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

Graham

zackory wrote: »

Its genuinely hard to see this any time soon. Its just the nature of our slow, cautious reopening which Tony thinks is ambitious.

I've seen nothing so far that would suggest the next easing of restrictions will need to be delayed.

The only potential downside I see at the moment is the numbers vaccinated is lower than anticipated due to delays in vaccine deliveries. Hopefully that will change over the next couple of weeks.

zackory

Graham wrote: »

I've seen nothing so far that would suggest the next easing of restrictions will need to be delayed.

That is not the full reopening of hospitality though. Its table service and all the rest.

I know pubs that did not open last September due to not being viable under these conditions.

Of course the government are pulling the CRSS on July 5th even though businesses have a lot of extra costs with staff etc.

Graham

zackory wrote: »

That is not the full reopening of hospitality though. Its table service and all the rest.

It's the next stage, I'd rather see it happen than not.

zackory

Graham wrote: »

It's the next stage, I'd rather see it happen than not.

13000 in the Aviva wouldn't swing the decision in the grand scheme of things.

Or if people have a set against the EURO's / UEFA there could have been similar quotas at some GAA matches last weekend, with the caveat that if cases are high attendance numbers would be reduced.

The GAA would be much more flexible than UEFA I am sure.

Instead we got the Iveagh gardens with people penned off like pedigree sheep at local summer village festival.

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

What level do you see us being in next winter? What kind of restrictions do you see the Government imposing?

I haven't got a crystal ball, can't see into the future. I've no idea if we will even go into any sort of lockdown at all. But, and here's the important part which you previously missed, I'm not the one making paranoid predictions about the certainty of which levels we'll hit.

zackory wrote: »

Did you read the comment I replied to?

If we held the Euro games we were supposed to our reopening would most likely be pushed back.

That is absolute Bullsh1t and nothing more.

If you can't see that for yourself then I really can't help you.

You can't say that's bull with any level of certainty. The poster to whom you replied said it's likely that the numbers would be higher, pushing back the dates, if we'd held mass gatherings. That is not an unreasonable estimate. It IS quite likely we'd have greater numbers if there were mass gatherings, I mean the numbers would hardly be smaller, would they?

You then said that was bull. Your only justification for doing so was that we had low numbers yesterday (the day before). The reason for those low numbers, to hammer home a point, is partly BECAUSE we had no mass gatherings. You're essentially saying "we've been cautious and the numbers are low, therefore we should have been less cautious because the numbers will still be low". There is zero logic to your train of thinking. You're like Homer Simpson buying the rock from Lisa that keeps Tigers away.

Stormyteacup wrote: »

Surely you can understand that based on prior form from government/NPHET, and if variant cases become an issue in the media through autumn, it’s not nutty to imagine authorities re-initiating restrictions.

[snip]

most likely poster was referring to then fact that large amounts of people have gathered for the last few weeks, without the stringent restrictions required for the test event, with no resulting spikes in cases.

If numbers go back up, we WILL see reintroduction of restrictions, 100%. The whole point of the slow reopening is to minimise the chances of that happening.

The poster was referring to the outcome of option A as justification for why we should have went for option B. There is no logic in that train of thought.

JRant wrote: »

Half a million people out of work, over 1 million people on waiting lists for hospital appointments, yeah, it was a roaring success.

Severe restrictions on peoples lives for prolonged periods of time is not something we should be giving ourselves a pat on the back for.

Genuine question: Would you have preferred nobody was out of work and the death toll increased by, say, 25%? How about 30%? 50%? At what point does it become acceptable to shut everything down?

Because that is the literally the whole point of NPHET and the Government's approach. To weigh those two in the balance and hope you don't tip the scales one way or the other.

seamus wrote: »

The beauty of sovereignty.

What's most amusing is the majority of people getting their knickers in a twist about this are the same who'd be going mental if Ireland followed the lead of other EU countries for other decisions. It's only on this occasion that somehow exercising self-determination is a bad thing.

Nail on head. People's opinions on other people/companies/organisations change on a whim, never mind the fact that those opinions are completely contradictory.

