When will it all end?

Risteard81

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

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

It's not a country! It's part of the country of Ireland.

aido79

Risteard81 wrote: »

True.

That was a question. Here's another. Did you get your vaccination from the NHS yet?

Doctor Jimbob

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

If you feel like nobody needs you to explain the rule, why did you explain it?

I understand the purpose behind the 5km rule. I also think it's a lazy approach that has a disproportionate impact on people who are willing to be compliant while doing feck all to restrict those who couldn't care less.

Ginger n Lemon

Risteard81 wrote: »

It's not a country! It's part of the country of Ireland.

Idk. Would feel like a different planet tbh if I can get a pint, haircut, relax in a pool in a hotel & travel wherever I please come next month.

the kelt

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)

In regards to the hard on for punishing anything alcohol related

https://alcoholireland.ie/dr-tony-holohan-chief-medical-officer-delivers-the-opening-address-at-alcohol-action-irelands-have-we-bottled-it-alcohol-marketing-and-young-people-conference/

El_Duderino 09

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

If you feel like nobody needs you to explain the rule, why did you explain it?

I understand the purpose behind the 5km rule. I also think it's a lazy approach that has a disproportionate impact on people who are willing to be compliant while doing feck all to restrict those who couldn't care less.

Well I explained it because you said “ Restrictions don't seem to be entirely based on what best reduces the spread of the virus”. I explained how it reduced the spread of the virus.

Yeah people who break the rules, don’t care. They either get caught or the don’t. No system will be perfect. All we can do is our best, isn’t that so?

Doctor Jimbob

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well I explained it because you said “ Restrictions don't seem to be entirely based on what best reduces the spread of the virus”. I explained how it reduced the spread of the virus.

Yeah people who break the rules, don’t care. They either get caught or the don’t. No system will be perfect. All we can do is our best, isn’t that so?

So you think nobody needs you to explain the rule, but you also think I need you to explain the rule. You seem to be getting confused.

I agree that all we can do is our best. I don't think our current approach is doing our best.

Risteard81

aido79 wrote: »

That was a question. Here's another. Did you get your vaccination from the NHS yet?

No. And they can keep it.

DrumSteve

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.

I'm very much in favour of NPHET and the work they do, I'd be extremely pro mask and pro vaccine.

But those lads are on some serious drugs if they think that they would get away with that.

aido79

Risteard81 wrote: »

No. And they can keep it.

That was the response I expected. You probably won't be as quick to turn down a bed if you ever require treatment for covid.

Risteard81

aido79 wrote: »

That was the response I expected. You probably won't be as quick to turn down a bed if you ever require treatment for covid.

I won't require any treatment.

El_Duderino 09

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

So you think nobody needs you to explain the rule, but you also think I need you to explain the rule. You seem to be getting confused.

I agree that all we can do is our best. I don't think our current approach is doing our best.

Exactly. I explained it, but I don't think anyone who doesn't want to get it will get it just because it was explained to them.

I think a lot of people are doing their best and this is what they have come up with. Is it perfect? No. Is it the best possible? No. I think it is the result of a lot of people working hard to come up with the best set of rules to control the virus with the data they had.

And the suite of restrictions brought transmissions down from where it was to where it is now. That's good going. You'll have people say they don't think this restriction is necessary o that restriction is effective. But as a suite of restrictions, they've certainly worked at getting the retransmissions down. Now with the changing season, we can start loosening restrictions ands hopefully won't need to reimpose any restrictions again. Only time will tell.

Doctor Jimbob

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Exactly. I explained it, but I don't think anyone who doesn't want to get it will get it just because it was explained to them.

I think a lot of people are doing their best and this is what they have come up with. Is it perfect? No. Is it the best possible? No. I think it is the result of a lot of people working hard to come up with the best set of rules to control the virus with the data they had.

And the suite of restrictions brought transmissions down from where it was to where it is now. That's good going. You'll have people say they don't think this restriction is necessary o that restriction is effective. But as a suite of restrictions, they've certainly worked at getting the retransmissions down. Now with the changing season, we can start loosening restrictions ands hopefully won't need to reimpose any restrictions again. Only time will tell.

You're assuming that people who disagree with you don't get it. I get it, I just think it was a disproportionate response.

Sealing us all into our homes would also have brought transmission down. I'm sure you'd agree that would be disproportionate. My limit for what I consider disproportionate just happens to be lower than yours. That's all. Nothing to do with not understanding.

Micky 32

Risteard81 wrote: »

Absolutely. As a contractor we work anywhere and everywhere.



.

I suspect you’re not in 10-15 different enclosed private households every day full of people where the virus is mostly. Even if you were i don’t thnk it would be appreciated going in without a mask.

El_Duderino 09

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You're assuming that people who disagree with you don't get it. I get it, I just think it was a disproportionate response.

Sealing us all into our homes would also have brought transmission down. I'm sure you'd agree that would be disproportionate. My limit for what I consider disproportionate just happens to be lower than yours. That's all. Nothing to do with not understanding.

