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

Russman

landofthetree wrote: »

https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1385345257622147073

Look at Israel. Once you get over 50% of adults vaccinated you should be opening up almost everything

Israel appears to be a stunning success, and hopefully a sign of how (most) things will play out everywhere when enough people get jabbed.

But, would we accept having to show a vaccine cert to get into a bar or restaurant over here ?

Boggles

francogarbanzo wrote: »

OK I'll bite. Yes, I agree some viruses justify some mitigation measures.

Okay we are nearly there, last question and it is actually one of yours.

francogarbanzo wrote: »

Why is it moral to suppress basic civil liberties to prevent the spread of this virus, but not others?

Stormyteacup

Boggles wrote: »

Do you not go into supermarkets?

Sure, and wear a mask. It’s the law.

Alongside the other nonsense laws, was happy to do my bit to keep health services from being overwhelmed, especially when there was an actual risk of that happening.

It has prevented deaths after all. Covid deaths mind, as they are the most important deaths, but still. Billions of Euro and a sh*t tonne of misery, well worth it.

darem93

gozunda wrote: »

Its nearly like the North has something that we haven't got to the same stage as of yet ....

I wonder what that might be ...

Oh yeah - vaccinations!

Jfc...

And how is that the public, or the businesses who have been closed for month's fault?

Yes we know our vaccination rollout is slow, that doesn't make it easier or suddenly excuse the entire situation.

Boggles

Stormyteacup wrote: »

Sure, and wear a mask. It’s the law.

So you are one of these heroes you spoke of?

Grand so.

Stormyteacup

Boggles wrote: »

So you are one of these heroes you spoke of?

Grand so.

Aha you got me, I walked right into your cunning trap.

gozunda

Richard Hillman wrote: »

https://twitter.com/higginsdavidw/status/1385329269333692416?s=19

99.9% of over 80s have been vaccinated have had their first shots.

The average age of death is something like 81-82.

(FYP btw)

Ah the old they were all going to die anyway argument! Not quite. According to recent research it is known that about around one in four people who died with Covid-19 would likley have died during the current time period

Statistically speaking the remaining people would have lived longer. In other words, they were not people who were going to die anyway, as some have argued. So no the idea that everyone who died was 81 or 82 - doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Richard Hillman wrote: »

We should be fully open right now. If you are aged 60-80 and haven't been vaccinated, keep with restrictions. Dont have house visits, social distance, dont go to non essential indoor gatherings etc.

Says who? You? The UK disagrees with you. Israel disagrees with you both countries only opened up when they had a significantly large amount of their total population vaccinated.

Sometimes I despair. Only this thread could have taken the good news in that tweet and smeared excrement all over it.

Tenzor07

Christ, more one liners from Dr. Doom...only a couple of days back in Charge...

Tony Holohan urges public to obey restrictions..... The country is back on a knife-edge.....“give us reason to be cautious”.... " people do not “get ahead of themselves.......Travel: consideration would be given to this but it will come “much later”."..The overall situation is “volatile and vulnerable”

So much for a lid being put on Hulahoop by the new Secretary General in Health.







(don't bother replying Hynsie08)

francogarbanzo

Boggles wrote: »

Okay we are nearly there, last question and it is actually one of yours.

This is where we differ. I don't think it's justified.

For example, movement restrictions, forced closure of businesses, restrictions on with whom we're allowed to visit. Not justified.

Businesses enforcing their own rules/mask policies, mask requirements on public transport or publicly owned buildings, temporary restrictions on gathering sizes for entertainment/sporting events/etc. (or maybe even banning them altogether as is the case now, I'm not quite sure tbh.) Probably justified. Maybe even the current overarching mask mandate may be justified.

ArthurDayne

gozunda wrote: »

Arthur

You do understand that things can change yes? That we now have vaccines- well before any original estimate as to their development. And yes we have restrictions to keep numbers low so we can get those vaccines administered and reduce the number of people who do get seriously ill in the long run? And yes before we had vaccines - restrictions were also there to keep down the rate of infection so as to help our health services cope with treating those who did get ill and who needed specialist care and treatment. Do you understand any of that? Or do you also have your head proverbially stuck permanently in the sand?

Because once we have people vaccinated- we can all get on with returning to life as normal without restrictions. Its that simple.

