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

Gael23

Lumen wrote: »

Maybe the idea is that if people can only eat in the hotel they're staying in, there will be less mixing between households?

But it’s allowing certain restaurants to trade and not others. You can’t do that it’s anti competitive as well

Tenzor07

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Ha! Yea more crazy non-science, we should be used to it by now from this Govt. It makes as much sense as the €9 meal rule to have a beer....and the 2hr time limit..

They clear the difference between food and non food pubs, then allow dining indoors if you stay at a hotel but not if you don't!! :eek:

The difference is a resident in a hotel does not have the option to cook at home, therefore needs to eat in the hotel

gozunda

themacattack. wrote: »

heading the right direction now,lockdowns hopefully will never ever be considered as a way of managing covid...would not fully trust the government but confidant enough that no european country will impose level 5 style restrictions again if vaccines do their job which its more or less been demonstrated that they do.

why would any country need to close any industry again if there is a collapse in hospitlisations and deaths...there can be any amount of cases but its moot if the end result is largely a few days with a bit of a cough ..and will people still go for covid tests if they suspect they have it but they know passing it on is no biggy...obviously you will have to if you want to travel.

every day something is opened now is a good day moving forward as the theory is once they are open they will stay open...one negative is allowing hotels have indoor dining which of course they should but only allowing pubs and restaurants outdoor dining until july....if true its once again the irish government showing their lack of common sense..why in the name of christ is it ok to sit indoors in a hotel and drink and eat but not in a pub...hopefully they will face a backlash on that one...

travel within europe is now looking more and more likely with the green certificate and looks like dopey,sneaky and sleepy are making positive noises about that..the penny has dropped that we need an aviation industry.

still believe this was the biggest over-reaction in human history and people in the future will be wondering what we were all smoking but this is a positive day just to get moving forward now,no more dilly dallying

Funny there seems to be entire countries which disagree with you...

https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-germanys-emergency-brake-rules-take-effect/a-57321750

themacattack wrote:

...looks like dopey,sneaky and sleepy are making positive noises

Calling people stupid names - whether you like them or otherwise is puerile btw

mohawk

Gael23 wrote: »

Allowing hotel restaurants to have indoor dining but not a standalone restaurant is not fair. I can see a climb down there

I could swear that happened back in October or maybe December (can’t remember which). We had a weekend away and had to eat in hotel as restaurants were closed.

It’s not fair but most pubs outside Dublin got three weeks open last year while gastropubs got months.

Personally I can see their logic in trying to keep dining outdoors for as long as possible. The longer they leave it the more of us will be vaccinated. I would rather the current plan then keeping hotels closed until they bring in indoor dining to restaurants and pubs. I don’t think they will move date for indoor dining up to June.

corcaigh07

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Ha! Yea more crazy non-science, we should be used to it by now from this Govt. It makes as much sense as the €9 meal rule to have a beer....and the 2hr time limit..

They clear the difference between food and non food pubs, then allow dining indoors if you stay at a hotel but not if you don't!! :eek:

TBF, any hotel that has been open this year (for essential guests) has been serving food and drink in their bar or restaurant, nothing new here at all bar the fact that there will be more guests staying from June 2nd.

pc7

Looked up hotel that's good for families for 11th June that we have stayed in before, 1 night b&b €364! they are looking to make up lost revenue. Can't blame them, but it is a killer price, won't be happening.

themacattack.

gozunda wrote: »

Funny there seems to be entire countries which disagree with you...

https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-germanys-emergency-brake-rules-take-effect/a-57321750



Calling people stupid names - whether you like them or otherwise is puerile btw

Stupid is as stupid does....
im looking forward to oktoberfest in september? do you think ill make it?prost!!!

darconio

timmyntc wrote: »

Passport applications were never closed, sure Boggles saw them being issued all over the place on his walk!

