Reflection on the pandemic: questions about the authorities' response.

Totally agree and I think it was said at the time. NPHET should have been 1 part of a taskforce with SMEs from all relevant parties.

The government took on NPHET and Tony once (meaningful Xmas) and got burned. From that point on we were in a medical dictatorship.

Speed limits are based on evidence in particular urban speed limits. As far as I am aware the push for 30km/hr speed limits is based on scientific evidence. As far as I aware there is significant harm reduction if a pedestrian is hit a 30km/hr versus 50km/hr.

Going back to the substantial meal. You are basically admitting the decision was done on the basis of 0 scientific evidence even 2 years plus after the measure was introduced.

You have a hypothesis buts that all. It's up to you to provide the evidence to back up that hypothesis.

Personally I'd be of the opinion that once people were in relatively close proximity and in an enclosed space it made no serious difference if people were sitting down or mingling when it came to Covid. In practice you have to mingle in any restaurant or pub to get to the table/ go to the toilet, interact with staff etc.

Again working with unproven hypothesis early on in a pandemic is fair enough. You have no other information to work off. As time goes on its becomes less and less defensible. At some point you have to start testing assumptions and working off actual evidence.

Again NEPHT based a lot of their guidelines off educated guesswork and they made these decisions in good faith. NEPHT are and were not gods. Some of their assumptions were guaranteed to be wrong. However NEPHT didn't adapt as evidence in Ireland and other countries became available.

I don't why you insist on defending every detail of NEPHTs decision. Personally I'd be of the view that NEPHT made the best decisions they could at the time with the information they had available. Which is defence enough for their actions.

However with any reflection you have to look at how things could have been done better what worked and especially what didn't work. Certain decisions which may have been OK at the time may not be in hindsight. That's just the nature of reviews.

There needs to be an proper review of NEPHTs actions otherwise you leave the floor open for conspiracy theorists.

Seems to trigger people for some reason.

How highly infectious it is directly translates into how many such severe or fatal cases it causes.

A disease may be more severe than covid but if less infectious generate fewer such cases. We haven't had a global ebola pandemic.

So to state it is irrelevent demonstrates in your post a complete lack of understanding of infectious diseases.

When we balance that versus the actions of the experts of every major health authority in the world... the actions of experts responsible for such decisions speak louder than incorrect statements.

Definitions of 'safe' is a semantic rabbit hole.

There is a risk they may get covid and without previous vaccination or immunity they are more at risk of severe covid. It is for them to balance that decision at present because...

There have been changing circumstances since 'the beginning' - circumstances which you continually ignore when explained to you on the thread:

* Vaccinated people

* Omicron is less severe than the original strain

* People with natural immunity post infection

* Better treatments in hospital

The difference is when thousands of people get severe covid versus a small number, manageable by public health systems.

It is a numbers game and always has been.

And that's why every major health authority in the world responded as they did at 'the beginning'.

If you have evidence supply it. Post links etc.

Apologies I don't obsess over Covid and read every report and post on the forum. So if you have the scientific evidence to back up NEPHTs decision regarding the substantial meal post it.

Your point about 50km/hr is a strawman. If the meal that been 100 euro or even a million euro my point would not have changed.

You fail to understand that if you want people to obey restrictions people need to understand why and be able to bring people along with them. If a regulation sounds ridiculous it you can't expect people to obey it especially when implementing very tight restrictions on personal freedoms. Communication is just as important as the data behind decisions. Conspiracy theorists/scam artists are testament to that. 0 data but a very convincing story.

NEPHTs approach needs to be reviewed and critiqued. That's how scientific advances happen. I don't see why you get so defensive about basic questions.

If you make a claim it's up to you to provide the evidence.. The 2 link you provided are not evidence. One is just about the R number and another is HSE guidelines. Neither are evidence that back up your claim. Anything aserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Again it's over 2 years you should be able to back up your/NEPHTs hypothesis. It's not up to me to do your research. I also don't understand your obsession about the 9 euro meal that's just an example I picked, I can pick a whole host of regulations I didn't understand.