But nah - something something "suppression" of my rights - bastards - shakes fist - and etc

Edit. Sorry Boggles. You just bet me to the conclusion

Yes, that’s all very understandable. It’s also an epic rewriting of the lockdown justification, based on nothing more than saying what effectively amounts to “things change”.

Lockdown is considered a very extreme measure to address what was purported to be a very extreme potential outcome. It was not designed to prevent any deaths, it wasn’t even designed to prevent many deaths, it was designed to prevent collapse of healthcare and — with that — death on an enormous scale.

So when you say “things can change” — you are essentially saying that the permutation which lockdown is designed to prevent is now different right? So, one year later, we continue to live under what are historically extreme and prolonged restrictions, but the justification for them is now (according to you) based on a far less extreme outcome. Am I with you so far?

So how can the proportionality of the restrictions still be justifiable if the effectively same level of restrictions are being employed to address what is a lesser risk? I mean, Boggles (who I see also responded to my post) was on here a few weeks ago parroting the government’s justification for the 5km limit and any attempts to introduce nuance as regards the proportionality of the measure were met with the exact thing you are engaging in right now — which is simply parroting what the intention of the restriction was, saying that people have their heads in the sand for not understanding the intention (which we all understand), but seemingly unwilling to actually acknowledge that ‘intention’ is also subject to ‘proportionality’. And now here we are with the 5km rule gone and it is clear that the proportionality of that measure, in terms of the ultimate risk it was designed to prevent, was a complete and total joke.

You have said it yourself, we have now moved from a narrative of preventing collapse of healthcare and death on an enormous scale to something which is quite some depth beneath that in terms of extremity. And I have my head in the sand for questioning why the same / similar means are being used to mitigate a lesser risk?

lawred2

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Christ, more one liners from Dr. Doom...only a couple of days back in Charge...



So much for a lid being put on Hulahoop by the new Secretary General in Health.







(don't bother replying Hynsie08)

pity he wasn't similarly cautious about women there a while back

Boggles

francogarbanzo wrote: »

This is where we differ. I don't think it's justified.

For example, movement restrictions, forced closure of businesses, restrictions on with whom we're allowed to visit. Not justified.

Businesses enforcing their own rules/mask policies, mask requirements on public transport or publicly owned buildings, temporary restrictions on gathering sizes for entertainment/sporting events/etc. (or maybe even banning them altogether as is the case now, I'm not quite sure tbh.) Probably justified. Maybe even the current overarching mask mandate may be justified.

So your pertinent question still stands.

Why is it moral to suppress basic civil liberties to prevent the spread of this virus, but not others?

I think it needs an answer TBH, for your own sake if anything else.

Tenzor07

lawred2 wrote: »

pity he wasn't similarly cautious about women there a while back

To say the least...

gozunda

darem93 wrote: »

And how is that the public, or the businesses who have been closed for month's fault?

Yes we know our vaccination rollout is slow, that doesn't make it easier or suddenly excuse the entire situation.

Did I say it was? Simply pointing out why NI are now rolling back some of their restrictions.

FlubberJones

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Christ, more one liners from Dr. Doom...only a couple of days back in Charge...



So much for a lid being put on Hulahoop by the new Secretary General in Health.




(don't bother replying Hynsie08)

He should of ****ed off and stayed at home moping, he is almost deranged with doom now.

hynesie08

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Christ, more one liners from Dr. Doom...only a couple of days back in Charge...



So much for a lid being put on Hulahoop by the new Secretary General in Health.







(don't bother replying Hynsie08)

Congratulations, didn't realise they made you a mod.

charlie14

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Is that your scientific opinion?


Anyways fine, don't believe me IRDC, but this is a proven way to handle restrictions by the data and according to the area...otherwise we continue with the sledgehammer blanket lockdown(s).

Here, have a read:

https://www.coronavirus.vic.gov.au/victorian-travel-permit-system

Just common sense and your total inability to address any of the holes I have pointed out in your plan for a higgledy-piggledy scattering of your "Green Zones" around the country where all sectors of local communities will not just abide by the rules, but somehow enforce them.



It`s nothing but a half-arsed fantasy for dropping all restrictions without reaching adequate vaccination levels.
India had a similar half-arsed fantasy a few weeks ago and look what that has gained them.

francogarbanzo

Boggles wrote: »

So your pertinent question still stands.



