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

High risk underlying conditions, which was group 7 , was estimated at 300, 000 , but some of these were vaccinated with group 4 cohort ( very high risk) , by GPs , or with age based or healthcare worker groups before their group allocation , so it is only a rough figure .

This link describes it ...

RTE news : HSE correcting inaccurate roll-out category entries

http://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0512/1221083-virus-vaccine-rollout/

Unvaccinated are more likely to end up in hospital. So places allowing them in are putting pressure on our health system thus risking all our health if we need the health system.

Varadkar saying that an increase in socialisation is causing the increase in cases.

Isn't a large reason for getting the vaccine due to the fact that it's supposed to protect you and thus allow you to socialise more (and yes of course, protect others too)

Or does he expect vaccinated people to behave like they are not vaccinated at all?

It's very difficult to try and consistently do the right thing when the messaging from the powers that be is often so blurry and in many instances unrealistic too.

It is like they are saying normality is off the table indefinitely and you have two options.

1. Don't get vaccinated and accept a draconian lockdown.
2. Get vaccinated and you can live a less restrictive life but real normality is out of bounds (although we are now fearing the potential of further lockdowns anyway!)

This would be easier to accept if we had any idea what might allow us to resume our lives in a manner that was close to what they once were.

I know nobody can predict what will occur with a virus but it seems we are at best stuck with option 1 above unless the virus burns out in one way or another. MM was asked about what it would take to get us back to normal if the current vaccination rates didn't allow it and he just waffled on as usual.

Is there not a bit more to it than ‘cases are nothing but a measure of contacts between people’? What about level of infection in the population (Denmark and Norway suppressed infection effectively in the beginning so base level cases in the community were low, restricting spread with whatever level of socialising they did) - also the level, criteria and type of testing that make up official figures of each country?

According to that graph Norwegians suddenly got very social during August and September compared to their neighbours.

There’s definitely more behind our high case level than our being more social than other nationalities. Could be stage of wave, could be vaccines possibly not as effective as hoped at reducing transmission despite their effectiveness in reducing hospitalisations, could be proximity to UK, could be restrictions suppressing a possible higher level of natural immunity. Or a mix of a few things perhaps - unlikely to be because we are more social, which is disputable anyway.

What "67% effective" means is that for every 3 people who are unvaccinated, get infected, get symptoms, get tested positive, 1 vaccinated person will get infected, get symptoms, get tested positive. The common confusion on this board is that in almost all cases, whether vaccinated or not, people either don't get infected, or don't get symptoms, or don't get a test.

Because so few people both: 1) get infected, 2) get symptoms, 3) get tested positive, the absolute risk reduction that vaccines offer is in the region of 1%, not 67% (COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness—the elephant (not) in the room - The Lancet Microbe)

So the interesting thing here is, "67%" does account for getting infected, but only relative to unvaccinated people who get tested positive. "1%" effectiveness also accounts for getting infected, but relative to the population. Two ways of looking at the same thing.

I can't believe I'm hearing on our national broadcaster:

1) "Numbers may be going up because vaccines aren't as protective as we thought"

2) "A Covid cert may be needed to visit your GP"

How are science-deniers going to square this circle this week? The cognitive dissonance must be off the charts, after months of rabbiting the same defunct talking points.

If I need a Covid Cert' to go in to a public house surely then I should need one to use public transport?

10 days previous to this he was saying the virus was largely suppressed in the vaccinated. Did they not know people were going to move indoors in October? Last year when they bounced us into level 5 the numbers they predicted never materialised. They attributed this to “anticipatory behaviour”. Did they not predict increase socialisation in advance of opening up?

Some loon on newstalk advocating covid certs for everything. Every single thing.

We're heading for a lovely society altogether

Good to see NIAC talking a bit of sense here, unlike the gombeen politicians In Government trying to force through approval of a booster without sufficient evidence as to its need / justification.

How have we arrived at a point where NIAC are being lectured to in the media by senior politicians as to how to do their job? What scientific evidence do these politicians have that NIAC don’t have to justify their behaviour?

They are all of them out of their minds on the hype.

The more that these certs are used for, the harder they will be to gotten rid of.

And yes, for the posters that make the comparison to driving licences, they are the same. A licence to participate in society.

But licences can be withheld, expired or revoked.

Any idiots cheering this on should contemplate what type of society we are entering into.

So no reason for me not to go in to a place that is not checking certs then if I am vaccinated? (which every pub I go to is not doing)