But my questions are what a review looks like it's exactly the type of question that needs to be asked. Why was X regulation introduced and whats the evidence behind it. NEPHT will be asked to justify their decision/process. Depending on the situation it'll be found NEPHT got in wrong at the time, right at time and wrong in hindsight, or correct, or a mixture of those options etc etc.

The 50km/hr to my knowledge is based on evidence however there is a push to reduce this to 30km/hr in urban areas again based on scientific evidence. There's a whole thread about it on the commuting and transport forum. Why exactly a certain number? That should be obvious round numbers are easy for people to remember and see on a car dashboard. Now again I have no evidence to back up my hypothesis but practical considerations are very important when it comes to safety. Something NEPHT I think forgot at times.

You asked for evidence. Scientific evidence is provided, and explanation is provided as to how the evidence relates to the scenario under discussion. That evidence is directly related as it contradicted your explanation of how you saw covid spreading in a pub \ restaurant - and the importance of duration of contact and distance. You refuse to engage with the evidence.

You have multiple times made claims about NPHET decisions and a lack of evidence or basis in science. You continue to repeat the falsehood that NPHET decided on the €9 meal. They did not. And you have provided exactly zero evidence to support your claims relating to this topic.

So, if you think that which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence... well you have dismissed your own claims.

According to this thread if the majority of people aren't adversely affected, that's all that matters anyway.

Why do you keep repeating the 9 euro bit I could not care less about the amount if it was 1 cent or 1 trillion euro it wouldn't alter my point.

You made a very specific claim. The link you supplied are not evidence to back up your specific claim. Neither were scientific papers or anything remotely similar. Don't get upset when you get called out.

Provide links to studies that shows eating a substantial meal in a pub/restaurant leads to a statically reduction in the spread of Covid when compared to those same people eating a meal that is not substantial. Remember you are making a specific claim it's up to you to support the very specific claim you are making with evidence. You've had 2 plus years to back up your very specific claim.

Personally if NEPHT came out and said we had no evidence but instead opted for a messy political compromise. I'd be happy with that. Again they were limited by what they could do at times. It would be far more honest than pretending to have scientific backing when they had none. It would also highlight some of the challenges they faced. At times there was no "good" option.

Its probable that if some people in NEPHT had their way pubs and restaurants would have never reopened in 2020 but political and social pressure forced some degree of reopening. The whole substantial meal looks like it was a messy compromise. Not ideal but it's defensible. It was similar I imagine for lots of other measures.

It's these questions we need to the review to answer.

You are free to dismiss what I said about the 50km/hr sure that's your strawman/whataboutism.

As I said before, make sure to ask your doctor about Covid threats and the 9 euro meai deal strategy :-) They were made fools of and they're all quietly furious with HSE & govmt.

 Meanwhile the IT is brazenly carrying articles about how will Pfizer be able to rebound post-Covid. That's like worrying about how this week's Lotto winner will cope if they don't win the jackpot again next week. LOL!

Yeah it was 90 minutes because the scientists were saying COVID spread in 15 minutes so obviously anything over 6X that amount is too dangerous

Ok I'll admit I don't see the logic there myself. What NPHET initially wanted was restaurants, not €9 meals which probably made more sense although still very questionable

Short answer. Safe for them, no, safe for society, yes. Also safer than it was pre-omicron for both

Long answer. They are more at risk of severe illness due to the lack of vaccine antibodies by comparison to a vaccinated person. Because we have 90%+ of our population vaccinated and the omicron variant is far milder than it once was they are unlikely to be hospitalized or cause somebody they come into contact with to be hospitalized. Presumably they also don't live in a nursing home or have recently been in hospital which according to the latest report will help them as well

Just bonkers that you think it's not safe for unvaccinated older people not to socialise.

The opposite is loneliness, isolation and misery.

Yet you still think its safer for them to stay at home. Bizarre thought process. Cold and chilling.

The 90 minutes thing was based on advice by professor Martin Cormican to do with close contact designation, although it is the average table turnover time in restaurants, so there's some logic to it.

Yes, the answer you invented him giving to the question is indeed chilling, good thing it's not what he said.