When will it all end?

ELM327

There will be a critical mass of civil disobedience coming.
Same as happened with the water charges mismanagement.

I dont know of anyone adhering to the 5km limit for example. We went for a drive yesterday, didnt get out or talk to anyone but just needed chill time.

El_Duderino 09

ELM327 wrote: »

There will be a critical mass of civil disobedience coming.
Same as happened with the water charges mismanagement.

I dont know of anyone adhering to the 5km limit for example. We went for a drive yesterday, didnt get out or talk to anyone but just needed chill time.

Yeah I think there's something to that. The reduction in adherence to the rules is probably the main reason behind the slowdown in transmission reduction. We're in a strange spot where we're nominally in level 5 but with so many people disregarding the rules and speeding up transmission, it will prolong the nominal level 5 where people continue to break the rules.

The good news is that with the season changing, the rules will begin to relax in the next couple of months.

PatrickSmithUS

August 15, I'm calling it now.

the kelt

ELM327 wrote: »

There will be a critical mass of civil disobedience coming.
Same as happened with the water charges mismanagement.

I dont know of anyone adhering to the 5km limit for example. We went for a drive yesterday, didnt get out or talk to anyone but just needed chill time.

To be honest i dont think the 5k rule is being adhered to or making any major difference in regards to case numbers etc (if any at all) but of course will be used as evidence of "oh look we are easing restrictions" when they lift it and probably eff all else in April/May (when is it even theres been that many mixed messages at this stage)

the kelt

Deleted User wrote: »

From talking to people in public health. NPHET guidance at the moment is pubs/restaurants to be open in September at the absolute earliest but would probably recommend not opening until 2022.

Surely thats not the case?

Bonkers if true (but not surprising as theyre seems to be a real hard on for punishing anything alcohol related)

Ginger n Lemon

There are a lot of questionable measures in places currently. You can go to Lidl for 5 hours and wonder around 50 + other shoppers with no issues.

but if you go to a beach thats 6km from your house and Gardai are happen to be hard at work patrolling it - they will turn you around. They dont want you to interfere with their space for Jerusalema dancing practice.

Overall - I struggle to see this continuing much further. Every1 I speak to absolutely hates this lockdown.

Ginger n Lemon

the kelt wrote: »

Surely thats not the case?

Bonkers if true (but not surprising as theyre seems to be a real hard on for punishing anything alcohol related)

Does it matter? come next month we ll all be exploring the beautiful country that is Northern Ireland.

El_Duderino 09

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

There are a lot of questionable measures in places currently. You can go to Lidl for 5 hours and wonder around 50 + other shoppers with no issues.

but if you go to a beach thats 6km from your house and Gardai are happen to be hard at work patrolling it - they will turn you around. They dont want you to interfere with their space for Jerusalema dancing practice.

Overall - I struggle to see this continuing much further. Every1 I speak to absolutely hates this lockdown.

Yeah but you always get that when rules begin and end. It's not an argument against having rules. There was a town in wales that straddles two areas. One area was in level 1 and the other was in level 3 so the town had two sets of rules. It was a funny anomaly and made the news. But it's just the oddities that occur at the edge of the laws.

Would you like an additional law to limit your time in Lidl to balance things up?

aido79

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Fair enough I don't mind a bit of slagging in jest, I've a kid I can't get proper speech therapy for in a year so that was like a red rag to a bull, especially when we were discussing something which makes speech therapy impossible.
Adults think children will possibly kill them, it has to end we can't carry on like this, masks need to go for people who feel healthy, it will happen, sooner the better though.

I'm sorry to hear that and I hope your kid gets the help they need. I know a couple of people in a similar position and don't really understand why this kind of help can't be given especially since primary school children have been allowed back to school with no masks( which I agree with before anyone takes issue with that).

Every step the government takes from now on with respect to easing restrictions will be done to improve the economy. It would be political suicide to take chances at this stage with the vaccine rollout in progress. It costs nothing for people to wear masks so it will without doubt be one of the last restrictions removed.
People can jump up and down about and show this study and that study all they want but one thing is for sure the Irish government will not be going out on a limb and telling people to stop wearing masks.

the kelt

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

There are a lot of questionable measures in places currently. You can go to Lidl for 5 hours and wonder around 50 + other shoppers with no issues.

but if you go to a beach thats 6km from your house and Gardai are happen to be hard at work patrolling it - they will turn you around. They dont want you to interfere with their space for Jerusalema dancing practice.

Overall - I struggle to see this continuing much further. Every1 I speak to absolutely hates this lockdown.

Well ye better behave or they wont reduce your 5k restriction.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/easing-of-level-5-on-april-5-at-risk-from-st-patricks-day-demonstrations-and-gatherings-warns-harris-40203084.html

And so it begins!

Ginger n Lemon

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah but you always get that when rules begin and end. It's not an argument against having rules. There was a town in wales that straddles two areas. One area was in level 1 and the other was in level 3 so the town had two sets of rules. It was a funny anomaly and made the news. But it's just the oddities that occur at the edge of the laws.

Would you like an additional law to limit your time in Lidl to balance things up?

Id actually like some evidence of covid spreading on beaches and Lidl first, can you please provide that?

FlubberJones

the kelt wrote: »

Surely thats not the case?

Bonkers if true (but not surprising as theyre seems to be a real hard on for punishing anything alcohol related)

It just means travelling to the UK and Europe will increase dramatically

FlubberJones

the kelt wrote: »

Well ye better behave or they wont reduce your 5k restriction.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/easing-of-level-5-on-april-5-at-risk-from-st-patricks-day-demonstrations-and-gatherings-warns-harris-40203084.html

And so it begins!

