Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

All things Rugby
User avatar
Blackrock Bullet
Posts: 14249
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: #68

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Blackrock Bullet »

CM11 wrote:You're becoming a parody of yourself BB.

When the kawasaki type illness first hit, I advised caution yes, and noted your lack of giving a fúck.

When it became more clear that it wasn't a big issue that would be a factor, I dropped it. You know because health officials can only make decisions based on available data and not their gut or lack of giving a fcuk.

From the beginning of May since it was clear that we had started to get things under control I suggested it might be nice to get the kids in for a bit of June.

From around the middle of May I have been saying the picture would look different in the middle of June and the government would be looking to open the schools as normal.

At no stage did I say that they shouldn't go back in June because they don't do much.
The kids do very little in June anyway. Joking aside, the government should ask parents to apply for emergency childcare, like in South Korea, and then based on demand they can open up schools with rotating staff essentially minding the kids as opposed to teaching them.
Which is wrong.

I stated there was rare side effects. These side effects were seemingly extremely rare statistically and were not disuading other European countries opening at the time.

You screamed the name of the side effect and said X number of children in NYC had got it. I pointed out that this % was tiny, that it was a fraction of the number of children drowning per year, for example.

Stop lying, I never said I "didn't give a fudge". I said balance out the risks vs. the costs, from what we knew and what we didn't.

I'm laughing here, everything is just a grand plan for you Statto. In reality, we are being what I said, overly cautious and afraid to make political decisions. You keep on fighting the good Fine Gael fight though.
User avatar
nardol
Posts: 19716
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by nardol »

If you have to eat you need tables

if you have tables the number of patrons you can accommodate is lower

Fewer patrons = more built in social distancing




or / and


You have to buy food = visit more expensive

supply and demand dynamics is less people in pubs
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 59551
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by CM11 »

Here's another post where I was aghast at the idea of opening schools in June
On schools, I think it'd be nice to at least get the kids in in small groups for a few hours in June. It would do a lot for everyone's mental health. But I am saying that from a personal and family selfish perspective!
User avatar
nardol
Posts: 19716
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by nardol »

oh and the 9 euro makes sure a packet of crisps or nuts doesnt constitute a meal


Its a crude but hopefully successful way of easing back restrictions as an in-between phase
User avatar
Boxcar Ira
Posts: 12353
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Boxcar Ira »

The smart places will get on with it. Keep their mouths shut. Test the limits of the advice while keeping the pub environment relatively safe. They'll go under the radar and do well.

Then you'll have the loud ones who will draw all the attention on themselves. Spend more time questioning the overheads / margins on a 9EUR meal. Complain about the 9EUR incessantly. Make a point of not being able to provide high standards for 9EUR. Waste all that time and energy and still underperform.

No different to other industries. The good adapt. The bad use it as an excuse.
User avatar
nardol
Posts: 19716
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by nardol »

Boxcar Ira wrote:The smart places will get on with it. Keep their mouths shut. Test the limits of the advice while keeping the pub environment relatively safe. They'll go under the radar and do well.

Then you'll have the loud ones who will draw all the attention on themselves. Spend more time questioning the overheads / margins on a 9EUR meal. Complain about the 9EUR incessantly. Make a point of not being able to provide high standards for 9EUR. Waste all that time and energy and still underperform.

No different to other industries. The good adapt. The bad use it as an excuse.
Explain Ryanair to me so :P
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 59551
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by CM11 »

As for backing an approach which has all but suppressed the virus and given the population confidence in the government and that it's safe to spread out over an approach from a country that's just announced over a thousand cases and 100 deaths? Yep, I'm very, very happy to be in the corner I've put myself in. Especially as advances in medicine are showing lives can be saved with new treatment.