I think it needs an answer TBH, for your own sake if anything else.

I'm not calling for the suppression of civil liberties for this virus, or any other endemic virus. So your question doesn't make sense.

FintanMcluskey

Boggles wrote: »

Again you are over thinking it.

We are basically doing what has been proven to work.

Vaccinate, ease restrictions, prevent another wave of misery.

If you have a better idea tap it out.

Constantly moaning isn't going to achieve anything.

It’s a delaying tactic at a cost never seen before

It’s like breaking the windows in your house to stop them getting dirty

Has anyone seen Ireland’s cost benefit analysis for being the globes most restricted country?

Has anyone considered the effects of not having funds to operate a health service in future?

Or the effects of cancelled cancer screening?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/health/cancer-services-will-not-fully-resume-until-year-end-under-hse-s-pandemic-plan-1.4517265%3fmode=amp

Cancer services will not be fully resumed until the end of this year,

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40264403.html%3ftype=amp

The number of patients being treated for cancer in public hospitals has fallen significantly during the pandemic, with experts warning that delayed treatment will lead to higher mortality.

New data reveals a 15% drop in cancer patients in public hospitals, with breast cancer surgeries down 38%.

I really like this bit

The conference, titled Sustaining Healthcare in a Covid World, will also hear there were 21% fewer patients with respiratory conditions in hospitals and 28% fewer total hip replacements were done.

It’s time to distance yourself from the perpetual support of the myopic approach to health taken by NPHEt and government, because when the real crisis starts it will last for years and it’s not something I’d want to have championed

Boggles

francogarbanzo wrote: »

I'm not calling for the suppression of civil liberties for this virus, or any other endemic virus. So your question doesn't make sense.

You said you would ban events.

It is my right to go and watch match, my bloody liberty.

So again, once more.

Why is it moral to suppress basic civil liberties to prevent the spread of this virus, but not others?

Silentcorner

Maybe lock downs also prevent breast cancers? It's just the science folks...

Boggles

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Has anyone considered the effects of not having funds to operate a health service in future?

That's right, June you said when that is going to close down?

Not long to test that prediction I suppose.

Parachutes

Silentcorner wrote: »

Maybe lock downs also prevent breast cancers? It's just the science folks...

They aren’t trendy enough to lockdown for.

gozunda

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Yes, that’s all very understandable. It’s also an epic rewriting of the lockdown justification, based on nothing more than saying what effectively amounts to “things change”. Lockdown is considered a very extreme measure to address what was purported to be a very extreme potential outcome. It was not designed to prevent any deaths, it wasn’t even designed to prevent many deaths, it was designed to prevent collapse of healthcare and — with that — death on an enormous scale.

So when you say “things can change” — you are essentially saying that the permutation which lockdown is designed to prevent is now different right? So, one year later, we continue to live under what are historically extreme and prolonged restrictions, but the justification for them is now (according to you) based on a far less extreme outcome. Am I with you so far?

So how can the proportionality of the restrictions still be justifiable if the effectively same level of restrictions are being employed to address what is a lesser risk? I mean, Boggles (who I see also responded to my post) was on here a few weeks ago parroting the government’s justification for the 5km limit and any attempts to introduce nuance as regards the proportionality of the measure were met with the exact thing you are engaging in right now — which is simply parroting what the intention of the restriction was, saying that people have their heads in the sand for not understanding the intention (which we all understand), but seemingly unwilling to actually acknowledge that ‘intention’ is also subject to ‘proportionality’. And now here we are with the 5km rule gone and it is clear that the proportionality of that measure, in terms of the ultimate risk it was designed to prevent, was a complete and total joke.

You have said it yourself, we have now moved from a narrative of preventing collapse of healthcare and death on an enormous scale to something which is quite some depth beneath that in terms of extremity. And I have my head in the sand for questioning why the same / similar means are being used to mitigate a lesser risk?

Arthur. Maybe if you took the time to read and comprehended things fully - you could see that things changing. Like I dunno the development of not one - but several vaccines is a game changer. Ie that is what has changed.

Btw I did not claim that and I quote "that we have now moved from a narrative of preventing collapse of healthcare and death"

That's your narrative btw. But building a strawman and then pretending I also believe in that strawman isn't really discussion is it?