I’d agree with all that except I don’t think I said anywhere that I assume you’re one of the people who doesn’t want to get it.
Mod I did say that then I apologise. I don’t claim to know you.

Ginger n Lemon

Good news from Scotland, NI to some extent.

I am shure fools in our Govt will chat up Uruguay variant come 5th of April :mad:

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

. 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.
.

I still don't get it. If it is the case that entire families would load up cars and drive further than 5km to go shopping, surely it would be better to say "only one person per family allowed to shop in a supermarket"?? What has 5km got to do with how many people go food shopping??


The 5km is the restriction that is depressing and hurting people most, you can hear it and you can see it in everyone. Relaxing that measure alone would give people a huge lift. It would not make more people go shopping!! It might allow people DISPERSE more and go to beaches, parks, mountains and trails.

The 5 km rule is only for exercise. Doesn't apply to anything else.
Travel for essential reasons has no limit.

Im sure those restrictions will be changed soon.

El_Duderino 09

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Good news from Scotland, NI to some extent.

I am shure fools in our Govt will chat up Uruguay variant come 5th of April :mad:

What's the Uruguay variant?

Micky 32

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What's the Uruguay variant?

Don’t get too excited there El Dude, there’s no new variant discovered. It was sarcasm

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I still don't get it. If it is the case that entire families would load up cars and drive further than 5km to go shopping, surely it would be better to say "only one person per family allowed to shop in a supermarket"?? What has 5km got to do with how many people go food shopping??
...

I believe you when you say you don't get it.

You can advocate for "only one person per family allowed to shop in a supermarket" if you think that's a good approach.

The supermarket was only a single example of the principle. If you're not allowed to go outside your 5 km without a good reason it will reduce the number of people who travel outside the 5km for everything (e.g. shopping). The whole family doesn't have a good reason to go somewhere then they're less likely to go and more likely that only the person who needs to go, will go. That reduces the number of people out and about, even in essential places (e.g. supermarkets) and reduces the likelihood of transmission.

Does that help you understand the idea behind it?

El_Duderino 09

Micky 32 wrote: »

Don’t get too excited there El Dude, there’s no new variant discovered. It was sarcasm

Ah so Ginger made up the new variant, and then suggested that the government would, Den. Den. Den... make up a new variant.

I get it.

Ginger n Lemon

Micky 32 wrote: »

Don’t get too excited there El Dude, there’s no new variant discovered. It was sarcasm

Horrifying thing is should a Uruguay variant be announced by Tony or Ronan come 5th of April, all the NPHET dogs will be nodding their head and "advise" not to reopen anything until 5th of May. Then 5th of June.



And posters here will be telling us that this is the correct thing to do :rolleyes:

Ginger n Lemon

Also, I asked before I ll ask again - have figures NPHET been announcing for better part of 12 months now been audited?

El_Duderino 09

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Horrifying thing is should a Uruguay variant be announced by Tony or Ronan come 5th of April, all the NPHET dogs will be nodding their head and "advise" not to reopen anything until 5th of May. Then 5th of June.



And posters here will be telling us that this is the correct thing to do :rolleyes:

It depends. You've invented the Uruguay variant so only you can tell us how significant it is.

You must be able to appreciate the irony of you imagining a nonsense variant as a means to describe how dreadful NPHET are - they might even be dastardly enough to imagine a new variant.

Germany and Paris are in bad positions due to easing restrictions..... We are now in a good position because of the restrictions..... Living with covid doesn't work.

Ginger n Lemon

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Also, I asked before I ll ask again - have figures NPHET been announcing for better part of 12 months now been audited?

yeah, your man from Stokes Kennedy Crowley trawls through them.

Doctor Jimbob

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I’d agree with all that except I don’t think I said anywhere that I assume you’re one of the people who doesn’t want to get it.
Mod I did say that then I apologise. I don’t claim to know you.

I'm just basing that on the fact you felt the need to explain it to me. No harm done anyway.

El_Duderino 09

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Also, I asked before I ll ask again - have figures NPHET been announcing for better part of 12 months now been audited?

I, for one, don't know. What kind of audit would you suggest? Internal performance audit, reconciling model forecasts against actuals, expenses audit? I'd imagine they're subject to the same audits as any other part of government.

Responder XY

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I believe you when you say you don't get it.

You can advocate for "only one person per family allowed to shop in a supermarket" if you think that's a good approach.

The supermarket was only a single example of the principle. If you're not allowed to go outside your 5 km without a good reason it will reduce the number of people who travel outside the 5km for everything (e.g. shopping). The whole family doesn't have a good reason to go somewhere then they're less likely to go and more likely that only the person who needs to go, will go. That reduces the number of people out and about, even in essential places (e.g. supermarkets) and reduces the likelihood of transmission.

Does that help you understand the idea behind it?

You don't appear to actually understand the 5km rule. It has nothing to do with shopping or how many people from a family go shopping. It only applies to exercise.

Right now you can load up the family and drive to a supermarket if you wish. Doesn't matter if that's 20kms or 2kms away. What you can't do is load up the family and bring them to a beach 6kms away.  You could if it was 5kms away.