EU = bad, we need to get away from them...........Why aren't we doing what the rest of EU are doing?
Christian bakery should not be forced to bake gay cake.........Twitter should not be allowed to 'censor' Trump
I'm pro life.......lets bomb this abortion clinic

TomSweeney wrote: »

I posted this yesterday, why was it deleted ?
I think it shows a mentality of some out there, "The Pandemic rages on" What kind of mindset do you need to be in to say that ?

I replied to you and you ignored it. Here it is again, should you wish to offer a reply this time around:

1. Why do you doubt the story?
2. why do you think she's enjoying her friends' being hospitalised, there's no indication anywhere that I can see where you surmised this from?
3. which people are mentally ill?......the people aged 50+ going to hospital for a disease which is infamous for killing elderly people? I'd argue that NOT going to hospital indicates signs of decreased mental faulties

Graham

zackory wrote: »

13000 in the Aviva wouldn't swing the decision in the grand scheme of things.

Yes, I get that you think a crowd of 13,000 people represents no risk.

Like I said, I'm ok seeing other areas relaxed first. Areas that will benefit more people.

I'm sure we will see sporting events return to a larger extent over the coming weeks. I understand there will be increases in July and more under consideration for August.

zackory

Deleted User wrote: »

Your only justification for doing so was that we had low numbers yesterday (the day before). The reason for those low numbers, to hammer home a point, is partly BECAUSE we had no mass gatherings.

Not so, I was was referring to South William street, and Tony Holohan in particular, describing it as like Jones road on All Ireland day. We saw no increase in cases since that.

And there have been gatherings all over the country for months, uncontrolled.

Deleted User wrote: »

If numbers go back up, we WILL see reintroduction of restrictions, 100%.

Now that is absolute bollox.

zackory

zackory wrote: »

Not so, I was was referring to South William street, and Tony Holohan in particular, describing it as like Jones road on All Ireland day. We saw no increase in cases since that.

And there have been gatherings all over the country for months, uncontrolled.

The poster said that we'll have an increase in cases if we have more large events. Your exact words were "I'm calling bullsh1t on this......Its absolute nonsense.....Yesterday we saw 242 cases". You never mentioned anything about any streets or Tony H or anything of the sort. How in the name of Christ is anyone supposed to know what you're talking about if your thoughts and your posts aren't in cohesive step with one another?

zackory wrote: »

Now that is absolute bollox.

Care to elaborate on this? Are you stating, as fact, that we will see zero tightening of the restrictions ever again as a response to increasing case numbers? Because that's more of the cognitive dissonance I posted about earlier from the anti-lockdown side.

You seem to be implying that we'll see no more restrictions ever again and the other poster is guaranteeing that level 5 will be here by Christmas. You can't both be right.

Hooter23

With over 4,000 + vaccine deaths around the world RTE and the media worldwide are now guilty of mass murder by giving false information saying the the vaccines are perfectly safe when they are clearly not

JRant

gozunda wrote: »

Exactly what has that got to do with the question posed by the poster to whom I replied? Viz.



Other than yet another useless out of context rant?

Let me quote you on that specific issue.

Good to know you are happy with so many people out of work and over 1 million on waiting lists.

Graham

JRant wrote: »

Good to know you are happy with so many people out of work and over 1 million on waiting lists.

Said nobody ever

JRant

Boggles wrote: »

No you are just perpetually ranting and raving how they increased whilst bemoaning restrictions.

So you didn't really have anything worthwhile to offer?

That would be a matter of opinion as to whether it is ranting or raving. I don't think it is but others may disagree.

I feel this is getting in the way of the standard nitpicking and pedantry that you so love and is denying others of your amazing insights.

JRant

Graham wrote: »

Said nobody ever

You certainly didn't say it.

Silentcorner

Deleted User wrote: »

I haven't got a crystal ball, can't see into the future. I've no idea if we will even go into any sort of lockdown at all. But, and here's the important part which you previously missed, I'm not the one making paranoid predictions about the certainty of which levels we'll hit.

If you can't see into the future then what give's you the right to call someone else's prediction "paranoid"?

Unless of course you can point me to a Government Minster that has ruled out future lock downs...

