When will it all end?

topmanamillion

Why not go to the Americans and milk this "special relationship".

They're flying with their vaccination programme. He's supposed to be announcing today that he's doubling his "100 million vaccines in the first 100 days" goal.

Biden could send 3 of 4 million vaccines our way with the click of a pen and it'd be a political open goal for him.

Scotty #

Deleted User wrote: »

Even if it was with conditions on case numbers (which are irrelevant)....

Why do people continue to come out with this tripe? Case numbers are extremely important. Fore warned is fore armed. They are our clearest AND ONLY indicator of what lies ahead and when we should act. To say they are irrelevant is nonsensical.

Scotty #

Scotty # wrote: »

Why do people continue to come out with this tripe? Case numbers are extremely important. Fore warned is fore armed. They are our clearest AND ONLY indicator of what lies ahead and when we should act. To say they are irrelevant is nonsensical.

Sorry, basically irrelevant.
With the vaccine the proportion of cases in younger people has already increased a lot. If the only people being infected were under 25 would we still "need" a lockdown and to shut down a huge proportion of the rest of our medical system?

Scotty #

Deleted User wrote: »

If the only people being infected were under 25 would we still "need" a lockdown and to shut down a huge proportion of the rest of our medical system?

No, I presume not. Medical care in that age bracket is rarely required.

My own daughter (17, leaving cert) was sent home from school this morning after receiving a close contact SMS from the HSE. It got me thinking again... would it not be better to encourage healthy under 30's to contract Covid? It's surely the fastest and cheapest way to immunise that cohort. I know it was discussed before and dismissed but if it were only healthy people... ????

Red Silurian

As long as this Island still have uncontrolled flights and ferries coming in from anywhere there will be restrictions on our lives

Scotty #

Red Silurian wrote: »

As long as this Island still have uncontrolled flights and ferries coming in from anywhere there will be restrictions on our lives

??? So as long as we don't have restrictions, we'll have restrictions.

But, if we do have restrictions we can ease restrictions........?

:D:D

Timberrrrrrrr

Scotty # wrote: »

??? So as long as we don't have restrictions, we'll have restrictions.

But, if we do have restrictions we can ease restrictions........?

:D:D

Some of the knot tying in here would put a sailor to shame

hatrickpatrick

Scotty # wrote: »

I'd disagree. Hospital and ICU numbers were very very low when they opened last summer. I don't think at any stage they jeopardised public health in favour of the economy.

They had a five stage plan in place for a controlled reopening with a full reopening of hospitality (albeit with social distancing still in place until vaccination or herd immunity) no earlier than August of 2020. Very, very quickly they bowed to pressure from the hospitality sector (not faulting that sector by the way, their lobby groups did their job in trying to influence government policy favourably and the buck stops with the government for caving in) and as a result, we went from having a real, within reach chance of something as close to zero-covid as would ever be possible on an island like this one, to a second wave which began in August just a week or two after they essentially moved the final stage of the plan forward by several weeks. I forget the exact dates now, but IIRC the original plan was for hospitality to reopen on August 10th, and instead it got bumped forward to early or mid-July under pressure from the restaurant and pub lobbies.

We can debate the hypothetical "what if" of the government standing firm in its original schedule, but I'd argue that in that case they 100% jeopardised public health due to economic lobbying.

Just one guy's opinion of course. But I remember saying at the time that it felt like a massive, massive mistake to expedite the five stages of the controlled reopening in the manner that they did.

EDIT: I would also say that refusing to straight-up close the air border to all non-essential travel was another example of putting the economy before public health. Just for starters, when Ireland v Italy was postponed in the 2020 six nations due to the gigantic and deadly outbreak sweeping Italy, it was f*cking moronic not to ban those who had booked flights from Italy for the match coming over to Ireland anyway for the night out. I was out myself that night (turned out to be the last night out I had before the lockdown began) and I went home early as the number of Italian tourists on the DART and around Baggot Street scared the sh!t out of me.

hatrickpatrick

Scotty # wrote: »

??? So as long as we don't have restrictions, we'll have restrictions.

But, if we do have restrictions we can ease restrictions........?

