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

timmyntc

charlie14 wrote: »

It`s nothing to do with disagreeing with or discrediting opinions. It`s to do with me being long enough on these Covid threads to recognise the opinions of certain posters from past experience.

Open to interpretation whether the OP was about sentiment on boards or nationally - regardless its just a strawman from you.

OwenM

Boggles wrote: »

Really?



Probably easier ask what you would keep restricted so?

I think even the most fervent anti restriction-er who is at least honest would think opening the pubs now would be potentially one of the most dangerously stupid moves of this whole pandemic.

Not really, with the cohorts vaccinated to date, seasonality and forecast vaccinations, opening the pubs to 50% capacity now doesn't seem irrational.

Boggles

Corholio wrote: »

'Late' may for personal services here. I guess the 17th could be considered 'late'.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/nphet-meeting-to-consider-next-phase-of-reopening-society-1118910.html

with the opening of garden centres also under considerationn.

This always makes me chuckle.

gozunda

lawred2 wrote: »

more disingenuous posting from the master of it
that is no more the context within which you posted. I'm 100% getting the vaccine... but do I believe current restrictions are valid when the majority of those getting ill from this disease are vaccinated? No I don't. Not one bit.You've just conflated support for a vaccination with support for restrictions. I'll look forward to your next post... maybe we'll see another increase in asterisks.

Ah I see just trying to start some agro by substituting your personal interpretation of what you want to talk about?

But as there seems to be some hard of understanding. Let me reiterate that slowly.

gozunda wrote:

..Fingers crossed they manage to keep up with their vaccination schedule

paddyisreal wrote:

Doing a bit better than us in their vaccine rollout and also once the elderly and vulnerable are vaccinated who gives a **** ?

gozunda wrote:

Who gives a "****" once the "elderly and vulnerable are vaccinated"???

The absolute majority give a "****" I'd reckon.

So indeed that bit of the discussion was centered on vaccinations. Not "restrictions"

But indeed. More disingenuous posting from the master of it.

Cheers. No worries. I know it can be hard sometimes to keep up.

Btw am I allowed to use question marks or?!

lawred2

gozunda wrote: »

Ah I see just trying to start some agro by substituting your personal interpretation of what you want to talk about?

But as there seems to be some hard of understanding. Let me reiterate that slowly.







So indeed that bit of the discussion was centered on vaccinations. Not "restrictions"

But indeed. More disingenuous posting from the master of it. Lawred2.

Cheers. No worries. I know it can be hard sometimes to keep up.

Btw am I allowed to use question marks or?!

Apologies. I strayed offside there. Picked up the exchange incorrectly.

Boggles

OwenM wrote: »

Not really, with the cohorts vaccinated to date, seasonality and forecast vaccinations, opening the pubs to 50% capacity now doesn't seem irrational.

Long long flu season in large parts of Europe. Never ending. :rolleyes:

Opening the pubs now for at least indoor use would be suicide.

timmyntc

gozunda wrote: »

Ah I see just trying to start some agro by substituting your personal interpretation of what you want to talk about?

But as there seems to be some hard of understanding. Let me reiterate that slowly.







So indeed that bit of the discussion was centered on vaccinations. Not "restrictions"

But indeed. More disingenuous posting from the master of it. Lawred2.

Cheers. No worries. I know it can be hard sometimes to keep up.

Btw am I allowed to use question marks or?!

Yikes.

The OP was about Spain opening to tourism despite being not much farther ahead of us in their vaccine rollout. Why are they opening ahead of us? Because once the vulnerable and elderly are vaccinated, who cares!

Doing a bit better than us in their vaccine rollout and also once the elderly and vulnerable are vaccinated who gives a **** ?

Any attempt to link back to public sentiment about vaccines is grasping at straws. But sure, grasp away

charlie14

timmyntc wrote: »

Open to interpretation whether the OP was about sentiment on boards or nationally - regardless its just a strawman from you.

My opinion was based on the opinions I am aware of from previous experience on these threads.
What is strawman about that ?
Do you believe posters should get the opinions of everyone nationally before posting ?

Regardless- just petty nit-picking from you.

gozunda

timmyntc wrote: »

Yikes.
The OP was about Spain opening to tourism despite being not much farther ahead of us in their vaccine rollout. Why are they opening ahead of us? Because once the vulnerable and elderly are vaccinated, who cares!. Any attempt to link back to public sentiment about vaccines is grasping at straws. But sure, grasp away

Well done you've answered your own questions unintentionally yourself :pac:

But you may want to drop the shovel now before you fall head first into that big ol' smelly hole you're digging

But back to the question who gives a fuk about vaccines after the old and vulnerable are done? The absolute feking majority do. About 85 % of them. Those who say they are going to get vaccinated. Sorry that bothers you!

If you would likec to have a discussion about something else then by all means do so my friend.

I borrowed this lad he looks better here

Corholio

charlie14 wrote: »

With a high proportion of those believing there should never have been any restrictions what-so-ever which makes what they think redundant imho.

A high proportion of people who think that restrictions could be eased quicker are people who thought there should be no restrictions at all? Are you actually serious?