Along with construction and building sites

Tenzor07

Deleted User wrote: »

The difference is a resident in a hotel does not have the option to cook at home, therefore needs to eat in the hotel

What's that got to do with the Virus? LOL!

SAMTALK

Fandymo wrote: »

There was literally a statement on the front page of the DFA website stating that no passports, except emergency passports, were being processed during level 5, i provided the link. Do you think they were hacked? :rolleyes:

https://twitter.com/PassportIRL/status/1370414426730430466 Here's their Twitter hacked too. :rolleyes:


I worked in the passport office for 2 years when I was younger. I never seen Brian Cowen in the office. Met him at the Christmas party though.

Sorry I can't put up link but maybe look at tweet on 23rd march as well where it says 1600 urgent passports and 150 emergency passports this year. also adult renewals of 20,000 .


Cherry picking ?

hynesie08

Fandymo wrote: »

430,000 passports issued DURING the pandemic, we've been in pandemic since Feb 2020, not since January 2021, when they ceased operations

Except obviously they didn't.

gozunda

themacattack. wrote: »

Stupid is as stupid does....
im looking forward to oktoberfest in september? do you think ill make it?prost!!!

Yes unfortunately stupidity does exist.
Unless you are saying that the German Government are stupid too?

As for oktoberfest maybe ask the people here

https://m.dw.com/en/coronavirus-germanys-emergency-brake-rules-take-effect/a-57321750

As you said its all just a big overreaction or wtte ..

Stormyteacup

hynesie08 wrote: »

Why did it take mine 4 days? Maybe they made a mistake on the application?

https://twitter.com/PassportIRL/status/1374330212725428229?s=20

Because services have been resumed? You applied in the middle of April.

prunudo

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Anyone know where the restrictions thread went? I seem to have ended up on the passport office thread.

I don't know, but its reminded me to check the application status (didn't know this was possible) of my renewed passport which I applied and paid for at the end of Feb and have yet to receive.

Edit; turns out the estimated time if delivery was 11/3/21. And as of 29/4/21 it just says processing application.

Stormyteacup

Corholio wrote: »

Any chance could give this passport childishness a rest?

It’s not really about the passport issue though - it’s more that some posters are absolutely insistent that passport renewals were not paused completely apart from essential reasons, for a period of time.

It’s absolutely true they were paused - with tweets from DFA, a notice on their website and personal and anecdotal experiences re passport renewals.

It’s odd that posters are claiming that never happened tbh.

Tenzor07

Tenzor07 wrote: »

What's that got to do with the Virus? LOL!

Huh?

LineOfBeauty

I'm excited to have these things back, to have something near normality again. It's a good day. The key to this now has to be that the things they've given back should never be taken away again.

ArthurDayne

gozunda wrote: »

Arthur hate to break it to you but you're tying yourself in knots with endless spliting of what posters have said ito minutiae

But yes something can be both minimised and manageable. They are not incompatible

The strategy has also changed over time. Something you seen unaware of.

The endless essay why every else is wrong is a bit boring at this stage tbf.

Yes, it would be fairly stupid to say that something cannot be both minimised and manageable. It would be equally stupid to say they are incompatible. Thankfully however, that is not what I said or suggested at all — whether you are just misinterpreting or deliberately just misrepresenting it.

How you are contriving to see this as being “tied up in knots” is beyond me. It’s quite simple, the government did not pursue a strategy of minimising Covid infections. You only have to look at the strategy and by any objective measure this would be obvious — there would be a strict lockdown followed by a period of reopening. You don’t have to be epidemiologist to understand that when you reopen things, in a context where the virus is already endemic, there is likely to be a rise in infection. So if that’s a policy of minimising Covid infection outright, then I’m Harry Potter.

I don’t understand how this isn’t clear by just looking at the pattern of how the approach unfolded: cases rise > lockdown > cases drop > reopen > cases inevitably rise from reopening > lockdown > repeat. Saying that this is a policy of minimising infections outright is like saying that piano means fish. It was a policy aimed at controlling the level of infection to thresholds where the health service would be able to cope.

