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

Always_Running

First it was July 7th for supporters to return to outdoor sport matches and now Mr Martin suggesting August?

I don't see the sense to not allow small numbers back in for June especially when a number of indoor activities will be open that month.

gozunda

Stormyteacup wrote: »

This is illogical nonsense and doesn’t reinforce you point the way you seem to think it does.
Poster’s position is that cases can be both minimised and manageable. But there is evidence that government have made decisions based on manageability over minimalising of cases.Another poster was called out for vacillating between one and the other. They are not mutually exclusive, but if our course was to minimise hospitalisations and deaths without regard to capacity of health services then we should have been in level five for the last thirteen months.

Again incorrect. I see no evidence as you suggest that "that government have made decisions based on manageability over minimalising of cases."

They have clearly achieved both together. The other poster didn't "vacillate" - he said the same.

And thats the thing the aim was to minimise the rate of infection to ensure that our health services could cope. Health services which were put through an intensive programme of adaption to be be able to handle covid patient care and treatment and which coped even when the **** hit the fan.

And we clearly didn't need to be in "level 5 for 13 months" to achieve that. We achieved it. Ireland has thankfully had a low death rate and infection rate compared to many other countries. Lets keep it that way.

Stormyteacup

Graham wrote: »

and this would have been achieved by......

Wait for it......

Ok to try and spell it out..

There is a difference between minimising cases so health services can cope, and minimising cases to keep deaths and hospitalisations to a minimum.

Example - 400 cases a day may reduce hospitalisations, and 1,000 cases a day will be within limits of health services being able to cope. The latter will lead to more deaths, but was considered an acceptable level of infections.

Stormyteacup

gozunda wrote: »

Again incorrect. I see no evidence as you suggest that "that government have made decisions based on manageability over minimalising of cases."

They have clearly done both. The other poster didn't "vacillate" - he said the same.

And thats the thing the aim was to minimise the rate of infection to ensure that our health services could cope. Health services which were put through an intensive programme of adaption to be be able to handle covid patient care and treatment and which coped even when the **** hit the fan.

And we clearly didn't need to be in "level 5 for 13 months" to achieve that. We achieved it. Ireland has thankfully had a low death rate and infection rate compared to many other countries. Lets keep it that way.

I see, so we’ve done both. In equal parts or? We have a low rate of death thankfully, but you can’t argue that it wouldn’t have been lower if we’d remained in level 5 for 13 months.

Graham

head82 wrote: »

Just heard on RTE news a comment from some minister (didn't catch his name) that it's expected upto 200,000 people could resume work by the end of July as a result of the easing of restrictions.
I could have sworn I heard Paschal say a week or two ago that he expects 70,000 to return to the workforce by the end of the year! As if that figure was something to be championed.

It's a rather extreme change of tone.

I suspect one figure refers to the number of people who's place of work is currently closed, the other refers to the number returning to the workforce from unemployment.

fred funk }{

ArthurDayne wrote: »

And there it is, the deus ex machina of all those who parrot the government’s strategy — to speak out against restrictions is to say “open everything up and let’s see”. It’s a great tool, a handy way of bludgeoning the nuance out of an argument until it resembles the argument you want to hear so you can criticise it with the same blanket responses.

The problem here of course is that all I actually mentioned in my post were things that have all already been open during the Covid crisis — and that was before there was a vaccine. I do not believe in just opening everything up, I simply believe in stripping away the measures that are not necessary to prevent the vista on which lockdown was justified. I believe in the abundance of proportionality, not the abundance of caution — to give businesses a fighting chance of survival, to contribute to economic recovery which will have knock on effects as regards socioeconomic deprivation and indeed poverty, to give young people a chance to get their formative years back on track, to make people more willing to sustain and endure the more necessary measures — and of course to protect life within the boundaries of reasonableness.

I mean, where have your posts about the 5km rule gone? Why aren’t you calling for it to be reinstated? You will of course say that the 5km rule was necessary and that it was simply lifted at the right time — and the right time for you is simply whenever you are told it is the right time, whereby anyone who dared argue that it should have been lifted quicker is merely a contrarian. I of course am a complete contrarian fool for daring to say that the government’s appreciation for when the 5km rule should have been lifted (even if one thinks it never should have been imposed) was later than it should have been — and even more so for believing that they are being too slow on other measures too.