:D:D

Scotty #

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

it was f*cking moronic not to ban those who had booked flights from Italy for the match coming over to Ireland anyway...

I would agree but I think there were some legal hurdles and red tape obstacles to them doing this? It's not always as simple as 'just do it'.

I'd largely agree with the rest of your post although I think a lot of the pressure with regard to hospitality reopening actually came from the general public as it is again this time round.

Kermit.de.frog

I'd imagine the virus was here long before flights from Italy were in the news tbh. Not sure how much of a difference action would have made at that stage.

Scotty #

Scotty # wrote: »

No, I presume not. Medical care in that age bracket is rarely required.

My own daughter (17, leaving cert) was sent home from school this morning after receiving a close contact SMS from the HSE. It got me thinking again... would it not be better to encourage healthy under 30's to contract Covid? It's surely the fastest and cheapest way to immunise that cohort. I know it was discussed before and dismissed but if it were only healthy people... ????

So what's the relevance of pure case numbers?

Oranage2

The first lockdown was the best chance to something resembling zero Covid or more likely a manageable Covid. Though questionable decisions were made. Meat factories and direct provision camps rain rampant, government should have closed them and extended the lockdown, instead they kept them open and closed down small businesses in Laois, Kildare and offaly.

Then they didn't tell students if colleges were gonna open until after the students rented out houses. We had student villages with nothing else to do than socialize and have parties.

Letting primary and secondary students to back without any plan.

Not having any travel restrictions.

These were all things we learned from the first lockdown yet it took the government a further 2 lockdowns to correct them. 2/10

JimmyVik

Ive had Covid already. I dont get near people. I dont even go to the shops.
I am doing my bit, but im done on 5th April/
Ive had enough of this 5km rule.
Ive kept to all the restrictions all along, but im cracking up now.
If come April 5th I cant travel for a nice walk 50km away then fcuk the restrictions.
I am ignoring them all.

purplefields

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry, basically irrelevant.
With the vaccine the proportion of cases in younger people has already increased a lot. If the only people being infected were under 25 would we still "need" a lockdown and to shut down a huge proportion of the rest of our medical system?

I mentioned this in the main thread, but case numbers are important for another reason - new variants.

I'm guessing new variants is why China locked down and went for covid zero so quickly.
Probably also why most countries in the world are sacrificing economies to control it. Did you ever consider why a country would otherwise do this?

The trouble with this virus is that it is contagious before it makes people sick. This means that it does not need to mutate into a milder version to keep going, like previous pandemics.

Wait until a large proportion of the population is vaccinated until the new variants appear. Probably from a large population, poor country. How about a new variant that kills young people instead, like Spanish flu? - or a variant that is like HIV?

I believe this is a huge reason for lockdowns.

More cases = more chance for mutations.

Mr. Karate

topmanamillion wrote: »

Why not go to the Americans and milk this "special relationship".

They're flying with their vaccination programme. He's supposed to be announcing today that he's doubling his "100 million vaccines in the first 100 days" goal.

Biden could send 3 of 4 million vaccines our way with the click of a pen and it'd be a political open goal for him.

It will never happen because that would be Michael Martin admitting that they failed.

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

If we get enough vaccines for 70% of the population we're laughing. It's a young county. We don't even need 70%.

Population in 1,000s

0 - 14 years 1,008.9
15 - 24 years 618.1
25 - 44 years 1,397
45 - 64 years 1,201.2
65 years and over 696.3

Once the over 65's and vulnerable are vaccinated icu admissions should have fallen off a cliff. No need to panic.

Indeed, by end of Q2 we expect to have had enough vaccine for 3m people.......... if the supply comes through it's just a case of getting it into arms.

Also EU are pushing travel within the EU if you've a vaccine or a negative test. It's not all doom and gloom at all.

Mr. Karate

purplefields wrote: »

I mentioned this in the main thread, but case numbers are important for another reason - new variants.

I'm guessing new variants is why China locked down and went for covid zero so quickly.
Probably also why most countries in the world are sacrificing economies to control it. Did you ever consider why a country would otherwise do this?