Are there ways this could be done that might lead to a similar outcome and better economic conditions. Probably. Are the government trying a hard balancing act and making decisions in good faith, absolutely. Have they ever said they'd get everything right? Nope. But I'm not in the minority thinking they're getting it right so drop your ridiculous 'defend them at all costs' act.
Last edited by CM11 on Wed Jun 17, 2020 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Blackrock Bullet
Posts: 14249
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: #68

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Blackrock Bullet »

CM11 wrote:Of course it's made up and vague. They don't want the pubs open. It's the single biggest risk and they're only reconsidering because of lobbying.
How is being vague giving businesses certainty and helping people in employment in the industry? They don't count because the rest of us can work from home?

You were just saying that it was for 3 weeks anyway so to relax. Now you're saying that they don't want them open this year....which is it? In 3 weeks when these messy regulations are up, it's a free for all then - how does this in anyway tie up to your claim that they don't want them open at all for the year?

There is no need to be vague, can you please stop BS and giving excuses for silly regulations. The nudging they are trying will turn out to be counterproductive.
User avatar
Blackrock Bullet
Posts: 14249
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: #68

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Blackrock Bullet »

CM11 wrote:As for backing an approach which has all but suppressed the virus and given the population confidence in the government and that it's safe to spread out over an approach from a country that's just announced over a thousand cases and 100 deaths? Yep, I'm very, very happy to be in the corner I've put myself in. Especially as advances in medicine are showing lives can be saved with new treatment.

Are there ways this could be done that might lead to a similar outcome and better economic conditions. Probably. Are the government trying a hard balancing act and making decisions in good faith, absolutely. Have they ever said they'd get everything right? Nope. But I'm not in the minority thinking they're getting it right so drop your ridiculous 'defend them at all costs' act.
Changing the tune again, the point of a lockdown was to keep hospitals free, not to suppress the virus.

If you were really in that camp, then join the 1000 "scientists" who don't want anything opened up. I forgot though, they are going against Fine Gael.
User avatar
EverReady
Posts: 32989
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by EverReady »

nardol wrote:oh and the 9 euro makes sure a packet of crisps or nuts doesnt constitute a meal


Its a crude but hopefully successful way of easing back restrictions as an in-between phase
I presume you can do a special sausage roll meal that includes sausage roll, Pint of Guinness dip and a handy €4 voucher towards your next sausage roll meal
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 59551
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by CM11 »

Blackrock Bullet wrote:
CM11 wrote:Of course it's made up and vague. They don't want the pubs open. It's the single biggest risk and they're only reconsidering because of lobbying.
How is being vague giving businesses certainty and helping people in employment in the industry? They don't count because the rest of us can work from home?

You were just saying that it was for 3 weeks anyway so to relax. Now you're saying that they don't want them open this year....which is it? In 3 weeks when these messy regulations are up, it's a free for all then - how does this in anyway tie up to your claim that they don't want them open at all for the year?

There is no need to be vague, can you please stop BS and giving excuses for silly regulations. The nudging they are trying will turn out to be counterproductive.
It must be so hard to have to find fault in everything.

Anyway, sigh.

Ideally they wouldn't open the pubs at all but they know that's not realistic. Originally they weren't meant until phase 5 and have now been moved to phase 3 if they act as restaurants without having a licence. Ideally they still wouldn't open so the government aren't bending over backwards to give clear direction especially as that direction will be subject to change. You know, given it's changing weekly due to the changing conditions. Something you have repeatedly refused to accept as proper practice. They should just wind up NPHET, tell everyone to get on with it and stop bothering with basing advice on new info?
User avatar
nardol
Posts: 19716
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by nardol »

EverReady wrote:
nardol wrote:oh and the 9 euro makes sure a packet of crisps or nuts doesnt constitute a meal


Its a crude but hopefully successful way of easing back restrictions as an in-between phase
I presume you can do a special sausage roll meal that includes sausage roll, Pint of Guinness dip and a handy €4 voucher towards your next sausage roll meal
Your buying a drink a meal and a voucher for 9 euro. Threshold not achieved.