It's nonsense just to be able to shoehorn people who might have a different opinion into those who believed in no restrictions whatsoever to dismiss them all in one group. Very sad.

charlie14

timmyntc wrote: »

Yikes.

The OP was about Spain opening to tourism despite being not much farther ahead of us in their vaccine rollout. Why are they opening ahead of us? Because once the vulnerable and elderly are vaccinated, who cares!



Any attempt to link back to public sentiment about vaccines is grasping at straws. But sure, grasp away

Even though both words begin with the letter s you do know don`t you the difference between sentiment and science

charlie14

Corholio wrote: »

A high proportion of people who think that restrictions could be eased quicker are people who thought there should be no restrictions at all? Are you actually serious?

As I have said earlier from previous experience on these Covid thread pretty much so I`m afraid where some posters are concerned.

ArthurDayne

charlie14 wrote: »

So in your head the rise in numbers over Christmas was nothing other than due to lockdown prior to that. Rather bizarre imo. Especially as you have not mentioned any means you believe would have, in your opinion, controlled the spread of this virus other than lockdown.

Something, something..... lighter touch restrictions perhaps ?
Well the real poster child for that approach has been Sweden and that has not exactly been a roaring success has it.
Just twice our population, at the same level of vaccination that we are at, possibly a little higher even, and they are currently reporting over 7,000 new cases on a regular daily basis, they have over 2,000 in hospital beds due to Covid and close to 400 in I.C.U.

I`m getting sick and tired of this "I have the answer to the alternative of lockdown" but when it comes down to actually what that is, it`s nothing but vague mumblings.

Absolutely not solely due to lockdown preceding it, nor did I say it was — but it is folly to pretend that the suppression of the virus by way of lockdown does not come with the risk that the inability to sustain lockdown indefinitely carries the risk of infection bottlenecks. What happened at Christmas was not solely due to lockdown, but denying the contribution of lockdown both in terms of creating the infection “dam” and fostering a desperation for people to see friends and family (especially where people were expecting a January lockdown) after being stuck indoors in the long nights of winter is simply disowning realism and how human nature works.

You are sick and tired of hearing the alternatives to lockdown because, as your post itself proves, you will happily amend the justification for lockdown — therefore there can never be an alternative. One day it was “Covid is going to collapse the health service and cause tens of thousands of Irish people to die and that is why we must lock down” ....and then somewhere along the line it became “Covid has killed more people in Sweden per capita than it has in Norway and therefore its strategy is a failure”. Over time, the justification for lockdown moved from ‘healthcare collapse + many thousands dying’ to ‘comparative exercise of which countries have less deaths’ to ‘minimise Covid deaths entirely’.

You talk about Sweden while blissfully ignoring the fact that the numbers you quote are not the vista on which lockdown was justified. The numbers are a tragedy, they would be worthy of action, heads rolling and sweeping reform, but if they were the numbers being predicted originally they would have been much harder to hold up as being so utterly extreme that a shutdown of society for around a year would have been viewed as the justifiable and proportionate remedy.

As for vague mumblings — perhaps you can educate me on specifics — if hairdressers and retail were opened this week, would our health service be unable to cope? Yes or no, oh mighty arbiter of definitives.

Corholio

charlie14 wrote: »

As I have said earlier from previous experience on these Covid thread pretty much so I`m afraid where some posters are concerned.

A high proportion =/= 'some posters'

As I said, just an excuse to put anyone who disagrees into a 'what they think should be disregarded' group.

paddyisreal

gozunda wrote: »

Well done you've answered your own questions unintentionally yourself :pac:

But you may want to drop the shovel now before you fall head first into that big ol' smelly hole you're digging for yourself

But back to the question who gives a fuk about vaccines after the old and vulnerable are done? The absolute feking majority do. About 85 % of them. Those who say they are going to get vaccinated. Sorry that bothers you!

If you would likec to have a discussion about something else then by all means do so my friend.

I borrowed this lad he looks better here

I would hate to play football with you because the goalposts change more than your underwear.

Probably the most ridiculous statements I have seen here. How you can coorelate my original statement to the below takes some imagination or just plain auld bull****tery.


The absolute feking majority do. About 85 % of them. Those who say they are going to get vaccinated

gozunda

Whatsisname wrote: »

I don't ever remember posting "let it rip" either but you must get paid commission on that phrase at this rate.

Well I didn't say you said it. But from the general subtext of your comment and especially the last bit.

Whatsisname wrote:

The goalpost beginning to be moved again. It was once all the vulnerable are vaccinated, to once all the over 50s are, to all adults, and now it's making its way down to children. Nothing is ever enough.

What did you actually think the goalposts marked btw?

As to the ownership of that phrase. Nope not mine. And whilst it may not be quoted directly - there's plenty here who seem to have the general idea very close to the heart tbf.

So now you know there were no goalpost moving for when the vulnerable and elderly are vaccinated - have you still got a problem with "goalposts" in general or ?

gozunda

paddyisreal wrote: »

I would hate to play football with you because the goalposts change more than your underwear. Probably the most ridiculous statements I have seen here. How you can coorelate my original statement to the below takes some imagination or just plain auld bull****tery.