The trouble with this virus is that it is contagious before it makes people sick. This means that it does not need to mutate into a milder version to keep going, like previous pandemics.

Wait until a large proportion of the population is vaccinated until the new variants appear. Probably from a large population, poor country. How about a new variant that kills young people instead, like Spanish flu? - or a variant that is like HIV?

I believe this is a huge reason for lockdowns.

More cases = more chance for mutations.

These variants are as much bull**** [If the Brazilian and African strain are so deadly then why are we still letting people from those regions in?] as that Asymptomatic bull**** and "we're all in this together."

purplefields

Mr. Karate wrote: »

If the Brazilian and African strain are so deadly then why are we still letting people from those regions in?

I'd love to know that too. Totally insane.

You would think the B117 variant, or the Eeek mutation would have been warning enough.

Scotty #

Mr. Karate wrote: »

These variants are as much bull**** [If the Brazilian and African strain are so deadly then why are we still letting people from those regions in?] as that Asymptomatic bull**** and "we're all in this together."

Dr. Karate's daily dose of wisdom!

hatrickpatrick

Scotty # wrote: »

I would agree but I think there were some legal hurdles and red tape obstacles to them doing this? It's not always as simple as 'just do it'.

I'd largely agree with the rest of your post although I think a lot of the pressure with regard to hospitality reopening actually came from the general public as it is again this time round.

To be honest, this kind of argument always irks me, primarily because our government tend to trot it out a lot as an excuse for lethargy or inaction - they're the government. Unless the legal issue is a constitutional one, the government can overcome legal issues by simply changing the law.

Take Leo's argument for example, that we couldn't introduce a travel ban now because they'd have to keep it over next Winter, and they don't want to do that - they're the government. If the Dáil, Seanad and President worked together to quickly pass emergency legislation to ban incoming non-essential travel this month, March 2021, they can just as easily work together to quickly pass emergency legislation to repeal this rule next December, if they so choose.

The previous majority government of FG/Labour used the guillotine on so, so many pieces of legislation to shut down debate and ram through their policies without any respect for the Oireachtas that when the FG-FF confidence and supply minority government kicked in, the government losing a single vote in the Dáil was a national news headline. They then spent the entirety of that government term abusing the money message rule, using an extremely underhanded and dishonest interpretation of a constitutional provision (which was making its way to the Supreme Court at the time the February 2020 election was called) preventing opposition legislation from being considered.

Any argument that the government cannot do a great many things at the stroke of a pen and in a massive hurry is bullsh!t. They're more than happy to do it when it suits them. Now, one can argue that they shouldn't - I would actually be one of those people - but if they're going to do it to block ideology-driven legislation they disagree with even when a majority of representatives are in favour, such as the Occupied Territories Bill which was overwhelmingly endorsed by the previous Oireachtas but stalled at Committee Stage using the same money message mechanism outlined above, then for them to argue that they "can't" do things during this COVID emergency is total bullsh!t.

It's not a question of can't. They don't want to, and they're as willing to hide behind "insurmountable" legal obstacles to skirt that basic fact as they are to run roughshod over the law and constitution when they want to do something that a majority of the Oireachtas doesn't want to.

LameBeaver

Scotty # wrote: »

Dr. Karate's daily dose of wisdom!

FYP.:rolleyes:

Scotty #

Deleted User wrote: »

So what's the relevance of pure case numbers?

What do you mean by 'pure' case numbers?

Scotty #

LameBeaver wrote: »

Scotty # wrote: »

Dr. Karate's daily dose of wisdom!

FYP.:rolleyes:

I don't think he realises yet that it was a bloody variant that got us into this whole mess to begin with!!

El_Duderino 09

topmanamillion wrote: »

Why not go to the Americans and milk this "special relationship".

They're flying with their vaccination programme. He's supposed to be announcing today that he's doubling his "100 million vaccines in the first 100 days" goal.

Biden could send 3 of 4 million vaccines our way with the click of a pen and it'd be a political open goal for him.