Bit cynical

charlie14 wrote: »

Why do you believe people making up for lost time will increase numbers to the extent that lockdown will be imposed ?
At 50% first dose vaccination in the U.K. it hasn`t happened. Nor does it look likely to from their data plus more people being vaccinated.

But that is the effect of the vaccine which will have the effect of reducing the R number regardless of whether they are in lockdown or how long they have had restrictions.

PTH2009

D Day as was mentioned before there will always be a lingering thought of another big lockdown looming over us and the media will be all over it

When places reopen let them stay open. Indoor Hospitality is the worry as they could easily string them along like last summer. 100% clarity needs to be given to those establishments and all industries including entertainment/sport etc

Graham

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

I'm excited to have these things back, to have something near normality again. It's a good day. The key to this now has to be that the things they've given back should never be taken away again.

+1

and I think we stand a very good chance of that being the case.

Stormyteacup

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Yes, it would be fairly stupid to say that something cannot be both minimised and manageable. It would be equally stupid to say they are incompatible. Thankfully however, that is not what I said or suggested at all — whether you are just misinterpreting or deliberately just misrepresenting it.

How you are contriving to see this as being “tied up in knots” is beyond me. It’s quite simple, the government did not pursue a strategy of minimising Covid infections. You only have to look at the strategy and by any objective measure this would be obvious — there would be a strict lockdown followed by a period of reopening. You don’t have to be epidemiologist to understand that when you reopen things, in a context where the virus is already endemic, there is likely to be a rise in infection. So if that’s a policy of minimising Covid infection outright, then I’m Harry Potter.

I don’t understand how this isn’t clear by just looking at the pattern of how the approach unfolded: cases rise > lockdown > cases drop > reopen > cases inevitably rise from reopening > lockdown > repeat. Saying that this is a policy of minimising infections outright is like saying that piano means fish. It was a policy aimed at controlling the level of infection to thresholds where the health service would be able to cope.

Precisely. A prime example of this was Christmas and the easing of restrictions that were sanctioned, in full acknowledgement of an expected rise in cases that would translate to hospitalisations and deaths.

The judgment was that the health services would be able to cope with these increases. The extent of the rise in cases was under-predicted, but if the overall goal was to minimise deaths and hospitalisations without consideration for capicity, then there would have been no sanctioned lifting of restrictions during the Christmas period.

Pandiculation

Hopefully they manage to smoothly match the removal of spending with an increase in economic activity. Austerity economics into a massive recession is the one thing Christine Lagarde is warning countries not to do, as it will potentially trip into an economic crisis situation.

A lot of the next few years is going to depend on how impactful stimulus packages are and not just here, but in in the EU as a whole and in our key trading partners.

Consumer confidence will also be a big deal. If people begin to spend into the reopening economy it will make a huge difference. I’m just hoping the last few months hasn’t created a massive Amazon habit that won’t be weaned off.

There’s a lot of very unprecedented economics, the likes of which we haven’t really experienced. It’s not comparable to WWII, but it’s right up there with the biggest economic impacts in modern history.

I still think we’re very much underestimating it and it’s being compounded in these islands by the U.K. having decided to turn everything upside down and inside out with Brexit in the middle of a global pandemic. A lot of that impact has been clouded in the distortions of COVID supports, so we will begin to see a lot of that crystallise in both the U.K. and here as the summer rolls on and normality restores.

Bumpy roads could be ahead. We don’t have any model that we can base assumptions on as there hasn’t been anything like this before.

Graham

Stormyteacup wrote: »

Precisely. A prime example of this was Christmas and the easing of restrictions that were sanctioned, in full acknowledgement of in spite of the warnings of an expected rise in cases that would translate to hospitalisations and deaths.