But yes restrictions everywhere (not just here btw) were so designed to keep the rates of infection low so health services could continue to cope with those who do get ill and require specialist covid care and treatment. And your reference to modelling of worst case scenarios - without restrictions -didn't change that. The risk hasn't gone away btw - we're sitting on it until we get people vaccinated.

And so the outcome hasn't changed. We still have restrictions for the same basic reasons. To continue to keep the rate of infection low so our health services can continue to cope and to add to that- all whilst we roll out the biggest vaccination programme in the history of the state.

Really sorry if any of that is difficult to follow.

francogarbanzo

Boggles wrote: »

You said you would ban events.

It is my right to go and watch match, my bloody liberty.

So again, once more.

Ok great, this has gone nowhere and you’ve demonstrated a lack of understanding of civil liberties. I thought you were going to answer my original question.

gozunda

Silentcorner wrote: »

Maybe lock downs also prevent breast cancers? It's just the science folks...

I believe being facetious about something like breast cancer is not particularly useful.

But no afaik breast cancer is not contagious.

That is science.

Silentcorner

gozunda wrote: »

I believe being facetious about something like breast cancer is not particularly useful.

But no afaik breast cancer is not contagious.

That is science.

Ignoring Breast Cancer screenings and all the other vital screenings isn't useful either...

We are definitely going to see excess deaths in this country as a direct result of the actions of our health authorities....those deaths will be of all age groups.

Richard Hillman

The Euro2020 games in Dublin have been moved. They were due to take place in mid to late June. That gets an indicator of where we'll be then. They have absolutely no intention in relaxing restrictions for the next couple of months.

They were only expected to host 15 odd thousand

gozunda

Silentcorner wrote: »

Ignoring Breast Cancer screenings and all the other vital screenings isn't useful either...

We are definitely going to see excess deaths in this country as a direct result of the actions of our health authorities....those deaths will be of all age groups.

So eh let's get those goalposts and run off down the field screaming whilst you do so "gotcha"?

Okay...

But yes all types of procedures and screening were reduced (approx by 50% up the end of January afaik) - so that our health care services could continue to cope whilst providing care for a new infectious disease - one which we had no prevention for. Now we do. And thankfully cancer screenings and other procedures are now again increasing in numbers.

And yes sadly there will be excess deaths from a range of reasons.

ArthurDayne

gozunda wrote: »

Arthur. Maybe if you took the time to read and comprehended things fully - you could see that things changing. Like I dunno the development of not one - but several vaccines is a game changer.

Btw I did not claim that and I quote "that we have now moved from a narrative of preventing collapse of healthcare and death"

That's your narrative btw. But building a strawman and then pretending I also believe in that strawman isn't really discussion is it?

But yes restrictions everywhere (not just here btw) were so designed to keep the rates of infection low so health services could continue to cope. And your reference to modelling of worst case scenarios - without restrictions -didn't change that.

And no the outcome hasn't changed. We still have restrictions for the same basic reasons. To continue to keep the rate of infection low so our health services can continue to cope and to add to that- all whilst we roll out the biggest vaccination programme in the history of the state.

Really sorry if any of that is difficult to follow.

There is very little point in doing this whole “it’s not hard to follow” thing Gozunda. What you are saying is not hard to follow — it just doesn’t really seem to have any basis in critical thought. You’re just continuously saying what the stated purpose of the restrictions are and then giving it the whole “its not rocket science” shtick .... as if people are being utterly idiotic for daring to question whether the severity of the restrictions is commensurate with and proportionate to their purpose and the risk they are preventing.

In doing so, you aren’t really making any sense. One minute you’re telling me that things have changed and the context justifying lockdown is now on keeping infections low while the vaccine rollout goes on — but you’re also telling me that it hasn’t changed — and that it’s still seemingly based on the prospect of healthcare collapsing.