Far better to charge 9 euro for the sausage roll 'meal' and get 2 pints free.


On a serious note - Im sure the tax system (VAT / excise etc) could provide a decent framework for classification.

But this is just like the 1.5m 2m distancing thing.

I have not at all times been able to stay 1.5/2m away from people. But I do try and stick to it. Despite not adhering to it at all times I dont expect to be put in jail - that doesn't negate the fact its good to have the measure in place.
Last edited by nardol on Wed Jun 17, 2020 2:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Blackrock Bullet
Posts: 14249
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: #68

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Blackrock Bullet »

Boxcar Ira wrote:The smart places will get on with it. Keep their mouths shut. Test the limits of the advice while keeping the pub environment relatively safe. They'll go under the radar and do well.

Then you'll have the loud ones who will draw all the attention on themselves. Spend more time questioning the overheads / margins on a 9EUR meal. Complain about the 9EUR incessantly. Make a point of not being able to provide high standards for 9EUR. Waste all that time and energy and still underperform.

No different to other industries. The good adapt. The bad use it as an excuse.
9 euro isn't some sort of maximum pricing thing Boxxy.

It seemingly is based on a 2003 Act where Michael McDowell set the price. You might get a salad or sandwich for that price now, I imagine it was a good bit more in 2003. I suppose it's convenient now, but lets not claim there is medical advice around it. G

The issue the pubs have is that they are not sure whether that is for one person in a table or 4 or everyone. Can someone else book in for another 90 minute slot after.

It does also discriminate against smaller venues that may not have kitchens, but could try to implement social distancing. Those places will all look to see how to get around it though.

All of these places will look for workarounds because the fact is that outside of those of us who can WFH, people have livelihoods to support. One of the arguments here a couple of months back on pubs was that they were all money grabbing plum and screw them, which was a rather interesting insight to some people's thinking.

Instead of the silly regulations, just give some clear advice and duties that pubs are expected to adhere to. They've made a mess of it so far.
User avatar
Mullet 2
Posts: 28853
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 9:43 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Mullet 2 »

He's embarrassed about being caught spoofing about the one area that he supposed to actually know about and is now doubling down. :lol:

Months we listened to the Rock lads droning on about treating us like grownups and attempting to live with disease.

First time they try it the same cúnt is front and centre shitting on the proposal :lol:

Himself and ER genuinely think we should just all pretend there is no disease
themaddog
Posts: 4782
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by themaddog »

EverReady wrote:
CM11 wrote:The medical advice is places that serve food can open. The €9 then defines what constitutes a place that serves food.
Medical advice my hoop. Absolute bullshit and the exact reason you will have to bring your kids into school in a staggered fashion between 9 and 11.45 and collect them between 12 and 2
Are pubs open before the kids go to school in the morning?? :shock:
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 59551
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by CM11 »

Blackrock Bullet wrote:
CM11 wrote:As for backing an approach which has all but suppressed the virus and given the population confidence in the government and that it's safe to spread out over an approach from a country that's just announced over a thousand cases and 100 deaths? Yep, I'm very, very happy to be in the corner I've put myself in. Especially as advances in medicine are showing lives can be saved with new treatment.

Are there ways this could be done that might lead to a similar outcome and better economic conditions. Probably. Are the government trying a hard balancing act and making decisions in good faith, absolutely. Have they ever said they'd get everything right? Nope. But I'm not in the minority thinking they're getting it right so drop your ridiculous 'defend them at all costs' act.
Changing the tune again, the point of a lockdown was to keep hospitals free, not to suppress the virus.

If you were really in that camp, then join the 1000 "scientists" who don't want anything opened up. I forgot though, they are going against Fine Gael.
I have already said I've changed my tune re. the original concept that we should just keep going as long as we're not over hospital capacity. It's bizarre you've taken the facts to date and kept that attitude. Another 1000+ deaths, ICU's still busy and announcing 500 cases a day is where you'd like us to be at today?