FYP

Bit cynical

gozunda wrote: »

Ireland like every other country in the EU have added debt due to the global pandemic. Luckily for us Ireland was the only EU economy to grow in 2020

But yeah it's all mehole & leo fault ...

And absolutely nothing to do with the fact we've managed to bring down the rate of infection whilst rolling out the biggest vaccination programme in the states history.

I would say a lot of it is to do with the fact that a lot of Irish GDP is multinationals largely unaffected by the pandemic. Our domestic economy has actually been badly effected by restrictions.

gozunda

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Yes, it would be fairly stupid to say that something cannot be both minimised and manageable. It would be equally stupid to say they are incompatible. Thankfully however, that is not what I said or suggested at all — whether you are just misinterpreting or deliberately just misrepresenting it.How you are contriving to see this as being “tied up in knots” is beyond me. It’s quite simple, the government did not pursue a strategy of minimising Covid infections. You only have to look at the strategy and by any objective measure this would be obvious — there would be a strict lockdown followed by a period of reopening. You don’t have to be epidemiologist to understand that when you reopen things, in a context where the virus is already endemic, there is likely to be a rise in infection. So if that’s a policy of minimising Covid infection outright, then I’m Harry Potter.
I don’t understand how this isn’t clear by just looking at the pattern of how the approach unfolded: cases rise > lockdown > cases drop > reopen > cases inevitably rise from reopening > lockdown > repeat. Saying that this is a policy of minimising infections outright is like saying that piano means fish. It was a policy aimed at controlling the level of infection to thresholds where the health service would be able to cope.

Hi Mr Potter

Thanks for the very long answer. But you're tying yourself in knots there again.

And this is exactly what you posted in reply to the other poster

ArthurDayne wrote:

...
saying that lockdown was not based on just minimising infection but on minimising it to the extent hospitals could cope. Now, here you are, talking about cases being "manageable" rather than simply just being minimised

If the strategy was about minimising Covid and saving as many lives as possible then we would not be reopening anything at all right now. Do you really not see the utter contradiction here between what you are saying now and what you were saying ..well...less than an hour ago?!

And pls don't try and weasel out of that one by going on another long soliquay

Pandiculation

Bit cynical wrote: »

I would say a lot of it is to do with the fact that a lot of Irish GDP is multinationals largely unaffected by the pandemic. Our domestic economy has actually been badly effected by restrictions.

That could also shut us out of EU stimulus packages, as we look on paper in a lot better shape than we are.

I suspect we’re looking at a tale of two economies here over the next few years. Hopefully the economic impact of the presence of MNCs and jobs from those revenue streams both in those companies and in Irish companies with less dependence on the domestic market drives economic activity.

A lot is also very dependent on how our key trading partners are doing and for us that’s basically the US, the other 26 EU members and U.K.

It could end up being more optimistic though if they ride out of this on stimulus and pent up consumer spending coming back.

The problem is it’s extremely hard to predict as there’s no history of anything quite like this.

I’m concerned that in Europe in particular, and Ireland included, there’s less vision beyond cheque book balancing type approaches to fiscal policy.

The US could well steam ahead with New Deal 2.0 while Europe debates fiscal rectitude.

Stormyteacup

Graham wrote: »

FYP

Well yes that works too. The point remains the same. It was known that cases would rise, and restrictions were lifted anyway.

castletownman

Heard on the 1PM news there that there are some cabinet ministers "concerned" about the speed of re-opening ahead of the announcement tonight (that they are opening too fast).

They should be named and shamed because they clearly don't have the best interests of their constituents in mind.

Pandiculation

There’ll always be concerns. Seems cabinet collectivity went out the window decades ago here though! As usual, cabinet ministers briefing against government policies that they’ve agreed upon as a cabinet and government.

Doctor Jimbob

castletownman wrote: »

Heard on the 1PM news there that there are some cabinet ministers "concerned" about the speed of re-opening ahead of the announcement tonight (that they are opening too fast).