Hooter23

Hooter23 wrote: »

With over 4,000 + vaccine deaths around the world RTE and the media worldwide are now guilty of mass murder by giving false information saying the the vaccines are perfectly safe when they are clearly not

3.8m covid deaths from 160m cases

4000 vaccine deaths (source?) from 2.45 billion doses

If you gave out 2.45 billion bottles of water it would likely kill at least 4,000

ArthurDayne

Boggles wrote: »

You are looking at it in clinical isolation with the benefit of hindsight.

And TBH given what happened in England this week you would imagine certain people would be far more measured.

If they succumbed to UEFA bully tactics and agreed to their terms, there would have been a collective shít attack nationally by invested groups claiming they wanted the same treatment.

It's exactly what is happening in England this week, the net effective is it sows divisions and píssés large groups off. A line has to be drawn somewhere.

Obviously the narrative on this thread that it's a national embarrassment not to host them and we are a laughing stock of Europe resides only peoples minds, the reality is no one cares.

Yes, hindsight is always an advantage — but it doesn’t negate the expectation that the State shows foresight in its decision-making. The question was only ever whether allowing the Aviva to be 25% full was off-kilter with what the government was planning ahead on doing — and I don’t think that there was ever any serious expectation on their part that outdoor drinking etc would be a big feature by June, especially given that last summer was able to go as far as indoor drinking without vaccines and with less experience of the virus. In addition, it would be interesting to understand how the State applied its foresight in a way which seemed to differ from the other national authorities who decided to host.

The “UEFA bully tactic” line of argument seems deflective. They have no power to compel the State — and creating a narrative of a brave resistance by a sovereign nation against the limited power of some bureaucrats in a sporting association doesn’t seem to ring right. I also don’t agree with this ‘slippery slope’ argument that the floodgates of demands would have rolled in in any way that would have made the decision to host a bad one. The government has quite willingly accepted that the restrictions affect some businesses more than others — and that some business had to remain closed much longer. I do not see how this resolve would have just melted away at the scenario of the Aviva being 25% full — the balance between restriction and relaxation has been bitterly divisive since March 2020 anyway and the government has ploughed on.

I don’t subscribe to the view that it’s a national embarrassment, simply that once again it seems to have been based on a fairly arbitrary level of over-caution

zackory

Deleted User wrote: »

The poster said that we'll have an increase in cases if we have more large events.

No that is not what I am referring to. His words were

The point is that if we held these events, reopening would likely have to be pushed back.

That is absolute bollox.

You then went further and made a claim as 100% fact.

If numbers go back up, we WILL see reintroduction of restrictions, 100%.

Again, that is absolute bollox.

Necro

Hooter23 wrote: »

With over 4,000 + vaccine deaths around the world RTE and the media worldwide are now guilty of mass murder by giving false information saying the the vaccines are perfectly safe when they are clearly not

Provide a source for that to me via PM please, until then don't post in this thread again

zackory

growleaves wrote: »

What does cognitive dissonance have to do with that?

The "anti-lockdown" side aren't an airtight organisation with a Chief Whip but a loose bunch of people in general agreement.

I agree with you that a rise in cases this winter could lead to more restrictions, and I've been saying so since January.

More to the point Martin and Varadkar have said so and the political logic of this does not require a crystal ball before anyone starts waffling about our inability to know the future.

Of course if the situation deteriorates enough restrictions might be reintroduced.

But that is a lot different to

If numbers go back up, we WILL see reintroduction of restrictions, 100%.

Especially in the context of this statement

Deleted User wrote: »

I haven't got a crystal ball, can't see into the future. I've no idea if we will even go into any sort of lockdown at all.

Inquitus

Hooter23 wrote: »

With over 4,000 + vaccine deaths around the world RTE and the media worldwide are now guilty of mass murder by giving false information saying the the vaccines are perfectly safe when they are clearly not

Is that you Gemma?

CalamariFritti

Necro wrote: »

Provide a source for that to me via PM please, until then don't post in this thread again

Well to be fair it is a matter of definition it appears.

When someone dies within 28 days of a positive corona test they are deemed to have died with covid and included in the hallowed numbers.

When someone dies within 28 days of vaccination on the other hand....

I'm not saying the OP is right but I guess its more a case of pointing out the contradiction, no?

gozunda

JRant wrote: »

Good to know you are happy with so many people out of work and over 1 million on waiting lists.

Eh?

So finished with going off on a rant irrelevant to the original comment - you are now telling people what they think?

Well done there .