Having the virus at a level where we know where it is and can control outbreaks is fine with me. It means everyone has far more confidence to get on with their lives.
User avatar
Boxcar Ira
Posts: 12353
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Boxcar Ira »

Blackrock Bullet wrote:
Boxcar Ira wrote:The smart places will get on with it. Keep their mouths shut. Test the limits of the advice while keeping the pub environment relatively safe. They'll go under the radar and do well.

Then you'll have the loud ones who will draw all the attention on themselves. Spend more time questioning the overheads / margins on a 9EUR meal. Complain about the 9EUR incessantly. Make a point of not being able to provide high standards for 9EUR. Waste all that time and energy and still underperform.

No different to other industries. The good adapt. The bad use it as an excuse.
9 euro isn't some sort of maximum pricing thing Boxxy.

It seemingly is based on a 2003 Act where Michael McDowell set the price. You might get a salad or sandwich for that price now, I imagine it was a good bit more in 2003. I suppose it's convenient now, but lets not claim there is medical advice around it. G

The issue the pubs have is that they are not sure whether that is for one person in a table or 4 or everyone. Can someone else book in for another 90 minute slot after.

It does also discriminate against smaller venues that may not have kitchens, but could try to implement social distancing. Those places will all look to see how to get around it though.

All of these places will look for workarounds because the fact is that outside of those of us who can WFH, people have livelihoods to support. One of the arguments here a couple of months back on pubs was that they were all money grabbing plum and screw them, which was a rather interesting insight to some people's thinking.

Instead of the silly regulations, just give some clear advice and duties that pubs are expected to adhere to. They've made a mess of it so far.
It's just a number BB. I wouldnt sweat too much about it. You ask for them not to be vague. The 9EUR number is for you :thumbup:
User avatar
Blackrock Bullet
Posts: 14249
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: #68

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Blackrock Bullet »

CM11 wrote:
Blackrock Bullet wrote:
CM11 wrote:Of course it's made up and vague. They don't want the pubs open. It's the single biggest risk and they're only reconsidering because of lobbying.
How is being vague giving businesses certainty and helping people in employment in the industry? They don't count because the rest of us can work from home?

You were just saying that it was for 3 weeks anyway so to relax. Now you're saying that they don't want them open this year....which is it? In 3 weeks when these messy regulations are up, it's a free for all then - how does this in anyway tie up to your claim that they don't want them open at all for the year?

There is no need to be vague, can you please stop BS and giving excuses for silly regulations. The nudging they are trying will turn out to be counterproductive.
It must be so hard to have to find fault in everything.

Anyway, sigh.

Ideally they wouldn't open the pubs at all but they know that's not realistic. Originally they weren't meant until phase 5 and have now been moved to phase 3 if they act as restaurants without having a licence. Ideally they still wouldn't open so the government aren't bending over backwards to give clear direction especially as that direction will be subject to change. You know, given it's changing weekly due to the changing conditions. Something you have repeatedly refused to accept as proper practice. They should just wind up NPHET, tell everyone to get on with it and stop bothering with basing advice on new info?
No no Statto.

This is industry leaders pointing out that some regulations are silly but you are hiding behind some grand logic to it.

Except for 3 weeks after that when those regulations will be gone anyway, you say.

If you really believed in that, then you'd be criticising them rather than saying everything will be gone in 3 weeks anyway.

It makes more logical sense to have longer term guidelines, advice and regulations with regards to pubs rather than throwing in the towel on regulations after 3 weeks, if as you say (without much evidence, did Simon or someone given you insider info) that they don't want to open them at all this year. But *sigh*, that would be criticizing them.
User avatar
Mullet 2
Posts: 28853
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 9:43 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Mullet 2 »

The Government need to trust us Statto

Just not to be reasonable humans who can meet for a bite to eat and a few pints and leave when requested to by staff. We can't possible do that because we're basically animals.
User avatar
Boxcar Ira
Posts: 12353
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Boxcar Ira »

Also I notice that it's the same people who were complaining that we would never deviate from the roadmap who are complaining now that we have brought something forward.