They should be named and shamed because they clearly don't have the best interests of their constituents in mind.

Making a show of opposition to placate any constituents opposed to a faster reopening I'd say.

billyhead

castletownman wrote: »

Heard on the 1PM news there that there are some cabinet ministers "concerned" about the speed of re-opening ahead of the announcement tonight (that they are opening too fast).

They should be named and shamed because they clearly don't have the best interests of their constituents in mind.

You'll be damned if you do and damned if you don't. Can't have it both ways.

Graham

Stormyteacup wrote: »

Well yes that works too. The point remains the same. It was known that cases would rise, and restrictions were lifted anyway.

Something we've spent almost the entire first quarter paying the price for.

gozunda

Stormyteacup wrote: »

Precisely. A prime example of this was Christmas and the easing of restrictions that were sanctioned, in full acknowledgement of an expected rise in cases that would translate to hospitalisations and deaths.

The judgment was that the health services would be able to cope with these increases. The extent of the rise in cases was under-predicted, but if the overall goal was to minimise deaths and hospitalisations without consideration for capicity, then there would have been no sanctioned lifting of restrictions during the Christmas period.

Well no. We clearly do have a policy of minimising and attempting to manage the rate of infection.

And restrictions were lifted when infection rates were low. Like last summer when rates stayed down for an extended period.

When numbers did increase - restrictions levels were increased to reduce/ help keep down / minimise the rate of infection.

The main issue in all that was the mistake made to drop restrictions due to popular demand at Christmas. A change interestingly enough which was enabled by a policy of increasing restrictions prior to that.

Unfortunately a combination of factors including increased socialisation beyond recommendations (which many attributed to "pent up demand"), inward bound travel and a new more transmissible variant meant that those restrictions had to be brought back in sooner than anticipated to help bring down the rapid rise of infections and increased hospitalisations Which they did thankfully

So yes to date we've used a policy of minimising the rate of infection and overall our health services have been able to cope. Thankfully

Stormyteacup

gozunda wrote: »

Hi Mr Potter

Thanks for the very long answer. But you're tying yourself in knots there again.

And this is exactly what you posted in reply to the other poster



And pls don't try and weasel out of that one by going on another long soliquay

This is illogical nonsense and doesn’t reinforce you point the way you seem to think it does.

Poster’s position is that cases can be both minimised and manageable. But there is evidence that government have made decisions based on manageability over minimalising of cases.

Another poster was called out for vacillating between one and the other. They are not mutually exclusive, but if our course was to minimise hospitalisations and deaths without regard to capacity of health services then we should have been in level five for the last thirteen months.

Pitch n Putt

Klonker wrote: »

There has definitely been a shift. Earlier in the week we were being given leaks that the government wanted to ease inter county travel in late June and NPHET wanted early July and low and behold now its easing 10th May! That is a huge change.

Its funny though there are posters here who earlier in the week were happy with the expected easing leaks and we needed to be that cautious and now they are also happy with the new expected easing and think that's appropriate also. It just shows they actually don't have an opinion apart from just agreeing with whatever NPHET tell them. At least the people texting into Pat Kenny complaining it's too quick and we'll have another surge seem to have an opinion on the situation no matter how much I disagree with them!

Back to my point, there has been a big shift the last 36 hours but it seems to be coming from NPHET rather than government. I get it hard to believe the government grow a backbone all of a sudden. They all seemed giddy yesterday like when your teacher allowed you to go out and play outside for the rest of your class! Why NPHETs stance changed would be just guessing until maybe be get told a bit more information. My guess would be more international data on vaccines, particularly from Israel and the UK, less worry about variants dispute RTEs best efforts and also the fact a lot of people had moved on and were following their own rules anyway (meeting up outside etc) so the official rules need to catch up to stay credible.

From the governments perspective they have to sign up to the green cert in June/July so they need to allign this with more closely with out internal restrictions. It wouldn't go down well with tourists flying in and out and us still under county restrictions. Also no doubt Northern Irelands reopening would be part of the government mind too.