They've already done this. Biden said he would look after his own people first and then look to supply some other countries like Ireland. Which is fair enough. The UK also suggested t might look at an all Ireland approach as a way to help NI but only after it had sorted out it's own people. Which is fair enough too.

Helping other countries ahead of your own people isn't really an open goal (it might be an open goal for the opposition).

So Ireland will hopefully use its special relationship with two countries to our advantage. That would be good.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

To be honest, this kind of argument always irks me, primarily because our government tend to trot it out a lot as an excuse for lethargy or inaction - they're the government. Unless the legal issue is a constitutional one, the government can overcome legal issues by simply changing the law.

Take Leo's argument for example, that we couldn't introduce a travel ban now because they'd have to keep it over next Winter, and they don't want to do that - they're the government. If the Dáil, Seanad and President worked together to quickly pass emergency legislation to ban incoming non-essential travel this month, March 2021, they can just as easily work together to quickly pass emergency legislation to repeal this rule next December, if they so choose.

The previous majority government of FG/Labour used the guillotine on so, so many pieces of legislation to shut down debate and ram through their policies without any respect for the Oireachtas that when the FG-FF confidence and supply minority government kicked in, the government losing a single vote in the Dáil was a national news headline. They then spent the entirety of that government term abusing the money message rule, using an extremely underhanded and dishonest interpretation of a constitutional provision (which was making its way to the Supreme Court at the time the February 2020 election was called) preventing opposition legislation from being considered.

Any argument that the government cannot do a great many things at the stroke of a pen and in a massive hurry is bullsh!t. They're more than happy to do it when it suits them. Now, one can argue that they shouldn't - I would actually be one of those people - but if they're going to do it to block ideology-driven legislation they disagree with even when a majority of representatives are in favour, such as the Occupied Territories Bill which was overwhelmingly endorsed by the previous Oireachtas but stalled at Committee Stage using the same money message mechanism outlined above, then for them to argue that they "can't" do things during this COVID emergency is total bullsh!t.

It's not a question of can't. They don't want to, and they're as willing to hide behind "insurmountable" legal obstacles to skirt that basic fact as they are to run roughshod over the law and constitution when they want to do something that a majority of the Oireachtas doesn't want to.

It's pathetic and it comes along fairly regularly in many different areas.
Even where it would be difficult to do it the old adage about it being easier to ask for forgiveness than permission comes to mind. Pass a law, someone challenges it, by the time it could be struck out you replace it with something more robust that can't be challenged so easily. It's pretty ****in simple at the end of the day.

Scotty # wrote: »

What do you mean by 'pure' case numbers?

Case numbers are rising (schools are re-opened so it's shocking) while hospitalisations and ICU numbers aren't. So the headline case numbers matter much less now and will barely matter once we have 60+ all vaccinated.

El_Duderino 09

Scotty # wrote: »

No, I presume not. Medical care in that age bracket is rarely required.

My own daughter (17, leaving cert) was sent home from school this morning after receiving a close contact SMS from the HSE. It got me thinking again... would it not be better to encourage healthy under 30's to contract Covid? It's surely the fastest and cheapest way to immunise that cohort. I know it was discussed before and dismissed but if it were only healthy people... ????

I don't pretend to know if that would be a good idea or not. The under 40s were the drivers of the waves at various points partially due to likelihood of having pubic facing jobs. They don't recommend people contracting diseases anymore though. Even chicken pox parties are not recommended anymore. Hard to know if it's a good approach or being too cautious.

GazzaL

Some buzz around the place, lads are delighted to be going back to work next month!

GazzaL

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't pretend to know if that would be a good idea or not. The under 40s were the drivers of the waves at various points partially due to likelihood of having pubic facing jobs. They don't recommend people contracting diseases anymore though. Even chicken pox parties are not recommended anymore. Hard to know if it's a good approach or being too cautious.

There was always a high risk of illness from pubic facing jobs. Take precautions, wear masks and condoms and you should be fine.

El_Duderino 09

GazzaL wrote: »

There was always a high risk of illness from pubic facing jobs. Take precautions, wear masks and condoms and you should be fine.

Sure, that's good advice (and wear sun cream). That was nothing to do with the point I or the other poster were chatting about though.