CalamariFritti

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Well to be fair it is a matter of definition it appears.

When someone dies within 28 days of a positive corona test they are deemed to have died with covid and included in the hallowed numbers.

When someone dies within 28 days of vaccination on the other hand....

I'm not saying the OP is right but I guess its more a case of pointing out the contradiction, no?

If the numbers are right, its 1 in 650,000. Less chance than being struck by lightning

Boggles

ArthurDayne wrote: »

The question was only ever whether allowing the Aviva to be 25% full was off-kilter

That certainly may have been the question but the potential consequences are far more nuanced.

But again it's a peripheral issue, that is being falsely made into a substantive one on here, in reality no one cares.

Like I explained if the 4 matches were to proceed here it would have created potential animosity, negative behaviors and a demand by other vested interests to have a level playing field.

Restaurant Associations taken the government to the high court because they opened Hotels and not standalone restaurants a more recent example here.

There has to be a line drawn somewhere, you can argue where you think the line may be, but you can't argue against a line having to exist.

Again it was UEFA who pulled out, the offer to host remained, it just had to be done on our terms.

As for examples in England in cancelling "Freedom Day", it began last week.

"Well there is X-1000 in Wembley, how come I can't have dancing at my wedding"

"Wimbledon will be full but I can only have 6 at my childs birthday party"

Ranting and raving on every platform going forward which will filter down to the general populous and have potential negative outcomes.

zackory

zackory wrote: »

No that is not what I am referring to. His words were

The point is that if we held these events, reopening would likely have to be pushed back.

That is absolute bollox.

First off, your earlier segue into Sth Anne Street makes even less sense now.

Secondly, It's really not bollox.

If we'd held large events,the numbers would only go one way....higher. I mean, unless there were mass vaccinations at these events, and the more events there are, the higher the numbers.

The higher the numbers, the more likely it is that the restrictions would be introduced. It is by no means a stretch of the imagination (never mind absolute bollox) to suggest that plenty of large gatherings would likely have pushed back reopening.

zackory wrote: »

You then went further and made a claim as 100% fact.

If numbers go back up, we WILL see reintroduction of restrictions, 100%.

Again, that is absolute bollox.

Thirdly, apologies, I omitted a word from that sentence. It should read "If numbers go back up sufficiently, we WILL see reintroduction of restrictions, 100%.

Boggles

JRant wrote: »

That would be a matter of opinion as to whether it is ranting or raving. I don't think it is but others may disagree.

TBH I don't really know what it is.

You are calling the waiting lists caused by the pandemic a failure, but you are also not calling for them to be reduced, but somehow you think less restrictions would have done this.

Go figure.

I can't.

ArthurDayne

Boggles wrote: »

That certainly may have been the question but the potential consequences are far more nuanced.

But again it's a peripheral issue, that is being falsely made into a substantive one on here, in reality no one cares.

Like I explained if the 4 matches were to proceed here it would have created potential animosity, negative behaviors and a demand by other vested interests to have a level playing field.

Restaurant Associations taken the government to the high court because they opened Hotels and not standalone restaurants a more recent example here.

There has to be a line drawn somewhere, you can argue where you think the line may be, but you can't argue against a line having to exist.

Again it was UEFA who pulled out, the offer to host remained, it just had to be done on our terms.

As for examples in England in cancelling "Freedom Day", it began last week.

"Well there is X-1000 in Wembley, how come I can't have dancing at my wedding"

"Wimbledon will be full but I can only have 6 at my childs birthday party"

Ranting and raving on every platform going forward which will filter down to the general populous and have potential negative outcomes.

Yes, it’s somewhat of a peripheral issue but is still actually a useful one to weigh up how the government approached and is approaching the question of risk, especially in contrast to decisions made elsewhere. In this instance, it all looks a bit arbitrary (which is to me pretty typical of the State’s approach to the more severe restrictions generally). It just seems that the government didn’t really have any fleshed-out understanding of the risk, they just saw a risk and deemed it not worth painting another target on their back for Told-You-So’s, like post-Christmas. A mere suspicion of course, but I don’t think it’s beyond the realms of realism.