I would think the big shift may have come in the form of a phone call from the EU bosses.

Something along the lines of

“Hello Mr Martin

You and you’re NPHET teams policies and fears of this virus are ridiculous. You telling me you have the whole nation locked down with 150 peoples in hospital from a population of 4.9million. Insane Mr Martin and by the way the money’s run out for Ireland. “

Goodbye “

Que the complete turnaround thank god.

Had to happen eventually.

Now let’s carry on with life.

Stormyteacup

Graham wrote: »

Something we've spent almost the entire first quarter paying the price for.

That’s not in dispute. The point is if government held a position of minimising deaths and hospitalisations there would have been no reopening in December. They don’t, so there was.

Pandiculation

There’s a risk in this. That’s a given. However, it’s clearly a calculated risk. We know that the most vulnerable are vaccinated at this stage and that isn’t just the elderly, but also front line health workers who were at enormous risk.

As the next few weeks go on we will likely be into the 40s and 50s age groups, so it will be getting safer and safer very rapidly as the mid summer arrives.

There are obviously outlying risks like variants, but so far they haven’t been game changing and the EU has more than 2 billion doses on order, which this time include updates to mRNA vaccines should they need arise. Is very unlikely we’re going to see the teething problems with vaccines that we saw in January-March.

The key thing we need to do is ensure we don’t completely stand down the vaccine delivery infrastructure this autumn, both in Ireland and the wider EU. We need to keep it for another 6 to 12 months, in a situation where it can at least be rolled out quickly again should the need arise

We’re also going to just have to be a lot more careful of screening at the border and I think tbh that’s something the EU is going to have to do at external borders too as we can’t really afford another wave.

It also doesn’t need to be a hugely burdensome thing of the technology and protocols at borders are right.

The vaccine production capacity also needs to be ramped up and kept up to get those vaccines out globally to restore normality. I wouldn’t like to see Europe or anywhere that has the capacity to do that take the foot off the accelerator as soon as it’s dealt with domestically. It needs to be global. It’s the only way we can ultimately end or at least control this permanently.

Graham

Pitch n Putt wrote: »

I would think the big shift may have come in the form of a phone call from the EU bosses.

That one sentence alone demonstrates quite clearly you don't quite understand the role of the EU.

Graham

Stormyteacup wrote: »

That’s not in dispute. The point is if government held a position of minimising deaths and hospitalisations there would have been no reopening in December. They don’t, so there was.

If that were entirely accurate there would have been no restrictions this year. There was, so it isn't.

Cool game, a refreshing change from playing 'things people never said'

Pitch n Putt

Graham wrote: »

That one sentence alone demonstrates quite clearly you don't quite understand the role of the EerU.

Well we ain’t funding the sh1tshow we have here for the last year on our own.
If I remember correctly our great leaders signed us up for the free money now program with the promise of huge payback to the Eu in the future.

Stormyteacup

gozunda wrote: »

Well no. We clearly do have a policy of minimising and attempting to manage the rate of infection.

And restrictions were lifted when infection rates were low. Like last summer when rates stayed down for an extended period.

When numbers did increase - restrictions levels were increased to reduce/ help keep down / minimise the rate of infection.

The main issue in all that was the mistake made to drop restrictions due to popular demand at Christmas. A change interestingly enough which was enabled by a policy of increasing restrictions prior to that.

Unfortunately a combination of factors including increased socialisation beyond recommendations (which many attributed to "pent up demand"), inward bound travel and a new more transmissible variant meant that those restrictions had to be brought back in sooner than anticipated to help bring down the rapid rise of infections and increased hospitalisations Which they did thankfully

So yes to date we've used a policy of minimising the rate of infection and overall our health services have been able to cope. Thankfully

You’re still conflating minimising cases with ability of healthcare services to cope. If government were concerned predominantly with minimising cases, heavy restrictions would continue.