Some boyos to complain!
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 59551
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by CM11 »

It's worth pointing out that the reason to not look to spend a massive amount of time right now drawing up laws is because it's very possible the advice will change if the cases continue to decrease or, at worst, if they increase.

Yes it's hard on pubs, not denying that at all, but BB is looking for certainty and has been for months when facts that are used to formulate advice change daily.
Last edited by CM11 on Wed Jun 17, 2020 2:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Mullet 2
Posts: 28853
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 9:43 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Mullet 2 »

Boxcar Ira wrote:Also I notice that it's the same people who were complaining that we would never deviate from the roadmap who are complaining now that we have brought something forward.

Some boyos to complain!
You're about the 4th one to point out the irony but it will be lost. They've gone full "Gubbermint"
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 59551
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by CM11 »

Blackrock Bullet wrote:
CM11 wrote:
Blackrock Bullet wrote:
CM11 wrote:Of course it's made up and vague. They don't want the pubs open. It's the single biggest risk and they're only reconsidering because of lobbying.
How is being vague giving businesses certainty and helping people in employment in the industry? They don't count because the rest of us can work from home?

You were just saying that it was for 3 weeks anyway so to relax. Now you're saying that they don't want them open this year....which is it? In 3 weeks when these messy regulations are up, it's a free for all then - how does this in anyway tie up to your claim that they don't want them open at all for the year?

There is no need to be vague, can you please stop BS and giving excuses for silly regulations. The nudging they are trying will turn out to be counterproductive.
It must be so hard to have to find fault in everything.

Anyway, sigh.

Ideally they wouldn't open the pubs at all but they know that's not realistic. Originally they weren't meant until phase 5 and have now been moved to phase 3 if they act as restaurants without having a licence. Ideally they still wouldn't open so the government aren't bending over backwards to give clear direction especially as that direction will be subject to change. You know, given it's changing weekly due to the changing conditions. Something you have repeatedly refused to accept as proper practice. They should just wind up NPHET, tell everyone to get on with it and stop bothering with basing advice on new info?
No no Statto.

This is industry leaders pointing out that some regulations are silly but you are hiding behind some grand logic to it.

Except for 3 weeks after that when those regulations will be gone anyway, you say.

If you really believed in that, then you'd be criticising them rather than saying everything will be gone in 3 weeks anyway.

It makes more logical sense to have longer term guidelines, advice and regulations with regards to pubs rather than throwing in the towel on regulations after 3 weeks, if as you say (without much evidence, did Simon or someone given you insider info) that they don't want to open them at all this year. But *sigh*, that would be criticizing them.
The initial regulations will be gone within 3 weeks. The longer term ones will be based on information not yet known. If they don't have regulations for the full reopening of pubs drawn up in early July, fair enough, but equally I keep on asking you to cop on and be patient, things will evolve and change and you continue to rant and barely acknowledge your lack of faith when things do change.
User avatar
Blackrock Bullet
Posts: 14249
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: #68

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Blackrock Bullet »

CM11 wrote:
Blackrock Bullet wrote:
CM11 wrote:As for backing an approach which has all but suppressed the virus and given the population confidence in the government and that it's safe to spread out over an approach from a country that's just announced over a thousand cases and 100 deaths? Yep, I'm very, very happy to be in the corner I've put myself in. Especially as advances in medicine are showing lives can be saved with new treatment.

Are there ways this could be done that might lead to a similar outcome and better economic conditions. Probably. Are the government trying a hard balancing act and making decisions in good faith, absolutely. Have they ever said they'd get everything right? Nope. But I'm not in the minority thinking they're getting it right so drop your ridiculous 'defend them at all costs' act.
Changing the tune again, the point of a lockdown was to keep hospitals free, not to suppress the virus.