The absolute feking majority do. About 85 % of them. Those who say they are going to get vaccinated

So you know about my underwear now do you?lol Jaysus we have a psychic else I should be worried...

But yup agreed - The bit in bold is my statement not yours. And yes we were discussing "vaccination" And its exactly what I was referring to regarding the absolute majority giving a fuq *about vaccines* Sorry that does not suit some of the more ardent the sceptics on this thread

But yeah the "bull****tery" in this thread is something else to be sure...

paddyisreal

gozunda wrote: »

So you know about my underwear now do you?lol Jaysus we have a psychic

But yup agreed - The bit in bold is my statement not yours. And its exactly what I was referring to regarding the *absolute majority giving a fuq about vaccines* Sorry that does not suit.

But yeah the "bull****tery" in this thread is something else to be sure...

So 85 percent of people want the vaccine and you interpret that as people want to keep restrictions till the majority are vaccinated.

your logic is as questionable at best

daydorunrun

Have the numbered levels been done away with? No mention of going to level 3 or 4 at all, just leaks and speculation on what will and won't open.

gozunda

paddyisreal wrote: »

So 85 percent of people want the vaccine and you interpret that as people want to keep restrictions till the majority are vaccinated. ...

Ahem and where was that stated? The word "restrictions" was never mentioned in the original exchange if you remember.

paddyisreal wrote:

once the elderly and vulnerable are vaccinated who gives a **** ?

gozunda wrote:

The absolute majority give a "****" I'd reckon.

Apparently another poster came up with that bizarre idea that the discussion referred to "restrictions" and asked for a source on the "majority". So I provided a source to what I referred to. They weren't happy funnily enough. And there we are.

Though fairly typical of this thread. You get a bunch of posters intent on pot stirring even where they have absolutly no clue what was being discussed and are quite happy to tell you - that they know what you are saying better than you do apparently. But hey they we are.

Stormyteacup

paddyisreal wrote: »

So 85 percent of people want the vaccine and you interpret that as people want to keep restrictions till the majority are vaccinated.

your logic is as questionable at best

I’d imagine the fact that vaccination has a bearing on lifting of restrictions, returning to earning a living, and on any future travel plans, that a good portion of that 85% wouldn’t give too much of a fuq and just want the nightmare to end.

paddyisreal

Stormyteacup wrote: »

I’d imagine the fact that vaccination has a bearing on lifting of restrictions, returning to earning a living, and on any future travel plans, that a good portion of that 85% wouldn’t give too much of a fuq and just want the nightmare to end.

Exactly that's what I would think also

paddyisreal

gozunda wrote: »

Ahem and where was that stated? The word "restrictions" was never mentioned in the original exchange if you remember.





Apparently another poster came up with that bizarre idea that the discussion referred to "restrictions" and asked for a source on the "majority". So I provided a source to what I referred to. They weren't happy funnily enough. And there we are.

Though fairly typical of this thread. You get a bunch of posters intent on pot stirring even where they have absolutly no clue what was being discussed and are quite happy to tell you - that they know what you are saying better than you do apparently. But hey they we are.

The context of the argument was that Spain lifting restrictions and there level of vaccinations so to turn around say you didn't mention the word restrictions is just back tracking.

charlie14

Corholio wrote: »

A high proportion =/= 'some posters'

As I said, just an excuse to put anyone who disagrees into a 'what they think should be disregarded' group.

Not at all.

Just the high proportion on this thread who do not feel opening up is happening fast enough who from past experience favoured no restrictions what-so-ever.

Hurrache

Regarding the previous 5km law, there was actually a law for that for which you could be fined with.

But with the current relaxation to county/20km, there's no actual law preventing people from travelling intercounty anyway is there, it's just an advisory.

Penfailed

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Yeah, it's hard to spend when so much is closed. I've had my eye on some garden chairs in argos. Apparently click and collect is still too dangerous though so I can't buy the fecking things.

We'll have mass before click and collect at this stage. Micheál Martin in a nutshell.

I work in the north and availed of the Argos click and collect this week. I didn't even enter the shop. Paid online. Walked to the barrier at the door, gave them the passcode and they had emailed me to say it was collected before I even had it in my hand. How is that not safe?!

Penfailed

gozunda wrote: »

Rflol

Roll floor laugh out loud?

Breaston Plants

Hurrache wrote: »

Regarding the previous 5km law, there was actually a law for that for which you could be fined with.

But with the current relaxation to county/20km, there's no actual law preventing people from travelling intercounty anyway is there, it's just an advisory.

So you can't be fined for traveling inter- county? Wasn't aware of that, good to know. Belfast or Derry June Bank holiday so.

funnydoggy

Penfailed wrote: »

I work in the north and availed of the Argos click and collect this week. I didn't even enter the shop. Paid online. Walked to the barrier at the door, gave them the passcode and they had emailed me to say it was collected before I even had it in my hand. How is that not safe?!

It makes even less sense than the 5km lark!

the kelt

Penfailed wrote: »

Roll floor laugh out loud?

I once put down carpet that ended up having that effect on the family!