And yeah, like I’ve said, bitterness, division and animosity over the restrictions are horses that bolted some time around March 2020. Using the prospect of disagreement and discord as a decisional factor on this topic doesn’t hold water to me — when literally every decision made has been or will be divisive to greater and lesser extents. And as I’ve also said, those examples of people saying “They can allow this so why can’t they allow that? have been a fairly common feature here too — there’s not point pretending it has just appeared out of the blue in England, or that it would only have appeared Ireland because the Aviva was allowed a 25% crowd.

Yeah, I don’t complain about a line having to exist (as you say), so long as there is sound and consistent rationale for why the line is where it is.

robbiezero

Boggles wrote: »

That certainly may have been the question but the potential consequences are far more nuanced.

But again it's a peripheral issue, that is being falsely made into a substantive one on here, in reality no one cares.

Like I explained if the 4 matches were to proceed here it would have created potential animosity, negative behaviors and a demand by other vested interests to have a level playing field.

Restaurant Associations taken the government to the high court because they opened Hotels and not standalone restaurants a more recent example here.

There has to be a line drawn somewhere, you can argue where you think the line may be, but you can't argue against a line having to exist.

Again it was UEFA who pulled out, the offer to host remained, it just had to be done on our terms.

As for examples in England in cancelling "Freedom Day", it began last week.

"Well there is X-1000 in Wembley, how come I can't have dancing at my wedding"

"Wimbledon will be full but I can only have 6 at my childs birthday party"

Ranting and raving on every platform going forward which will filter down to the general populous and have potential negative outcomes.

This has been the case all through the pandemic, its a stupid reason not to do something, but it has been our general mode of operation.

"Lockdown to avoid lockdown"
"Delay easing of restrictions to avoid having to delay easing of restrictions".
"Don't open up one thing because others will want to open up another thing".

Boggles

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Yes, it’s somewhat of a peripheral issue but is still actually a useful one to weigh up how the government approached and is approaching the question of risk,

I don't think it is that useful or any way cryptic in nature.

When assessing risk, you evaluate potential reward.

There was none. Virtually the entire population would have been watching the games at home, as they are now.

I have all ready listed the potential negatives.

These have been eliminated, no one cares.

As for the mainland UK where this problem does exist in reality, 9000 seasonal cases today.

Must be a fair cold Summer over there.

zackory

Deleted User wrote: »

If we'd held large events,the numbers would only go one way....higher

There is no certainty in this, we are talking 13000 outdoors, broken into small groups, a large number vaccinated and a small incidence rate in the community.

We've had a large number of uncontrolled gatherings in recent months, indoors and outdoors, including Holohans "Jones Road" moment and cases are falling all the time.

I am still calling bollox on the suggestion that these UEFA games would lead to a likely delay in restrictions being relaxed.

Deleted User wrote: »

Thirdly, apologies, I omitted a word from that sentence. It should read "If numbers go back up sufficiently, we WILL see reintroduction of restrictions, 100%.

Apology accepted. Nobody disputes that if cases got to a certain level where the health services are under pressure restrictions could be reintroduced.

I doubt anybody expects that to materialise though.

Boggles

robbiezero wrote: »

This has been the case all through the pandemic, its a stupid reason not to do something, but it has been our general mode of operation.

"Lockdown to avoid lockdown"
"Delay easing of restrictions to avoid having to delay easing of restrictions".
"Don't open up one thing because others will want to open up another thing".

I don't know any country who has incorporated that nonsensical "mode of operation".

I mean the UK just delayed the easing of restrictions because their scientists are telling them they could be balls deep in a 3rd wave in a couple of weeks.

Obviously you know better?

zackory

zackory wrote: »

There is no certainty in this, we are talking 13000 outdoors, broken into small groups, a large number vaccinated and a small incidence rate in the community.

We've had a large number of uncontrolled gatherings in recent months, indoors and outdoors, including Holohans "Jones Road" moment and cases are falling all the time.

I am still calling bollox on the suggestion that these UEFA games would lead to a likely delay in restrictions being relaxed.

We've had large gatherings, but we haven't had large gatherings of 10,000+ people. And it's not just sitting in the stadium. It's the pubs, shops, buses, queues, toilets etc. that are also part of the experience.

You're correct that there is no such thing as a certainty, but if you're hiding behind that to pretend that having tens of thousands of people in close proximity wouldn't cause an increase, then you're lying to yourself in order to lend credence to your argument.

JRant

gozunda wrote: »

Eh?

So finished with going off on a rant irrelevant to the original comment - you are now telling people what they think?

Well done there .

You did say our COVID response did fairly well.

robbiezero

Boggles wrote: »

I don't know any country who has incorporated that nonsensical "mode of operation".

I mean the UK just delayed the easing of restrictions because their scientists are telling them they could be balls deep in a 3rd wave in a couple of weeks.

Obviously you know better?

Nope, the UK are right to delay easing of restrictions, they are mostly open already with not much to go so they might as well hold off a month.

They have delayed with good reason and data.
We delay because maybe we might have to delay. Our default position is "ultra caution" and the "Trials" that we undertake are laughable.

Don't Chute!

Ciaran Cuddihy was just tearing into the government and nphet on newstalk there. Saying they have absolutely no ambition. Was great to hear.

robbiezero

Deleted User wrote: »

We've had large gatherings, but we haven't had large gatherings of 10,000+ people. And it's not just sitting in the stadium. It's the pubs, shops, buses, queues, toilets etc. that are also part of the experience.

You're correct that there is no such thing as a certainty, but if you're hiding behind that to pretend that having tens of thousands of people in close proximity wouldn't cause an increase, then you're lying to yourself in order to lend credence to your argument.

So we should expect a sharp increase in hospitalizations in every city that has held a Euro 2020 game, starting in about a weeks time?

Boggles

robbiezero wrote: »

Nope, the UK are right to delay easing of restrictions, they are mostly open already with not much to go so they might as well hold off a month.

They have delayed with good reason and data.
We delay because maybe we might have to delay. Our default position is "ultra caution" and the "Trials" that we undertake are laughable.

So you would prefer if we sped up the easing and have to delay in 4 weeks or potentially row back in 4 weeks because of data?

I mean should we not take note of what is actually happening on the rest of these islands and at least take some reassurance from it?

Or should we do what we are doing which seems to be working, vaccinate and ease?

robbiezero

robbiezero wrote: »

So we should expect a sharp increase in hospitalizations in every city that has held a Euro 2020 game, starting in about a weeks time?

Some, yes. Every city? No.

Closer to two weeks' time than one week.

Have a look at the crowds in Portugal and Hungary yesterday. I will be amazed if the cases don't spike. Whether or not that spike is countered by other measures remains to be seen.

Do you expect there to be zero transmission of the virus in a stadium packed to the gills with 60,000+ fans, even with their high % of vaccinations?

haskellgeek

Possibly the wrong thread but with the rules relaxing is anyone else annoyed at being restricted by being unvaccinated by age alone, essentially with travel being allowed by July 19th for those vaccinated with no pcr test well I have probably 0 chance on age alone being in that group, wonder will other things be restricted too, anyone under the age of 30 is probably in this group if they aren't getting it from the age distribution.

robbiezero

Boggles wrote: »

So you would prefer if we sped up the easing and have to delay in 4 weeks or potentially row back in 4 weeks because of data?

I mean should we not take note of what is actually happening on the rest of these islands and at least take some reassurance from it?

Of course. That approach makes sense. Beats being the slowest in Europe just because of what MIGHT happen (which I note you take for granted would happen.

Things go slightly wrong like in the UK, we probably only have to delay to the point we are doing now anyway.

Things go right as they quite likely would have, we are open 2 months earlier, we likely have an idea what areas actually contribute to rises, what can remain open, what needs to be delayed etc.

And people actually buy into that as they can see the data and rises in hospitalizations etc. Everyone bought into it in Jan and Feb and most in March. Most people that I can know think the pace of easing since then has been ridiculous and have widely ignored them.

The clownish trialling we are doing now could and should have been done in March.

niallo27

Deleted User wrote: »

Some, yes. Every city? No.

Closer to two weeks' time than one week.

Have a look at the crowds in Portugal and Hungary yesterday. I will be amazed if the cases don't spike. Whether or not that spike is countered by other measures remains to be seen.

Do you expect there to be zero transmission of the virus in a stadium packed to the gills with 60,000+ fans, even with their high % of vaccinations?