Cases may now rise with easing of restrictions - and translate to hospitalisations and deaths, especially with all the behaviour that surround safe outdoor activities, but that’s okay as health services will be able to cope.

gozunda

Bit cynical wrote: »

I would say a lot of it is to do with the fact that a lot of Irish GDP is multinationals largely unaffected by the pandemic. Our domestic economy has actually been badly effected by restrictions.

So what you're saying is that we're lucky to have these multinationals who provide employment and income to many here?

I don't doubt the domestic economy has been badly effected. Even Sweden with its up down up down approach to the Pandemic has taken a big hit as have many other countries including ourselves.

That said once the pandemic is truely under control I would see a massive bounce back for all economies.

Stormyteacup

Graham wrote: »

If that were entirely accurate there would have been no restrictions this year. There was, so it isn't.

Cool game, a refreshing change from playing 'things people never said'

Well there would have been - to protect the health services?

ArthurDayne

gozunda wrote: »

Hi Mr Potter

Thanks for the very long answer. But you're tying yourself in knots there again.

And this is exactly what you posted in reply to the other poster



And pls don't try and weasel out of that one by going on another long soliquay

Well, I applaud the fact that you have given up on the exercise of rewriting the government’s strategy to suit your own narrative — but maybe you want to read that sentence again, with the important bit written in bold:

“Now, here you are, talking about cases being "manageable" rather than simply just being minimised“.

Do you understand the significance of me saying “simply just” there? If you took away the bit in bold and changed it to “instead of” then you would have a point ....but I didn’t say that....so you don’t. There’s no weaseling required, you just didn’t read it right.

Graham

Pitch n Putt wrote: »

Well we ain’t funding the sh1tshow we have here for the last year on our own.
If I remember correctly our great leaders signed us up for the free money now program with the promise of huge payback to the Eu in the future.

Not seeing the connection PnP.

Graham

Stormyteacup wrote: »

Well there would have been - to protect the health services?

and this would have been achieved by......

Wait for it......

Stormyteacup wrote: »

minimising deaths and hospitalisations

gozunda

Stormyteacup wrote: »

You’re still conflating minimising cases with ability of healthcare services to cope. If government were concerned predominantly with minimising cases, heavy restrictions would continue.

Cases may now rise with easing of restrictions - and translate to hospitalisations and deaths, especially with all the behaviour that surround safe outdoor activities, but that’s okay as health services will be able to cope.

Nope. By minimising the rate of infection - you allow health services to cope. Lifting restrictions periodically when infection rates are low doesn't change that.

The current rate of infection is down as it was last summer and when restrictions were gradually lowered. Call it dynamic control if you will but the policy has meant that our health services have coped even with the rise in the rate of infection which we saw at Christmas

We now have vaccinations which are a game changer. Let's hope we have enough people vaccinated so that we don't have to use restrictions again to bring down/ minimise the rate of infection again.

head82

Just heard on RTE news a comment from some minister (didn't catch his name) that it's expected upto 200,000 people could resume work by the end of July as a result of the easing of restrictions.
I could have sworn I heard Paschal say a week or two ago that he expects 70,000 to return to the workforce by the end of the year! As if that figure was something to be championed.

It's a rather extreme change of tone. As surprising as the recent announcement/leak regarding the earlier than expected .. albeit partial.. opening of the economy.
I can't help but feel this earlier than expected.. but very welcomed.. relaxation is motivated by financial reasons as opposed to vaccine rollout success or NPHET advice.

With the Covid supports, PUP etc. planned to come to an end in June, a justification will be required and this earlier opening will provide that.

CalamariFritti

eggy81 wrote: »

This thread is amazing.

It really is. Trying to stay away from the petty to-ing and fro-ing for a while now (its not going anywhere) but it does give an amazing insight into the psyche of the boards nation.