And like the 5km rule, you will quietly pack up your goalposts at each juncture and move them to wherever they need to be so you can keep equating critical thought, and the horrendous audacity of mere silly civilians to question State policy, with contrarianism.

What a great post. Thanks.

bear1

Apparently there will be a couple of surprises according to one of the ministers.
Wonder if the removal of masks could be one

gozunda

Stormyteacup wrote: »

I see, so we’ve done both. In equal parts or? We have a low rate of death thankfully, but you can’t argue that it wouldn’t have been lower if we’d remained in level 5 for 13 months.

Not sure exactly how that can be quantified but yes they did both.

But you're arguing we should have had even more restrictions and for a full 13 months to further reduce the risk (ie zero covid)

rather than a policy of minimising the rate of infection? (ie keeping numbers low)?

I dont think that would have been very popular on this thread tbf.

castletownman

castletownman wrote: »

Heard on the 1PM news there that there are some cabinet ministers "concerned" about the speed of re-opening ahead of the announcement tonight (that they are opening too fast).

They should be named and shamed because they clearly don't have the best interests of their constituents in mind.

I would cast them on PUP to soften their entitled cough, if they're perfectly content to drag out closures and keep hundreds of thousands out of work then they should have a taste of what many endured without choice for months.

charlie14

ArthurDayne wrote: »

For what it's worth Charlie, I admire the quality of your posts and your tenacity in argument -- but I am sorry that I do have to repeat myself -- because even in the course of your last few posts to me you have twisted what I have said and subtly tried to change the goalposts. Another problem is that, like Boggles, you seem to just be bestowing opinions on me out of the blue to convince yourself that I am arguing something I'm not. At what point exactly did I say that lockdowns have played no part in minimising infection? This is undeniable -- lockdowns can work but the issue is (a) they cannot be sustained indefinitely without huge damage and eventual lapse (b) when they do lapse, in a situation where Covid has become endemic, then you run the risk that when a lockdown-weary population is given.any sniff of freedom you will have an entire nation simultaneously doing the things they miss doing -- and with that comes spread like wildfire.

But we are not talking about "minimising infection" because minimising infection outright is not what the State's strategy ever has been -- because minimising infection outright is effectively a Zero Covid strategy. Strangely though, in the very same post, you then go on to shift the goalposts again -- though at least on this occasion to the right place -- to saying that it was to prevent healthcare being overrun.

So, now that we are back to the correct argument, and you have accused me of vague mumblings, i am once again offering you the chance to show me how clear and definitive your argument is. So can you please explain to me the data justifying how each of the individual example measures (hairdressers being closed along with hotels / restaurants / bars, distance limits being in place) are contributing to preventing healthcare from overrun and by what percentage their alleviation would increase the risk of the healthcare system being overrun?

I`m afraid Arthur when it comes to tenacity I`m only trotting behind you.
If you feel I have twisted your posts then I`m sorry you feel that way, but I do not believe I have.
You have already stated the restrictions you believe should have been applied in Ireland rather than the various lockdowns we had. Those are the restrictions that were adopted by Sweden and on every metric have been shown to have failed.
If the State had a policy of zero Covid then it`s news to me. And I suspect the State also. Lockdown was never about eliminating Covid. It was about minimising the spread of Covid. Lowering infections and thus hospital and I.C.U. numbers to prevent the health system from being over-run and minimise deaths until vaccines were developed. Nobody suggested that we would have at any stage an indefinite lockdown.
When number were brought under a reasonable believed to be manageable level lockdowns restrictions were eased. Unfortunately for your arguement, those were the times your light touch restrictions were tested and were not successful, necessitating further lockdowns.

The present lockdown was not for the purpose of achieving zero Covid either.
It was/is aimed at ensuring we absolutely minimise the chance of having to go into another thanks to highly efficacious vaccines. The only real hope we ever had of getting some level of control over this virus. The aim was/is to keep numbers low and put as many shots in arms in as short a time as possible to reach a level on vaccinations to achieve that. The question was what level was effective and we have been lucky enough to learn that from the U.K. and Israeli levels. For those that somehow believed (guessed really) that we should have opened at substantially lower levels then they have only to look at Sweden`s numbers to see how wrong that guess is.

Arthur Covid is a viral infection spread by, in the main, close contact.
How you could somehow believe opening barbers, hairdressers, hotels and pubs especially, would not result in numbers rising without a substantial level of vaccination, and I`m not being a smart-ass here, really is beyond me.

charlie14

charlie14 wrote: »

It was about minimising the spread of Covid. Lowering infections and thus hospital and I.C.U. numbers to prevent the health system from being over-run and minimise deaths until vaccines were developed.

It was not. It was about "flattening the curve" such that the inevitable infections and deaths would not all occur at once. Vaccines were not even on the table when the first lockdown diktats were handed down, and the shortest length of time it had taken to develop a vaccine prior to 2020 was four years.

CalamariFritti

bear1 wrote: »

Apparently there will be a couple of surprises according to one of the ministers.
Wonder if the removal of masks could be one

I doubt it but I'd love that so much. Hate those fkn things and remain unconvinced needless to say.

is_that_so

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1387747436567924739

Graham

Deleted User wrote: »

It was not. It was about "flattening the curve" such that the inevitable infections and deaths would not all occur at once. Vaccines were not even on the table when the first lockdown diktats were handed down, and the shortest length of time it had taken to develop a vaccine prior to 2020 was four years.

It's almost like things changed over the last year isn't it?

FintanMcluskey

head82 wrote: »

Just heard on RTE news a comment from some minister (didn't catch his name) that it's expected upto 200,000 people could resume work by the end of July as a result of the easing of restrictions.
I could have sworn I heard Paschal say a week or two ago that he expects 70,000 to return to the workforce by the end of the year! As if that figure was something to be championed.

It's a rather extreme change of tone. As surprising as the recent announcement/leak regarding the earlier than expected .. albeit partial.. opening of the economy.
I can't help but feel this earlier than expected.. but very welcomed.. relaxation is motivated by financial reasons as opposed to vaccine rollout success or NPHET advice.

With the Covid supports, PUP etc. planned to come to an end in June, a justification will be required and this earlier opening will provide that.

They have realised the money is gone and all that’s left is a monumental amount of debt with no infrastructure improvements to show for it

Irish media is consistently running with a plethora of different stories each hour about Covid it’s easy to loose interest and focus

However

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/politics/arid-40274552.html

€12bn in Covid emergency funding set aside for 2021 will run out by the end of June, resulting in “many more billions” being needed to protect the economy.

When a country shuts its economy down like Ireland did for so long it’s going to destroy it

Ireland has forced non-essential businesses to close for a crippling 231 days. The next most severe lockdown is the UK at 173 days. In contrast, Denmark closed for 47 days.

I think our guys have just realised that, they literally went from talking about the variants and inter county travel in July to inter county travel next week

It’s noting got to do with the mood of the people, it’s finance

FintanMcluskey

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

They have realised the money is gone and all that’s left is a monumental amount of debt with no infrastructure improvements to show for it

Irish media is consistently running with a plethora of different stories each hour about Covid it’s easy to loose interest and focus

However

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/politics/arid-40274552.html



When a country shuts its economy down like Ireland did for so long it’s going to destroy it



I think our guys have just realised that, they literally went from talking about the variants and inter county travel in July to inter county travel next week

It’s noting got to do with the mood of the people, it’s finance

Imagine winding down the covid financial supports when winding down the covid restrictions. Crazy

SAMTALK

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

They have realised the money is gone and all that’s left is a monumental amount of debt with no infrastructure improvements to show for it

Irish media is consistently running with a plethora of different stories each hour about Covid it’s easy to loose interest and focus

However

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/politics/arid-40274552.html



When a country shuts its economy down like Ireland did for so long it’s going to destroy it



I think our guys have just realised that, they literally went from talking about the variants and inter county travel in July to inter county travel next week

It’s noting got to do with the mood of the people, it’s finance

So just say we have a serious spike again , what do you think will happen if it's all about finance.

gozunda

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Well, I applaud the fact that you have given up on the exercise of rewriting the government’s strategy to suit your own narrative — but maybe you want to read that sentence again, with the important bit written in bold:

“Now, here you are, talking about cases being "manageable" rather than simply just being minimised“.

Do you understand the significance of me saying “simply just” there? If you took away the bit in bold and changed it to “instead of” then you would have a point ....but I didn’t say that....so you don’t. There’s no weaseling required, you just didn’t read it right.

Well that's good for you. But the fact is your ideas on the Governments Strategy don't stand up to scrutiny or even the fact the strategy has also changed over time. Something you seen unaware of.

And yes I read that correctly. The poster had detailed that both minimisation and managment were involved which you identified as being somehow contradictory. Even though that's clearly not the case.

I'll leave you at it.

Bit cynical

gozunda wrote: »

So what you're saying is that we're lucky to have these multinationals who provide employment and income to many here?

Well, we are lucky but the it is still the case that worldwide profits from multinationals are booked in Ireland to avail of the comparatively low corporation tax here. This has the effect of inflating GDP disproportionately in Ireland. This is how a few years ago GDP in Ireland jumped by 25%. It had nothing to do with the ordinary economy people deal with on a day-to-day basis but rather to do with deals made internationally by certain multinationals.

We just need to be cautious. Just because we don't see GDP falling doesn't mean people aren't losing their jobs or finding it hard to make ends meet.

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

It was not. It was about "flattening the curve" such that the inevitable infections and deaths would not all occur at once. Vaccines were not even on the table when the first lockdown diktats were handed down, and the shortest length of time it had taken to develop a vaccine prior to 2020 was four years.

I your head it may have been, but then flattening the curve or controlling the spread to protect health services and save lives was never factored into your proposal to begin with. You have already said you favoured no restrictions what-so-ever.
We were lucky science moved fast. Had it taken 4 years to develop vaccines we would be putting them into a lot less arms in 4 years time had we followed your proposal.

gozunda

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

And the same guys here that defended the reopening in late Summer and now agree with the faster road map (despite nothing changing regarding the danger from Covid this week) are really embarrassing themselvesIt’s was never about Covid, it was about doing what the man on tele told us. A throwback to Catholic Church Ireland

Yikes! I never realised that every country using restrictions to keep the rate of infection low only do so because of "a man on the tele" and by reason of a throwback to their Catholic ways :eek:

https://m.dw.com/en/coronavirus-germanys-emergency-brake-rules-take-effect/a-57321750

Graham

It is a particularly bizarre theory but apparently one that's worthy of much thanks.

Perhaps Fintan might explain it one day.

charlie14

charlie14 wrote: »

I your head it may have been, but then flattening the curve or controlling the spread to protect health services and save lives was never factored into your proposal to begin with. You have already said you favoured no restrictions what-so-ever.

Just pointing out your error, pal.

You're welcome.

charlie14 wrote: »

We were lucky science moved fast. Had it taken 4 years to develop vaccines we would be putting them into a lot less arms in 4 years time had we followed your proposal.

Only if you think Irish people are complete morons. That's not my jam.

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

Just pointing out your error, pal.

You're welcome.

Just pointing out where we would be if we followed your proposals and beliefs.

Graham

growleaves wrote: »

We should have a football match. As long as I don't have to be a goalkeeper.

+1

the speed those darn posts would be moving at

growleaves

growleaves wrote: »

We should have a football match. As long as I don't have to be a goalkeeper.

I can just imagine the insults being flung at the ref.

"Why should I go back 10 yards"
"I should be able to handle the ball where I choose"
"Shin pads are completely ineffective, show me the scientific evidence"

Level 42

when are we predicting the following are back ?

amateur football teams back playing
concerts no restrictions
going to the pub no social distancing

charlie14

timmyntc wrote: »

The reality is nobody expected the govt to approve opening this soon - its a welcome development but to suggest that that anyone "saw it coming" is absurd.

Go back 2 or 3 days in this very thread and you will see posters making statements such as we cannot open up until:



And a week almost of people scaremongering over the situation in India, and warning us that opening too soon would lead to that happening here.

Attempt to misrepresent much ?

I and other here outside, of the "Tony is a dictator and we will be in permanent lockdown if we do not open up everything right away" brigade, have been consistently saying that regardless of that hyperbole we should follow the scientific data on opening. The data, from in particular, the U.K. on vaccination levels and staged re-opening.

Where in the present re-opening proposals going to cabinet do you not see that being what I and others said

If you cannot get the danger of opening up all and sundry in India based on just low number with low levels of vaccination, then there really is not much I can do for you

timmyntc

charlie14 wrote: »

Attempt to misrepresent much ?

I and other here outside, of the "Tony is a dictator and we will be in permanent lockdown if we do not open up everything right away" brigade, have been consistently saying that regardless of that hyperbole we should follow the scientific data on opening. The data, from in particular, the U.K. on vaccination levels and staged re-opening.

Where in the present re-opening proposals going to cabinet do you not see that being what I and others said

If you cannot get the danger of opening up all and sundry in India based on just low number with low levels of vaccination, then there really is not much I can do for you

Your deference to science is really just a deference to the government. They do not have access to some top secret "science" that we do not. The data is plain to see for all and sundry. We have been seeing it for weeks in the case, hospital & death trends. We have been shouting from the rooftops that based on the science and vaccines we should already be well underway reopening hospitality and more - to this we were told "but but India! Brazil! The variants!"

At what point did opening hospitality in May go from unscientific to science backed? Was it the same time the govt announced it?

Graham

timmyntc wrote: »

Your deference to science is really just a deference to the government.

Now that is classic.

You know people can read this stuff?

Boggles

timmyntc wrote: »

to this we were told "but but India! Brazil! The variants!"

Nope, much like NPHET did it was Europe that was pointed to.

This was written off on here because central Europe have a tropical climate and a 10 month flu season or whatever nonsense was peddled to try and explain away the obvious.

timmyntc

Graham wrote: »

Now that is classic.

You know people can read this stuff?

Why not quote my whole post to get the context?

When charlie14 says he follows the science led approach, he really means the govt led approach.

The science & data is absolute and always been there, it was there before cabinets meeting yesterday - but charlie14s support of relaxation only came after the govt announced same.

Graham

timmyntc wrote: »

Why not quote my whole post to get the context?

When charlie14 says he follows the science led approach, he really means the govt led approach.

The science & data is absolute and always been there, it was there before cabinets meeting yesterday - but charlie14s support of relaxation only came after the govt announced same.

That just makes no sense unless you've convinced yourself there's nothing scientific about the governments approach.

growleaves

We need a relaxation of recriminations.

timmyntc

Graham wrote: »

That just makes no sense unless you've convinced yourself there's nothing scientific about the governments approach.

Where did you get that?

The govts approach is based on science - but the same approach as govt have taken was dismissed by charlie14 earlier in the week at the time as "not backed by science" when suggested by posters here. "The Science" didnt just come into existence in the last 24hrs - the data govt made their decision based on has been available for weeks.

Graham

timmyntc wrote: »

Where did you get that?

The govts approach is based on science - but the same approach as govt have taken was dismissed by charlie14 earlier in the week at the time as "not backed by science" when suggested by posters here. "The Science" didnt just come into existence in the last 24hrs - the data govt made their decision based on has been available for weeks.

I don't think the position has changed recently. The approach remains.

Make a change, assess the impact, make a change, assess the impact...

gozunda

timmyntc wrote: »

Why not quote my whole post to get the context?..

Why not indeed timmyntc???

You quote me above in support of some rubbish you're pushing about posters here claiming it wasn't time yet for restrictions to be rolled back.

You could at least have the decency to quote me in full or acknowledge that "the opening up" which I referenced" was a scenario with no restrictions whatsoever But I suppose that wouldn't suit the agenda

Here's the full comment. I've even highlighted the quote in context.

gozunda wrote: »

Well that's the thing we didn't have any vaccines when this **** started and now we do.

But atm the "most vulnerable" have not all been vaccinated. Those aged 16-69 and at high risk from infection are still being vaccinated. As are the remaining 70+ and others. And thats just the first dose of vaccine we're talking about.

What would you have us do?

Just throw everything out the window even though we are managing to keep the infection rate low and especially now have a way out of this mess?

And we know that 50% of the adult population vaccinated is the current min level to provide for opening up - as seen in the UK, Israel

Despite that we've already started rolling back restrictions here because of our low infection rate - though I don't ever remember being told that when the vulnerable were vaccinated we could let it rip?

Yeah but seriously let's ask what the fuq is going on eh?

timmyntc

gozunda wrote: »

Why not indeed timmyntc???

You quote me above in support of some rubbish you're pushing about posters here claiming it wasn't time yet for restrictions to be rolled back.

You could at least have the decency to quote me in full or acknowledge that "the opening up" which I referenced" was a scenario with no restrictions whatsoever But I suppose that wouldn't suit the agenda

Here's the full comment. I've even highlighted the quote in context.