If you were really in that camp, then join the 1000 "scientists" who don't want anything opened up. I forgot though, they are going against Fine Gael.
I have already said I've changed my tune re. the original concept that we should just keep going as long as we're not over hospital capacity. It's bizarre you've taken the facts to date and kept that attitude. Another 1000+ deaths, ICU's still busy and announcing 500 cases a day is where you'd like us to be at today?

Having the virus at a level where we know where it is and can control outbreaks is fine with me. It means everyone has far more confidence to get on with their lives.
What are you on about here? :|

You haven't dealt with the point, if you really think that we should be going for suppression, join the 1000 scientists in criticising the Government. Go for it.
User avatar
Boxcar Ira
Posts: 12353
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Boxcar Ira »

Mullet 2 wrote:
Boxcar Ira wrote:Also I notice that it's the same people who were complaining that we would never deviate from the roadmap who are complaining now that we have brought something forward.

Some boyos to complain!
You're about the 4th one to point out the irony but it will be lost. They've gone full "Gubbermint"
They should be f* embarrassed.
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 59551
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by CM11 »

Blackrock Bullet wrote:
CM11 wrote:
Blackrock Bullet wrote:
CM11 wrote:As for backing an approach which has all but suppressed the virus and given the population confidence in the government and that it's safe to spread out over an approach from a country that's just announced over a thousand cases and 100 deaths? Yep, I'm very, very happy to be in the corner I've put myself in. Especially as advances in medicine are showing lives can be saved with new treatment.

Are there ways this could be done that might lead to a similar outcome and better economic conditions. Probably. Are the government trying a hard balancing act and making decisions in good faith, absolutely. Have they ever said they'd get everything right? Nope. But I'm not in the minority thinking they're getting it right so drop your ridiculous 'defend them at all costs' act.
Changing the tune again, the point of a lockdown was to keep hospitals free, not to suppress the virus.

If you were really in that camp, then join the 1000 "scientists" who don't want anything opened up. I forgot though, they are going against Fine Gael.
I have already said I've changed my tune re. the original concept that we should just keep going as long as we're not over hospital capacity. It's bizarre you've taken the facts to date and kept that attitude. Another 1000+ deaths, ICU's still busy and announcing 500 cases a day is where you'd like us to be at today?

Having the virus at a level where we know where it is and can control outbreaks is fine with me. It means everyone has far more confidence to get on with their lives.
What are you on about here? :|

You haven't dealt with the point, if you really think that we should be going for suppression, join the 1000 scientists in criticising the Government. Go for it.
If we had Sweden's stats, we'd have had 1000+ more deaths, our ICU numbers would be nearly what they were at our peak, we'd have had 800 more people having gone through ICU and we'd be announcing 500 cases today. Is that something you'd be OK with?
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 59551
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by CM11 »

As for suppression. I don't think that's realistic and I have, in fact, 'dealt with it' above.
User avatar
Blackrock Bullet
Posts: 14249
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: #68

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Blackrock Bullet »

CM11 wrote:
Blackrock Bullet wrote:
CM11 wrote:
Blackrock Bullet wrote:
CM11 wrote:Of course it's made up and vague. They don't want the pubs open. It's the single biggest risk and they're only reconsidering because of lobbying.
How is being vague giving businesses certainty and helping people in employment in the industry? They don't count because the rest of us can work from home?

You were just saying that it was for 3 weeks anyway so to relax. Now you're saying that they don't want them open this year....which is it? In 3 weeks when these messy regulations are up, it's a free for all then - how does this in anyway tie up to your claim that they don't want them open at all for the year?

There is no need to be vague, can you please stop BS and giving excuses for silly regulations. The nudging they are trying will turn out to be counterproductive.
It must be so hard to have to find fault in everything.

