UK don't know that they had? Tell me more. :rolleyes:


    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain-asymptomat/no-symptoms-for-86-of-lockdown-covid-cases-uk-study-says-idUSKBN26T2O7

    That's a very small sample size:
    Of the 115 with a positive result, only 16 reported symptoms, with 99 not reporting any specific symptoms on the day of the test.
    It doesn't tie up with say Ireland, where ~60% of positive cases had symptoms at the time of the test.


  • Options
    #590
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Been working for years on a vaccine for a novel virus they'd never heard of until late last year? Not worried about getting it out before the competition? :rolleyes:

    Mechanisms have been worked on for years. just the the relevant genetic material and then work through the phases as they have done. Moderna and Biontech are the only companies that have got a share price boost out of this, buts thats because they are tiny companies in relative terms. Pfizer and AstraZeneca have had no boost in Share Price as their revenue from this will be relatively small


  • Options
    #591
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    eagle eye wrote: »
    But there was an issue then.

    It's things like this that make people hold off.

    I'm not one of them, I'm all for the vaccine and can't wait to get it.

    No there wasn't. There number of kids who got ill would be no different if there had been no HPV programme


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #592
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 38,300 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    Deleted User wrote:
    No there wasn't. There number of kids who got ill would be no different if there had been no HPV programme
    The fact of the matter is there was a reaction to the vaccine. You aren't going to convince everybody that little Johnny would have been ill if he didn't take the vaccine.
    You don't seem to understand how people think.
    What I'm pointing out is this will lead to many families saying they are going to hold off for 12 months or longer to make sure there's no side affects.


  • Options
    #593
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Been working for years on a vaccine for a novel virus they'd never heard of until late last year? Not worried about getting it out before the competition? :rolleyes:

    They were actually. They piggybacked off research into previous coronaviruses like SARS and MERS. In fact the AZ vaccine started off as a MERS vaccine and has been in development for over 10 years.


  • Options
    #594
    MOR316
    Registered Users Posts: 2,219 ✭✭✭MOR316


    I'm curious...

    Only the Independent have mentioned the €9 thing for restaurants an gastropubs. It's nowhere on the Government's website, no politician has said it and no restaurant has come out and said it.

    Is it actually a thing or is it pure speculation?


  • Options
    #595
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,397 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    MOR316 wrote: »
    I'm curious...

    Only the Independent have mentioned the €9 thing for restaurants an gastropubs. It's nowhere on the Government's website, no politician has said it and no restaurant has come out and said it.

    Is it actually a thing or is it pure speculation?

    It’s a legal item to distinguish a pub from a restaurant predating Covid. So I’d imagine it will be invoked again


  • Options
    #596
    Eod100
    Registered Users Posts: 11,774 ✭✭✭✭Eod100


    MOR316 wrote: »
    I'm curious...

    Only the Independent have mentioned the €9 thing for restaurants an gastropubs. It's nowhere on the Government's website, no politician has said it and no restaurant has come out and said it.

    Is it actually a thing or is it pure speculation?

    It's on site under bars heading: From Friday 4 December, restaurants and pubs operating as restaurants (serving a substantial meal). https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/ad569-level-3/


  • Options
    #597
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    marno21 wrote: »
    It’s a legal item to distinguish a pub from a restaurant predating Covid. So I’d imagine it will be invoked again

    Doubtful as this time a pub without a licensed kitchen cannot open.


  • Options
    #598
    podgeandrodge
    Registered Users Posts: 5,819 ✭✭✭podgeandrodge


    Eod100 wrote: »
    It's on site under bars heading: From Friday 4 December, restaurants and pubs operating as restaurants (serving a substantial meal). https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/ad569-level-3/

    "requirement for meals to be prepared on site, inside the premises"...

    Where are those requirements spelt out though? Are they putting new legislation place?

    I wonder, if the above language reflects the position accurately, could a pub not get food from elsewhere and "prepare" it themselves, ie put it out on plates etc. , knives and forks, and serve?

    Would like to see basis for the rule, whether legal or simply advisory. I'd have thought some journalist would have gone to the bother of checking by now.


  • Options
    #599
    podgeandrodge
    Registered Users Posts: 5,819 ✭✭✭podgeandrodge


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    Doubtful as this time a pub without a licensed kitchen cannot open.

    Is that it, a 'licensed kitchen'? So they have a restaurant licence in effect is what you are saying, which makes sense.

    But if it's as simple as that, why not just say only pubs with a restaurant licence, instead of all this 'prepare on the premises' stuff....


  • Options
    #600
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    podgeandrodge wrote: »
    "requirement for meals to be prepared on site, inside the premises"...

    Where are those requirements spelt out though? Are they putting new legislation place?

    I wonder, if the above language reflects the position accurately, could a pub not get food from elsewhere and "prepare" it themselves, ie put it out on plates etc. , knives and forks, and serve?

    Would like to see basis for the rule, whether legal or simply advisory. I'd have thought some journalist would have gone to the bother of checking by now.

    They are only allowing pubs that have a HSE licensed kitchen to open. Kitchen mist be on site with an employee whose responsibility it is to cook and prepare food. The €9 meal won't apply in that definition. It basically keeps every rural pub shut which in turn puts more demand on venues in towns and cities.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #601
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    podgeandrodge wrote: »
    Is that it, a 'licensed kitchen'? So they have a restaurant licence in effect is what you are saying, which makes sense.

    But if it's as simple as that, why not just say only pubs with a restaurant licence, instead of all this 'prepare on the premises' stuff....

    Don't you know it's better to use long-winded explanations instead of plain English.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement