Covid 19 Part XXXV-956,720 ROI (5,952 deaths) 452,946 NI (3,002 deaths) (08/01) Read OP

marno21

The idea that by being 1m away from someone presents a risk if you spend more than 2 hours beside them but 2m away presents no measured risk is absolute nonsense of the highest order and has been thoroughly debunked at this stage.

There is no scientific basis for this. Restaurants should be allowed slots at their discretion if they want to recycle tables for new customers. There is no Covid related benefit of clearing pintmen from tables in pubs after 105 minutes.

prunudo

To a certain extent I could forgive them for wanting 105mins if its 1m apart when it was announced last year, but now when there'll be over 3m vaccines administered by the time they're opening up. I just don't see what the point is. Either vaccines are the way out of this or they're not.

techdiver

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Does anyone understand the reasoning behind the 105 minutes ? I don’t get it ?

It's the usual, make up a rule to cover their arse if anything goes wrong, so the claim can't be put to them that they allowed unrestricted return to normality.

I've never taken issue with restrictions that were measured and based on science but this **** annoys me.

stephenjmcd

prunudo wrote: »

To a certain extent I could forgive them for wanting 105mins if its 1m apart when it was announced last year, but now when there'll be over 3m vaccines administered by the time they're opening up. I just don't see what the point is. Either vaccines are the way out of this or they're not.

It's seen to be doing something. They don't want a free for all.

If all is still good by the end of July and because of vaccines it should be then I expect you'd see indoor measures further relaxed. Why ? Because my end of July / start of August a large percentage of the public will be fully vaccinated.

There's also every chance the guidance could change prior to indoor reopening if things are going even better than expected, that goes without saying. The VFI & LVA have said this evening that there would be further engagement on indoor reopening as June progresses & that what's published for indoor now might not be relevant then.

I don't envy anyone trying to think up guidelines for 6-7 weeks time because what's suggested now might not be needed then.

They'll only get firmed up in the week before indoor reopening.

Oh and nearly every bar I've seen advertising their opening is using time limits and bookings to make sure they've a steady turn over of trade, so they're doing it anyway before any guidelines come out

ShooterSF

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Does anyone understand the reasoning behind the 105 minutes ? I don’t get it ?

It seems pretty arbitrary but to be fair the industry needs to have some kind of limit while table service is the only thing allowed. How do you take bookings if you have no idea how long someone is going to be using the table, and if you let customers set their own times you'll get people who want the table for the night just in case but end up leaving after a few drinks, and now you've refused people with the belief that the table was full for the night.
And in fairness most bars seemed to bend the limit if it was a quiet night and no one was waiting for your table but that had to be a courtesy rather than an expectation.

Fann Linn

ShooterSF wrote: »

It seems pretty arbitrary but to be fair the industry needs to have some kind of limit while table service is the only thing allowed. How do you take bookings if you have no idea how long someone is going to be using the table, and if you let customers set their own times you'll get people who want the table for the night just in case but end up leaving after a few drinks, and now you've refused people with the belief that the table was full for the night.
And in fairness most bars seemed to bend the limit if it was a quiet night and no one was waiting for your table but that had to be a courtesy rather than an expectation.

Well if it's an economic case so be it, but tell us that is why you're doing it. . But don't try and shunt it off as some health reason. There was a doctor on earlier and she said if someone in your group has it, well then you're gonna get it after 15 mins if you're in close proximity anyway, so 105mins won't make much more of a difference.

iamwhoiam

ShooterSF wrote: »

It seems pretty arbitrary but to be fair the industry needs to have some kind of limit while table service is the only thing allowed. How do you take bookings if you have no idea how long someone is going to be using the table, and if you let customers set their own times you'll get people who want the table for the night just in case but end up leaving after a few drinks, and now you've refused people with the belief that the table was full for the night.
And in fairness most bars seemed to bend the limit if it was a quiet night and no one was waiting for your table but that had to be a courtesy rather than an expectation.

So nothing to do with Covid or health reasons then ?

Atlantic Dawn

Proposed 105 minutes restriction is mad, if a group is on a night out they will make 3 separate bookings and then mix in 3 different places throughout the night spreading any virus they have where in turn those customers they interact with will be doing the same thing.

bucketybuck

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Does anyone understand the reasoning behind the 105 minutes ? I don’t get it ?

Its like that dickhead boss that everybody has at least once in their life, that guy who can't just say yes to something, he has to change it or add to it just to prove he is the boss.

So they can't just allow businesses to operate, they have to add in stupid pointless extras just to show us all who is in charge.

If you went to them and said "The Dog groomers are perfectly safe, let them open up", they would say, "Well, ok, but only dogs of the same breed can be allowed in at any one time".

It wouldn't matter that Crufts was in full swing that week showing their rules to be stupid, they would still make people follow their penile little restrictions.

podgeandrodge

podgeandrodge wrote: »

Elsewhere I read that this limit was again only applying if there wasn't 2 metre distance ie for those using the new 1m rule. Honestly, the drip feeding of scattered and contradictory info from Govt. is a joke.

stephenjmcd wrote: »

It's not contradictory you've just read it wrong.

1m allowed outdoors, no time limit, well because its outdoors

Indoors same as last summer:
1m allowed indoors with 105 time limit (rarely actually enforced and probably even less so this year)
2m no time limit

Some of the guidelines are silly but they're pretty straightforward in terms of what's being asked

Yeah sorry, I meant the same as last summer rules when I said "Elsewhere I read that this limit was again only applying if there wasn't 2 metre distance..".

I think when I subsequently said 'new' I was in "the new rules" mode as they are new this week, given Leo said there would be no time limits very recently. I didn't mean that particular rule was contradictory, I meant the fact that they are giving contradictory statements, such as "there won't be any time limits", followed by "there will be time limits". Extremely annoying.

podgeandrodge

marno21 wrote: »

The idea that by being 1m away from someone presents a risk if you spend more than 2 hours beside them but 2m away presents no measured risk is absolute nonsense of the highest order and has been thoroughly debunked at this stage.

There is no scientific basis for this. Restaurants should be allowed slots at their discretion if they want to recycle tables for new customers. There is no Covid related benefit of clearing pintmen from tables in pubs after 105 minutes.

Exactly. This in a nutshell. It is bollox.

titan18

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Does anyone understand the reasoning behind the 105 minutes ? I don’t get it ?

I always thought it was due to th 2 hours thing from early in the pandemic. So they went with the 105 minutes to give the pubs/restaurants 15 mins to clean for the next customers.

PCeeeee

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Proposed 105 minutes restriction is mad, if a group is on a night out they will make 3 separate bookings and then mix in 3 different places throughout the night spreading any virus they have where in turn those customers they interact with will be doing the same thing.

Exactly what happened before and what will happen again.

Happydays2020

PCeeeee wrote: »

Exactly what happened before and what will happen again.

There is a strange type of obsession with controlling society. We are either safe to re open or we are not. Why tell two people who are fully vaccinated that they have to have a fast food meal? Lunacy.

mightyreds

prunudo wrote: »

To a certain extent I could forgive them for wanting 105mins if its 1m apart when it was announced last year, but now when there'll be over 3m vaccines administered by the time they're opening up. I just don't see what the point is. Either vaccines are the way out of this or they're not.

To be honest the sudden rollback has me starting to doubt wether I'll get the vaccine, I was 100% for getting it up till this week, similar restrictions to last year even though we are flying through vaccinations has me worried.

Is there something we're not be told? Is it not worth getting at this stage?
For me doubt has really started creeping in.

Juwwi

Does anyone know if there has been any figures released about the number of new cases each day if any of those people testing postive had of been vaccinated with 1 or 2 doses ?

Or if anyone vaccinated has ended up in hospital here ?

Has it been mentioned if anyone in UK or here who caught the Indian variant had had a vaccine.

Sorry for all the questions just haven't been following the covid news last few weeks .

What Username Guidelines

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Proposed 105 minutes restriction is mad, if a group is on a night out they will make 3 separate bookings and then mix in 3 different places throughout the night spreading any virus they have where in turn those customers they interact with will be doing the same thing.

There is logic in theory, but it relies on pretty strict adherence to have any sort of impact on public health as opposed to individual health.

If you've two tables close by and one group has someone with covid and the other doesn't. Table with covid stays for 8 hours. Table next to it has more turnover and changes patrons 5 or 6 or 7 times. Covid spreads to all/most groups.

Whereas the 105/2hour thing means that you can only ever infect 2 groups of people 'next door' if they're on a different 105min schedule, or just 1 group if they're the same time as you. 15 mins to clean and the next groups in theory unaffected.

This is from a public health point of view. Public health care a lot less about covid+ person spreading it at their table, or if they attend 3 bars for three 105 min sessions (they'll do that anyway) the bigger picture is how it spreads to other groups and patrons and how that could be minimised.

Giving the benefit of doubt, I would presume this idea of a time limit has some basis in reality and has likely been watered down/amended from the person who figured it out, up to implementation. It was a trade-off of risk analysis, rather than the idea that some believe - 105 is "safe".

But given the reality of vaccines being ramped up like crazy, it would be nice if the communication strategy could match this, and at least explain some logic to public, or how they plan to unwind it, etc. It seems incredibly arbitrary to lots of people and tbh I had written it off as non sense until discussing it with a mate.

corkie

@Juwwi Very limited info is been posted online due to HSE Cyber-attack, hopefully you have heard at least about that recently?

marno21

By the time indoor dining reopens, we'll be at vaccination levels that there's a good chance 2 of 3 tables in a row in a pub will be fully vaccinated, and there will be no risk of transmission anyway.

It's absolute nonsense of the highest order.

corkie

corkie wrote: »

@Juwwi Very limited info is been posted online due to HSE Cyber-attack, hopefully you have heard at least about that recently?

Unless they only use a hse device which has just been cleared?

Cork2021

marno21 wrote: »

By the time indoor dining reopens, we'll be at vaccination levels that there's a good chance 2 of 3 tables in a row in a pub will be fully vaccinated, and there will be no risk of transmission anyway.

It's absolute nonsense of the highest order.

Exactly, even with one dose transmission will be somewhat lower anyway, by June 30th we’ll be in a totally different space,
The day I get to sit at the bar will be a great day and I can see it happening soon!
The next 5 weeks for vaccines is huge!
Moderna’s news today is huge as well with 100% efficacy for 12-16 year olds. This pandemic is over

marno21

marno21 wrote: »

By the time indoor dining reopens, we'll be at vaccination levels that there's a good chance 2 of 3 tables in a row in a pub will be fully vaccinated, and there will be no risk of transmission anyway.

It's absolute nonsense of the highest order.

The histrionics about the Indian variant strikes me as wholly dishonest, a smokescreen for stall tactics & utter cluelessness surrounding indoor dining. Another thing, the panic stations about the recent bump of Covid cases in Limerick is the definition of a cynical scare tactic. 17 daily to near 50, so what? Most of the elderly/vulnerable are now vaccinated, how many of the youth "affected" are going to present in hospital? If this were to translate into a surge of admissions in UHL, fair enough. Reality is it won't register a blip. The media and RTE in particular need to stop trying to intimidate us with this nonsense, the public are jaded enough already.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The histrionics about the Indian variant strikes me as wholly dishonest, a smokescreen for stall tactics & utter cluelessness surrounding indoor dining. Another thing, the panic stations about the recent bump of Covid cases in Limerick is the definition of a cynical scare tactic. 17 daily to near 50, so what? Most of the elderly/vulnerable are now vaccinated, how many of the youth "affected" are going to present in hospital? If this were to translate into a surge of admissions in UHL, fair enough. Reality is it won't register a blip. The media and RTE in particular need to stop trying to intimidate us with this nonsense, the public are jaded enough already.

Those dastardly nphet fiends, conning Germany into banning travel to and from the uk to help to hype their plan to stop us getting a nice meal. The feckers

speckle

news re GOF

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BGC4ZLSHBo

WoollyRedHat

Are there any plans by the Irish Government with help of IDA to deploy sniffer dogs that can detect Covid (circa 94% sensitivity according to a recent UK pre-order review study) at airports?

Tyrone212

European "Influencers" have been offered thousands to smear the Pfizer vaccine and claim the death rate among the vaccinated with Pfizer is almost 3x higher than the vaccinated by AstraZeneca. Posting links to fake leaked articles etc.

Timmy O Toole

Tyrone212 wrote: »

European "Influencers" have been offered thousands to smear the Pfizer vaccine and claim the death rate among the vaccinated with Pfizer is almost 3x higher than the vaccinated by AstraZeneca. Posting links to fake leaked articles etc.

Conspiracy thereoy forum >>>>>

bodhrandude

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

Are there any plans by the Irish Government with help of IDA to deploy sniffer dogs that can detect Covid (circa 94% sensitivity according to a recent UK pre-order review study) at airports?

Where are you getting this from? Any links, would the dogs not get infected doing this process.

ShooterSF

iamwhoiam wrote: »

So nothing to do with Covid or health reasons then ?

Oh I'm not a health expert, I'm a barman I *think* (and I could be way off) but it was put in place back when pubs wanted to reopen AS restaurants. This was when they were going to let restaurants open but not bars and the vintners and others kicked up so we got this rule I'm guessing as a way to force the bars to behave as places you went for a meal and a drink as opposed to a night out sesh. How well that worked is a different topic.
It was a proper fudge but without I feel the "we're a restaurant" approach of pubs would have been even more lax than it was tbh.
And again even if it is a dumb rule that is gone now, pubs will still need to limit your time at a table on busier nights I'm guessing or risk losing reservations and having an empty table if you leave early. I'm glad I'm not running a pub right now tbh.

Lumen

Timmy O Toole wrote: »

Conspiracy thereoy forum >>>>>

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/may/25/influencers-say-russia-linked-pr-agency-asked-them-to-disparage-pfizer-vaccine