Anyway, sigh.

Ideally they wouldn't open the pubs at all but they know that's not realistic. Originally they weren't meant until phase 5 and have now been moved to phase 3 if they act as restaurants without having a licence. Ideally they still wouldn't open so the government aren't bending over backwards to give clear direction especially as that direction will be subject to change. You know, given it's changing weekly due to the changing conditions. Something you have repeatedly refused to accept as proper practice. They should just wind up NPHET, tell everyone to get on with it and stop bothering with basing advice on new info?
No no Statto.

This is industry leaders pointing out that some regulations are silly but you are hiding behind some grand logic to it.

Except for 3 weeks after that when those regulations will be gone anyway, you say.

If you really believed in that, then you'd be criticising them rather than saying everything will be gone in 3 weeks anyway.

It makes more logical sense to have longer term guidelines, advice and regulations with regards to pubs rather than throwing in the towel on regulations after 3 weeks, if as you say (without much evidence, did Simon or someone given you insider info) that they don't want to open them at all this year. But *sigh*, that would be criticizing them.
The initial regulations will be gone within 3 weeks. The longer term ones will be based on information not yet known. If they don't have regulations for the full reopening of pubs drawn up in early July, fair enough, but equally I keep on asking you to cop on and be patient, things will evolve and change and you continue to rant and barely acknowledge your lack of faith when things do change.
You've got yourself in an awful tangle here.
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 59551
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by CM11 »

Blackrock Bullet wrote: You've got yourself in an awful tangle here.
:lol:
User avatar
EverReady
Posts: 32989
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by EverReady »

Mullet 2 wrote:He's embarrassed about being caught spoofing about the one area that he supposed to actually know about and is now doubling down. :lol:

Months we listened to the Rock lads droning on about treating us like grownups and attempting to live with disease.

First time they try it the same cúnt is front and centre shitting on the proposal :lol:

Himself and ER genuinely think we should just all pretend there is no disease
Crack on is what I said. Anyway it looks like only black people can get it but the EU is keeping it a secret
User avatar
lorcanoworms
Posts: 11623
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by lorcanoworms »

Stevus55 wrote:
Duff Paddy wrote:What’s Jacksonville beach like? Trying to decide between there, st augustin or Naples for holidays next year
Depends what you’re looking for, beaches are great, golf is great and some nice hotels. Jacksonville beach itself is a bit temple bar-ish so would look to stay somewhere else in the vicinity. St Augustine is nice but more in a day trip type of way. Never been to Naples.

Worth bearing in mind that that couple mile a trip of coast is technically 4 different cities so options north and south of Jacksonville beach.
There was a guy on the Jacksonville river? selling boats as having only been in fresh water.
Found out from an engineer working here that the mooring in question was brackish water, which should knock down the price as it's hard on fibre glass.
User avatar
EverReady
Posts: 32989
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by EverReady »

Boxcar Ira wrote:Also I notice that it's the same people who were complaining that we would never deviate from the roadmap who are complaining now that we have brought something forward.

Some boyos to complain!
We put in the hard Covid yards. You can't come in here now throwing shapes all rested
User avatar
Blackrock Bullet
Posts: 14249
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: #68

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Blackrock Bullet »

CM11 wrote:
Blackrock Bullet wrote:
CM11 wrote:
Blackrock Bullet wrote:
CM11 wrote:As for backing an approach which has all but suppressed the virus and given the population confidence in the government and that it's safe to spread out over an approach from a country that's just announced over a thousand cases and 100 deaths? Yep, I'm very, very happy to be in the corner I've put myself in. Especially as advances in medicine are showing lives can be saved with new treatment.

Are there ways this could be done that might lead to a similar outcome and better economic conditions. Probably. Are the government trying a hard balancing act and making decisions in good faith, absolutely. Have they ever said they'd get everything right? Nope. But I'm not in the minority thinking they're getting it right so drop your ridiculous 'defend them at all costs' act.
Changing the tune again, the point of a lockdown was to keep hospitals free, not to suppress the virus.

If you were really in that camp, then join the 1000 "scientists" who don't want anything opened up. I forgot though, they are going against Fine Gael.
I have already said I've changed my tune re. the original concept that we should just keep going as long as we're not over hospital capacity. It's bizarre you've taken the facts to date and kept that attitude. Another 1000+ deaths, ICU's still busy and announcing 500 cases a day is where you'd like us to be at today?

Having the virus at a level where we know where it is and can control outbreaks is fine with me. It means everyone has far more confidence to get on with their lives.
What are you on about here? :|

You haven't dealt with the point, if you really think that we should be going for suppression, join the 1000 scientists in criticising the Government. Go for it.
If we had Sweden's stats, we'd have had 1000+ more deaths, our ICU numbers would be nearly what they were at our peak, we'd have had 800 more people having gone through ICU and we'd be announcing 500 cases today. Is that something you'd be OK with?
Back to Sweden, bizarre!

You have no idea what stats we'd have with Swedish regulations. Would we have had 500 less deaths if we had not allowed children outside their door for a month likes Spain? What a bizarre argument, particularly when you admitted that you initially wanted hospitals not be be overran yourself. You've really got into the football scoring business on Covid without the big picture.

Anyway, let's stick to a point here. You now claim to be keen on suppression. The 1,000 scientists say we should be going harder and longer with our regulations. Why don't you support them and criticise the Government?
User avatar
Blackrock Bullet
Posts: 14249
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: #68

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Blackrock Bullet »

CM11 wrote:
Blackrock Bullet wrote: You've got yourself in an awful tangle here.
:lol:
Well you have, talk around it as much as you like.
User avatar
Mullet 2
Posts: 28853
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 9:43 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Mullet 2 »

Treat us like grownups

Not the pub though inside sweaty pubs is not a good environment for spread.
User avatar
Mullet 2
Posts: 28853
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 9:43 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Mullet 2 »

CM11 wrote:
Blackrock Bullet wrote: You've got yourself in an awful tangle here.
:lol:
The self declared win. Beautiful
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 59551
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by CM11 »

Blackrock Bullet wrote:[
Back to Sweden, bizarre!

You have no idea what stats we'd have with Swedish regulations. Would we have had 500 less deaths if we had not allowed children outside their door for a month likes Spain? What a bizarre argument, particularly when you admitted that you initially wanted hospitals not be be overran yourself. You've really got into the football scoring business on Covid without the big picture.

Anyway, let's stick to a point here. You now claim to be keen on suppression. The 1,000 scientists say we should be going harder and longer with our regulations. Why don't you support them and criticise the Government?
Of for crying fúcking out loud BB. I've already answered this above.
User avatar
Blackrock Bullet
Posts: 14249
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: #68

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by Blackrock Bullet »

Mullet 2 wrote:Treat us like grownups

Not the pub though inside sweaty pubs is not a good environment for spread.
You don't have to go to a pub if you don't want to.
User avatar
camroc1
Posts: 40969
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by camroc1 »

Blackrock Bullet wrote:Hard to disagree

https://twitter.com/newschambers/status ... 69184?s=20

Image


"Some of the stuff in it looks completely made up... Totally unworkable."

Pubs react to the draft guidelines for reopening on the 29th of June.

Substantial €9 meals, mandatory reservations and 90 minute time-limts on the cards.
https://twitter.com/newschambers/status ... 45504?s=20
As CM said, no one is forcing them to open. If they're afraid of breaking the law, I'm sure they'll be civic spirited enough to stay shut.
User avatar
EverReady
Posts: 32989
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Post by EverReady »

Mullet 2 wrote:Treat us like grownups

Not the pub though inside sweaty pubs is not a good environment for spread.
I'll keep my frottaging to a minimum
Post Reply