Look at the crowds out drinking every weekend on the street of Dublin and limerick, thousands of people drunk packed together, I'd be amazed if we don't see a spike. Oh wait..

robbiezero

Deleted User wrote: »

Some, yes. Every city? No.

Closer to two weeks' time than one week.

Have a look at the crowds in Portugal and Hungary yesterday. I will be amazed if the cases don't spike. Whether or not that spike is countered by other measures remains to be seen.

Do you expect there to be zero transmission of the virus in a stadium packed to the gills with 60,000+ fans, even with their high % of vaccinations?

Who knows. I would agree 60K+ is reckless in Hungary. But no one or very few in this country are looking for that at this point
I'll be interested in the stadiums in the other countries who have to me a sensible approach.

Terry..

When's this bullsht over

It's literally destroyed society

Terry..

Everybody's quaking in their homes over nothing

Silentcorner

niallo27 wrote: »

Look at the crowds out drinking every weekend on the street of Dublin and limerick, thousands of people drunk packed together, I'd be amazed if we don't see a spike. Oh wait..

There have been packed stadiums for months now in other countries, no spike.

There have been massive protests in the UK over the last few weeks, no spike.

It was the same last summer....massive crowds on beaches, no spike.

Massive BLM riots, no spike.

zackory

Deleted User wrote: »

We've had large gatherings, but we haven't had large gatherings of 10,000+ people. And it's not just sitting in the stadium. It's the pubs, shops, buses, queues, toilets etc. that are also part of the experience.

You're correct that there is no such thing as a certainty, but if you're hiding behind that to pretend that having tens of thousands of people in close proximity wouldn't cause an increase, then you're lying to yourself in order to lend credence to your argument.

Will it cause an increase - possibly.

However, I was responding to a person who said, and I will quote for you again:

The point is that if we held these events, reopening would likely have to be pushed back.

Given the key parameters, vaccination levels (both of the crowd and general population) the low incidence, current hospitalisations etc.

If hosting these events are likely to push back our reopening then we are in trouble, we really are.

niallo27

niallo27 wrote: »

Look at the crowds out drinking every weekend on the street of Dublin and limerick, thousands of people drunk packed together, I'd be amazed if we don't see a spike. Oh wait..

Were there 60,000 on the streets of Dublin crammed into a relatively small space for about 3 hrs, drinking and shouting and celebrating and hugging and kissing?

Oh wait........get back in your box with your false equivalency bolloxology

Bit cynical

robbiezero wrote: »

This has been the case all through the pandemic, its a stupid reason not to do something, but it has been our general mode of operation.

"Lockdown to avoid lockdown"
"Delay easing of restrictions to avoid having to delay easing of restrictions".
"Don't open up one thing because others will want to open up another thing".

I believe behind seemingly nonsensical statements like "we need to lockdown to avoid lockdown" is zero-covid thinking, the belief that the immediate goal is eradication rather than living with the virus. So locking down hard now makes sense if you eradicate the virus, then you don't need to lockdown in future. Likewise, not wanting to ease restrictions prematurely in the belief that doing so will delay ultimate easing of restrictions as there's still some virus present.

You see this form of thinking with some posters here and I believe it is present also in the recommendations of the CMO and NPHET. The reason it doesn't get properly challenged is that it exists at a fairly deep unacknowledged level in people's minds. They aren't aware that they are thinking that way.

Fairly easy to counter once you see that they are holding that view. We know that there will always be some level of the virus somewhere and that we need manage the degree to which it causes us harm. Full elimination of the virus is not practical.

zackory

Deleted User wrote: »

Were there 60,000 on the streets of Dublin crammed into a relatively small space for about 3 hrs, drinking and shouting and celebrating and hugging and kissing?

We are talking about ~13000 in Dublin, not 60000.

seamus

haskellgeek wrote: »

Possibly the wrong thread but with the rules relaxing is anyone else annoyed at being restricted by being unvaccinated by age alone, essentially with travel being allowed by July 19th for those vaccinated with no pcr test well I have probably 0 chance on age alone being in that group, wonder will other things be restricted too, anyone under the age of 30 is probably in this group if they aren't getting it from the age distribution.

Sure, it's annoying. It'd be nice to be have been vaccinated months ago.

But unless you can think of a better way it should have been done, there's no point getting worked up about it. It is what it is.