The lockdown was designed to prevent the collapse of healthcare and an enormous scale of death. That is the measure of proportionality for the restrictions — if the 5km rule was preventing the eventual collapse of the healthcare system then it was proportionate. But it wasn’t, so it wasn’t proportionate, and now it’s gone. My point is that there are other measures which do not appear, either in theory or by reference to our national experience over the last year, to be preventing the eventual collapse of healthcare — despite the assertion in politics and media that this is their ultimate purpose. For example, I don’t believe there is much justification for saying that hairdressers being open or bars / restaurants being open with precautionary measures taken will open the floodgates to the healthcare system collapsing and thousands upon thousands dying as result — which is the spectre that has always been used from the very beginning to justify the severity of the rules. Keeping infections low and minimising death outright is not what the government has ever seemed to claim was the risk which made lockdown worthwhile.

By your reasoning though, the government could just turn round and say “actually we need the 5km limit back to keep infections low while we roll the vaccine out”. And if they did that, it seems to me like you would just be on here saying “the rule is there to keep infections low — it’s not rocket science”, completely ignoring the concept of proportionality.

niallo27

gozunda wrote: »

So eh let's get those goalposts and run off down the field screaming whilst you do so "gotcha"?

Okay...

But yes all types of procedures and screening were reduced (approx by 50% up the end of January afaik) - so that our health care services could continue to cope whilst providing care for a new infectious disease - one which we had no prevention for. Now we do. And thankfully cancer screenings and other procedures are now again increasing in numbers.

And yes sadly there will be excess deaths from a range of reasons.

The Vaccine does not prevent you from getting or spreading the disease, you should really know this by now, its not that hard to follow.

Corby Trouser Press

Richard Hillman wrote: »

The Euro2020 games in Dublin have been moved. They were due to take place in mid to late June. That gets an indicator of where we'll be then. They have absolutely no intention in relaxing restrictions for the next couple of months.

They were only expected to host 15 odd thousand

A great indicator of where we are in relation to our cautious and conservative approach, which is somehow being presented as a virtue.

The only other city to lose out is Bilbao with games being moved to Seville;

"Bilbao has been unable to meet all of the conditions imposed by UEFA, relating to vaccination rates in host cities, and its games have moved to Seville in southern Spain.
'Bilbao will not host games at Euro 2020,' the furious city's organising committee said in a statement. 'However, we won't allow Bilbao or the Basque institutions to be taken for a ride.
'Nor are we going to allow the proven and long-standing experience and capability of the Basque authorities to manage and organise international events to be called into question.'
Seville's 60,000-capacity La Cartuja stadium, which has this year hosted two Copa del Rey finals plus the Spanish Super Cup final, is expected to be named as the replacement venue. "

Seems to be some local politics at play here.

So just to reiterate Ireland is the only country in Europe to decline to host 12 months after the initial tournament was set to be played.

Countries that will take up their hosting obligation / entitlement;

England
Scotland
Denmark
Holland
Spain
Germany
Italy
Hungary
Romania
Russia
Azerbaijan

Special country, the bestest, safest little country in the world;

Ireland

Another victory for the Bedwetters!

Lumen

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I don’t believe there is much justification for saying that hairdressers being open or bars / restaurants being open with precautionary measures taken will open the floodgates to the healthcare system collapsing and thousands upon thousands dying as result — which is the spectre that has always been used from the very beginning to justify the severity of the rules. Keeping infections low and minimising death outright is not what the government has ever seemed to claim was the risk which made lockdown worthwhile.

There were several justifications for lockdowns, one of which was preventing HCS collapse and mass death.

Another was that the provision of healthcare becomes very difficult with a high rate of infection and disease, partly due to the resources required to directly treat those patients, and partly due to practical difficulties with keeping non-infected but vulnerable patients safe from infection. It's not easy to split services in two.

Another was that there are capacity limits to test and trace and so it becomes harder to control outbreaks when there are lots of them.

I don't know what level of infection is tolerable. France have been managing with 5-10x the cases per capita that we have, although they have more capacity in their healthcare system. So maybe we could live with 1,000/day rather than 400/day.

The problem is that France has personal services and a bit more outdoor sports open but otherwise their lockdown is much the same as ours. Their cafes and restaurants have been closed since the end of October.

So if we re-open too quick, we're not going to very far open before we have to at least pause re-opening further, or worse still go back to full level 5.

That's of course if you buy into the idea that keeping to a thousand or so cases a day is worth doing to keep healthcare and contact tracing functioning.