Its just utter horse****, letting these dickheads threaten us constantly, how the **** they go home and look at themselves in a mirror I do not know

Doctor Jimbob

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah I think there's something to that. The reduction in adherence to the rules is probably the main reason behind the slowdown in transmission reduction. We're in a strange spot where we're nominally in level 5 but with so many people disregarding the rules and speeding up transmission, it will prolong the nominal level 5 where people continue to break the rules.

The good news is that with the season changing, the rules will begin to relax in the next couple of months.

Why the rush to blame people disregarding the restrictions? Schools reopened a few weeks ago. Children and the age groups that most parents fall into (25-34 and 35-44) are making up an increased proportion of cases while other age groups are either staying steady or dropping.

That's not a call to close schools BTW, I'm just fed up with people breaking restrictions being constantly blamed for any increase or stalling of case numbers.

PTH2009

It's grand we have the secret money tree of tir na nog that will help us

This is not ending anytime soon

the kelt

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Why the rush to blame people disregarding the restrictions? Schools reopened a few weeks ago. Children and the age groups that most parents fall into (25-34 and 35-44) are making up an increased proportion of cases while other age groups are either staying steady or dropping.

That's not a call to close schools BTW, I'm just fed up with people breaking restrictions being constantly blamed for any increase or stalling of case numbers.

Did you not get the memo!!

The virus is only ever transmitted by people breaking restrictions!!

El_Duderino 09

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Id actually like some evidence of covid spreading on beaches and Lidl first, can you please provide that?

Nope, I don't have any of that kind of data to hand. But that's fine I'm not involved in making the rules. Rules often have oddities and loopholes. It's not an argument against having rules.

El_Duderino 09

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Why the rush to blame people disregarding the restrictions? Schools reopened a few weeks ago. Children and the age groups that most parents fall into (25-34 and 35-44) are making up an increased proportion of cases while other age groups are either staying steady or dropping.

That's not a call to close schools BTW, I'm just fed up with people breaking restrictions being constantly blamed for any increase or stalling of case numbers.

Yeah, sure. Anywhere people gather will hemp transmit the virus, whether it's within the rules or not.

I wasn't blaming anyone, simply observing that if people are generally breaking the rules more often (as the poster i was responding to had said) then transmissions will go up.

Ginger n Lemon

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Nope, I don't have any of that kind of data to hand. But that's fine I'm not involved in making the rules. Rules often have oddities and loopholes. It's not an argument against having rules.

Lack of evidence of the reason for imposing the rules is not an argument against having rules?

El_Duderino 09

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Lack of evidence of the reason for imposing the rules is not an argument against having rules?

It might be if i were making the rules. But I'm not.

Ginger n Lemon

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Lack of evidence of the reason for imposing the rules is not an argument against having rules?

People who believe such are scattered all throughout the worst bits of history.

Doctor Jimbob

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah, sure. Anywhere people gather will hemp transmit the virus, whether it's within the rules or not.

I wasn't blaming anyone, simply observing that if people are generally breaking the rules more often (as the poster i was responding to had said) then transmissions will go up.

That's only true if you assume all the restrictions in place have a notable effect on transmission.

I've yet to see compelling evidence that going for a walk too far from your home is a significant risk.

Ginger n Lemon

Deleted User wrote: »

People who believe such are scattered all throughout the worst bits of history.

But psychology of the response was very interesting.

Instead of thinking whether something was a right thing to do or not, OP proposed to take away more freedoms to "balance it out".

Maybe I misunderstood though.

El_Duderino 09

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

That's only true if you assume all the restrictions in place have a notable effect on transmission.

I've yet to see compelling evidence that going for a walk too far from your home is a significant risk.

I don't suppose that person in your example is a significant risk (depends on where they're walking and who they're with, obviously). If everyone was only walking, too far from home, then there wouldn't be any problem and no need for restrictions, would there?

El_Duderino 09

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

But psychology of the response was very interesting.

Instead of thinking whether something was a right thing to do or not, OP proposed to take away more freedoms to "balance it out".

Maybe I misunderstood though.

Nope.

Since you pointed out an odd imbalance in the rules, I asked if you would be happier if they balanced it out.

When someone points out an oddity in the rules are usually just making a case for getting rid of the rules, not fixing the oddity they highlighted.

Doctor Jimbob

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't suppose that person in your example is a significant risk (depends on where they're walking and who they're with, obviously). If everyone was only walking, too far from home, then there wouldn't be any problem and no need for restrictions, would there?

There would still be a problem if things that aren't restricted were causing spread. Like having the schools open. Or allowing travel into the country. That's my point. Restrictions don't seem to be entirely based on what best reduces the spread of the virus.

Doctor Jimbob

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Restrictions don't seem to be entirely based on what best reduces the spread of the virus.

They are not at all based on that and never have been.

Risteard81

Micky 32 wrote: »

No it proves nothing. Have you been working in very high risk environments? I’m sure you have.

Absolutely. As a contractor we work anywhere and everywhere.

Are you going into shops etc not wearing a mask?

Yes.

Risteard81

aido79 wrote: »

So masks will not limit the spread of covid19 in any way?

True.

El_Duderino 09

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

There would still be a problem if things that aren't restricted were causing spread. Like having the schools open. Or allowing travel into the country. That's my point. Restrictions don't seem to be entirely based on what best reduces the spread of the virus.

Sure, lots of behaviours will help spread the virus. So it's more complicated than someone going for a walk. So they developed a suite of rules to limit interaction to slow the spread of the virus. In isolation the 5km rule isn't very meaningful, its the knock on effects that matter. It means you can go food shopping, but you can't load up the family to go food shopping just for the craic (reduces it anyway) and that then reduces the number of people in the shop which reduces likelihood of transmission and so on.

Nobody actually needs me to explain the 5km rule. If they don't want to understand the purpose behind it, then they won't accept it just because someone explains it to them.