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

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 ..

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

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.

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'