If you just want everything open and to hell with the consequences then...I don't think the government has popular support for that.

gozunda

ArthurDayne wrote: »

There is very little point in doing this whole “it’s not hard to follow” thing Gozunda. What you are saying is not hard to follow — it just doesn’t really seem to have any basis in critical thought. You’re just continuously saying what the stated purpose of the restrictions are and then giving it the whole “its not rocket science” shtick .... as if people are being utterly idiotic for daring to question whether the severity of the restrictions is commensurate with and proportionate to their purpose and the risk they are preventing. In doing so, you aren’t really making any sense. One minute you’re telling me that things have changed and the context justifying lockdown is now on keeping infections low while the vaccine rollout goes on — but you’re also telling me that it hasn’t changed — and that it’s still seemingly based on the prospect of healthcare collapsing.
The lockdown was designed to prevent the collapse of healthcare and an enormous scale of death. That is the measure of proportionality for the restrictions — if the 5km rule was preventing the eventual collapse of the healthcare system then it was proportionate. But it wasn’t, so it wasn’t proportionate, and now it’s gone. My point is that there are other measures which do not appear, either in theory or by reference to our national experience over the last year, to be preventing the eventual collapse of healthcare — despite the assertion in politics and media that this is their ultimate purpose. For example, I don’t believe there is much justification for saying that hairdressers being open or bars / restaurants being open with precautionary measures taken will open the floodgates to the healthcare system collapsing and many thousands dying — which is the spectre that has always been used from the very beginning to justify the severity of the rules.
By your reasoning though, the government could just turn round and say “actually we need the 5km limit back to keep infections low while we roll the vaccine out”. And if they did that, it seems to me like you would just be on here saying “the rule is there to keep infections low — it’s not rocket science”, completely ignoring the concept of proportionality.

Arthur. You clearly have only read bits of my last comment. Your claim that I somehow believe that "The lockdown was designed to prevent the collapse of healthcare and an enormous scale of death." That smply does not stand up to scrutiny. You may believe that and absolutely nothing else. I don't. The restrictions were put in place to keep the rate of infections low whilst healthcare services can continue to care and treat those who do fall seriously ill. And yes people did die. But with restrictions- thankfully those numbers have been kept relatively low. What has changed? The availability of vaccinations has. That is the game changer.

Btw again I never mentioned the "prospect of healthcare collapsing". You did. And again we are still keeping the infection rate low, so health services can cope as above all whilst now we roll out the largest vaccination programme in the history of the state.

And the fact is - restrictions are being rolled back as vaccination rates increase and with that we have proportionality.

Imagining that somehow we are going to have the government suddenly without reason deciding that they "need the 5km limit back to keep infections low while we roll the vaccine out” is conspiracy theory level stuff. As is the idea that the whole thing is a politics and media driven agenda.

But no nothing wrong for questioning "whether the severity of the restrictions is commensurate with and proportionate to their purpose and the risk they are preventing. "

But to do so - that must be based on facts. And there's only so many times people can point that out with some exasperation.

average_runner

Richard Hillman wrote: »

The Euro2020 games in Dublin have been moved. They were due to take place in mid to late June. That gets an indicator of where we'll be then. They have absolutely no intention in relaxing restrictions for the next couple of months.

They were only expected to host 15 odd thousand

Considering UK are well ahead of us and allowed 15,000 into match, this was expected.


Alot more restrictions to be removed before fans at games. Maybe near end of August

charlie14

niallo27 wrote: »

The Vaccine does not prevent you from getting or spreading the disease, you should really know this by now, its not that hard to follow.

Really

So the drop in infection levels of the cohorts vaccinated here, as well as in the U.K. and Isreal is just a coincidence do you reckon ?

Corby Trouser Press

average_runner wrote: »

Considering UK are well ahead of us and allowed 15,000 into match, this was expected.


Alot more restrictions to be removed before fans at games. Maybe near end of August

Expected but not acceptable.

Only country in Europe not able to fulfill our obligations.

Embarrassing.

daydorunrun

Great to see the stats Israeli. Gives great hope for the future- if however it crashes and fails for any reason i.e. variants etc it's going to be pretty depressing!!

niallo27

charlie14 wrote: »

Really

So the drop in infection levels of the cohorts vaccinated here, as well as in the U.K. and Isreal is just a coincidence do you reckon ?