Yes. And?

Its a reference to schools etc - you still stated we shouldnt be opening up hospitality etc because we need the 50% vaccinated milestone.

gozunda

timmyntc wrote: »

Yes. And?

Its a reference to schools etc - you still stated we shouldnt be opening up hospitality etc because we need the 50% vaccinated milestone.

Ah so back to the game of things which were NEVER said

Nope. I made NO mention of "hospitality" whatsoever. I can find no reference to 'schools'

Here the quote again - in context of the poster I was replying to wanting a full reopening with no restrictions whatsoever. I even acknowledged we weren't at 50% but we were rolling back restrictions already.

And we know that 50% of the adult population vaccinated is the current min level to provide for opening up - as seen in the UK, Israel

Despite that we've already started rolling back restrictions here because of our low infection rate - though I don't ever remember being told that when the vulnerable were vaccinated we could let it rip?

Do you want to let it rip timmyntc? Is that the idea you're pushing?

PTH2009

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0429/1212714-cabinet-restrictions/

Few changes

stephenjmcd

PTH2009 wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0429/1212714-cabinet-restrictions/

Few changes

No changes there from what went to cabinet this afternoon. All as leaked last night

Level 42

Level 42 wrote: »

when are we predicting the following are back ?

amateur football teams back playing
concerts no restrictions
going to the pub no social distancing

1. June.
2. Depends - if you mean full capacity events at large capacity venues such as three arena - probably 2022, small venues with max a few hundred capacity - September
3. September

PTH2009

stephenjmcd wrote: »

No changes there from what went to cabinet this afternoon. All as leaked last night

I thought outdoor hospitality was the 24th May

Suppose those pesky bank holiday weekends killed that chance

hynesie08

PTH2009 wrote: »

I thought outdoor hospitality was the 24th May

Suppose those pesky bank holiday weekends killed that chance

No, got changed yesterday, you were complaining about it......

hynesie08

stephenjmcd wrote: »

No changes there from what went to cabinet this afternoon. All as leaked last night

Was indoor hospitality not the 7th earlier?

FlubberJones

Seem the gyms are being lumped in with drinking outside now... baffling idea.

If shops and hairdressers are open they should have gyms at the same time, the shopaholics will be sweating and panting in the TK MAX and whatever... no different to us in the gyms.

rob316

I'm sure NPHET wanted this farce to go on longer. Its still not quick enough though, there is no science behind keeping outdoor hospitality closed for another month. Why couldn't the 10th be brought forward to the 4th?

is_that_so

FlubberJones wrote: »

Seem the gyms are being lumped in with drinking outside now... baffling idea.

If shops and hairdressers are open they should have gyms at the same time, the shopaholics will be sweating and panting in the TK MAX and whatever... no different to us in the gyms.

It's just the large number of different sectors and not wanting to open too many at the same time. Remember last year it took us about 2 months to open everything. June 7 is only a further few weeks.

charlie14

timmyntc wrote: »

Your deference to science is really just a deference to the government. They do not have access to some top secret "science" that we do not. The data is plain to see for all and sundry. We have been seeing it for weeks in the case, hospital & death trends. We have been shouting from the rooftops that based on the science and vaccines we should already be well underway reopening hospitality and more - to this we were told "but but India! Brazil! The variants!"

At what point did opening hospitality in May go from unscientific to science backed? Was it the same time the govt announced it?

I did say here some time ago, half jokingly, that it felt as if certain posters were actually desperate to keep us locked down permanently as they would have nothing to crib and cry about otherwise.
From skimming through posts since these proposed measures were first mooted last night it looks is if I was only half right.
The whiff of desperation from some here since is palpable.

It looks as if you have spent so long here moaning about lockdown the rest of the world has passed you by.
The science is not secret. It`s there for anyone who wishes to see it in the data from the U.K. and Israel on opening up based on vaccination levels.

The science that is not there, or if it is it is a secret known only to you and a select few others rooftop shouters based on data of low numbers and low vaccination levels for opening up everything right away.

Don`t be selfish. Do tell please.

PTH2009

hynesie08 wrote: »

You, yesterday when the date was changed? Am I wrong?

But didn't it get changed back to the 24th May a few hours later ?