Yes really, you can still get the virus if you vaccinated. Now its doesn't matter a **** because you wont get sick, but tell that to Tony and crew.

niallo27

average_runner wrote: »

Considering UK are well ahead of us and allowed 15,000 into match, this was expected.


Alot more restrictions to be removed before fans at games. Maybe near end of August

What about the rest of Europe. Why did you just pick the UK.

normanoffside

average_runner wrote: »

Considering UK are well ahead of us and allowed 15,000 into match, this was expected.


Alot more restrictions to be removed before fans at games. Maybe near end of August

Apart from the UK the other countries hosting games have higher infection rates than us and similar vaccination rates.
It has been proven that Covid spread outdoors is very rare.
they weren't asking to allow foreign fans into the game, only locals.
25% capacity would have mean that 3 seats between everyone.

Despite all the above, covid is obviously more dangerous in Ireland so we continue to be an outlier in the world in permitting safe activities.

normanoffside

I wonder what Tony will allow us do next week.
Clearly it's not a decision of the government.

Sam Wheat90

Corby Trouser Press wrote: »

Expected but not acceptable.

Only country in Europe not able to fulfill our obligations.

Embarrassing.

No embarrassment whatsoever. Games have been moved from Bilbao to Seville as well. Time for you to stop stirring the pot.

niallo27

Sam Wheat90 wrote: »

No embarrassment whatsoever. Games have been moved from Bilbao to Seville as well. Time for you to stop stirring the pot.

So they moved a game from somewhere in Spain to somewhere else in Spain, what exactly is your point.

charlie14

niallo27 wrote: »

Yes really, you can still get the virus if you vaccinated. Now its doesn't matter a **** because you wont get sick, but tell that to Tony and crew.

I think Tony and crew are well aware of that. The are also aware of something you and quite a few of the "open up everything now" brigade here are apparently not.
The levels of vaccination requred to open up in stages so that we do not have to yo-yo back in and out of lockdown.
Something we are in a position to judge based on the U.K. and Isreal opening at stages due to their vaccination levels.

paddyisreal

normanoffside wrote: »

Apart from the UK the other countries hosting games have higher infection rates than us and similar vaccination rates.
It has been proven that Covid spread outdoors is very rare.
they weren't asking to allow foreign fans into the game, only locals.
25% capacity would have mean that 3 seats between everyone.

Despite all the above, covid is obviously more dangerous in Ireland so we continue to be an outlier in the world in permitting safe activities.

Never a truer word spoken. How the **** are we the only country that can't facilitate this through antigen testing etc. It actually shows up how the last year has been handled - piss poorly by a bunch of lads sitting in an ivory tower with no grasp of reality. like golf, outdoor sports , outdoor dining. Incapable to think outside the box whatsoever. Nphet say to risky then the government says no. All the government wanted was a layer so they didn't have to make a decision and by God did they get it.

Sam Wheat90

niallo27 wrote: »

So they moved a game from somewhere in Spain to somewhere else in Spain, what exactly is your point.

4 games have been moved not 1. I assume you are a Dub boy. If for example games were moved from Dublin to Belfast or Cork I don`t think it would be long until you were moaning about it.

Fago123

The refusal to host Euro 2020 games at reduced capacity lays bare our overly cautious approach. It’s a litmus test of how we treat this virus & treat the easing of restrictions. There it is in black & white. Clear as day.

Because we can compare to the other European cities that have already agreed. Because I guarantee you the thoughts of putting a plan in place to allow it blew the tiny minds of those in power. It would have them crying in bed, sucking their thumbs, shivering with fear. Embarrassing.

MOR316

Sam Wheat90 wrote: »

4 games have been moved not 1. I assume you are a Dub boy. If for example games were moved from Dublin to Belfast or Cork I don`t think it would be long until you were moaning about it.

Obvious troll is obvious

Corby Trouser Press

Sam Wheat90 wrote: »

No embarrassment whatsoever. Games have been moved from Bilbao to Seville as well. Time for you to stop stirring the pot.

I will gladly "stir the pot" as you put it.

In fact, it is an obligation of living in a free society to point out these failures of governance.

That we are the only country in Europe not to be able to actually plan and make this happen is noteworthy.

Your "keep yourr head down and don't question anything" attitude is embarrassing also!