Covid 19 Part XXXII-215,743 ROI (4,137 deaths)111,166 NI (2,036 deaths)(22/02)Read OP

Turtwig wrote: »

Lots of things are challenging to measure accurately. That's doesn't mean it can't be done. You have not read the research and just dismissed it offhand. Maybe there are silly assumptions made in it? Maybe not.

Vaccine research isn't black or white. Nothing is rarely binary.

It’s certainly black or white when compared to human psychology, but you know that already. I’d appreciate if you stopped replying to me now.

marno21 wrote: »

Feel weird typing this but Edwina Currie is correct here. We have to move on at some stage.

Claire's questioning was terrible. "So you're willing to accept people will die? " Absolute childish stuff. Of course people will die whenever any country opens up, just as they die with flu. Covid is not going anywhere anytime soon.

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Who? There are so many that would fit the criteria of that description.

Yes indeed !

mohawk wrote: »

My mind boggles reading this post. People are not robots. Some follow rules better than others. The restrictions should have taken into account human behaviour. It’s not the fault of the public that NPHET and the government are unable to do this.

This is a HIGHLY contagious virus. When restrictions lighten cases go up even when the rules are followed. Humans are social animals and social distancing and restrictions mean this social need is not being met. Therefore when cases go down restrictions ease off. Zoom etc are a poor substitute for a face to face conversation with a friend.

My mind boggles also. I presume thats another
Kermit.de.frog account?

Renault 5 wrote: »

In sticking to The start of March as agreed in Jan.

Doesn’t matter if they publish dates in the future or not as we have seen that they are to be taken with a pinch of salt.

I’m in Kildare. From March I will get out to the beach, up the mountains, to supermarkets that I always liked that I don’t have local, ring around services I require like a landscaper who is will to take on work.

If places are closed, so be it. I will move on.

What others do is up to them, I used to judge others for breaking restrictions but now I understand why most do.

If the Government provide actual logical reasoning behind their decisions I’m all ears but as of today they are not even singing from the same hymn sheet.

I've been going where I want anyway but I still can't work until mid summer so it's a bit **** to say the least

manofwisdom wrote: »

My mind boggles also. I presume thats another
Kermit.de.frog account?

de frog has cloned himself so much at this stage, he’s turned into Dolly the sheep.

podgeandrodge wrote: »

Here ya go lads...

1. Phase 1 (18 May)
2. Phase 2 (8 June)
3. Phase 3 (29 June)
4. Phase 4 (20 July)
5. Phase 5 (10 August)

The government has this evening published a Roadmap for Reopening Society and Business to ease the COVID-19 restrictions and reopen Ireland’s economy and society in a phased manner.


The roadmap will start from 18 May, from which point our country will reopen in a slow, phased way. The plan sets out five stages for unlocking restrictions, at three week intervals. As we ease restrictions, the rate of the virus in the community will be constantly monitored by the National Public Health Emergency Team and the government.

The framework sets out how we can keep the level of transmission as low as possible while balancing continuing restrictions proportionately with the positive social and economic benefits which will be brought about by lifting restrictions.


Oops, sorry, last year. Oh how plans go...

Ahh, you got me there

Tyrone212 wrote: »

I'm not a behavioural Scientist but surely it would make sense to give people something to aim for. I'm not a fan of dates, I would rather if they gave a target for x amount of cases before opening something up. That way the population is incentivised and has a goal in mind. Or even dates if the numbers allow that to happen.

Shared goals and objectives is pretty much the way this should be done. The situation is too dynamic to to go via exact dates. Trouble is this government seem to think setting unrealistic expectations over and over again is a perfectly reasonable communication strategy.

I'm digging for the tweet, but a reporter claimed that the lifting of restrictions would be linked to vaccines administered.

https://twitter.com/christinafinn8/status/1363978596939952130?s=20

Updated Living with Covid Plan will not include indicative dates like U.K. plan today, will focus heavily on vaccine roll out.

Govt sources stating March/ into April will remain difficult

stephenjmcd wrote: »

The one bit in the Independent that annoys me,

"But sources in Government Buildings insisted the Irish plan will not contain dates as research shows compliance with restrictions drops when dates are given"

Talk about treating people with disdain, give us something to aim for

I really can't see the benefit of setting dates. They don't have a crystal ball and whatever about the spread of the virus, people's behaviour is definitely unpredictable.


Saying W positivity, X cases, Y hospitalisations, Z ICUs would seem like an easier thing to work towards, and people might feel they were working together towards an end goal. There would still of course be some people claiming "Oh, the gov't are holding back/miscounting/faking numbers so they get to stay on TV", but most people would have some cop on.

Ficheall wrote: »

I really can't see the benefit of setting dates. They don't have a crystal ball and whatever about the spread of the virus, people's behaviour is definitely unpredictable.

They could always say "we'll open x by *a date*", if the situation allows it. In December the situation didn't really allow all the opening, but the government had more or less committed to opening, so they didn't have much choice.

But to me, it seems a bit pointless to go with set dates or set case numbers/hospitalisation numbers - the restrictions are unlikely to be relaxed until the situation is good enough. So the end result is going to be pretty much the same, and will be heavily influenced by the number of vaccinations done.

Polar101 wrote: »

They could always say "we'll open x by *a date*", if the situation allows it. In December the situation didn't really allow all the opening, but the government had more or less committed to opening, so they didn't have much choice.

But to me, it seems a bit pointless to go with set dates or set case numbers/hospitalisation numbers - the restrictions are unlikely to be relaxed until the situation is good enough. So the end result is going to be pretty much the same, and will be heavily influenced by the number of vaccinations done.

I agree that fixed dates in and of themselves are not the best move, especially when you set them for the likes of hospitality who are dependent on being provided with accurate dates for reopening. In the UK if dates end up being later than the 'earliest dates for reopening' for that sector, that could cost businesses millions.

However, they need to communicate to the public the key performance indicators and metrics for a phased reopening, and say what happens as part of this , for example: saying something along the lines of:

1. 'If hospitalisations, numbers in ICU, positivity rate in the community etc. remain below X for Y number of weeks, we can reopen A,B and C with following provisions'

Or if it's tied into vaccine progress, something like

2. 'By the time all of group n have received their first dose and allowing for x days interval from hitting this target to allow for sufficient protection to this cohort , sectors A and B may gradually start to reopen/ activities X, Y and Z may recommence' and so on, providing the relevant detail if there are limits on capacity etc.

It perhaps will be a hybrid of both of the above.

Surely it is not beyond credibility that the government can offer us something similar to the above by way of communication. They will have to be upfront with strategy and key metrics/targets for reopening at some stage. That gives something for people and businesses to aspire to and also would keep the government and taskforce with something to push on with I.E. so we keep up the pace. If we receive more vaccines in April than is expected this could help accelerate the plan's progression.

I also think the government needs to start the rollout of rapid antigen testing kits in certain sectors as soon as possible. They can be used as a tool for 'living with Covid' and we simply can't PCR test everyone all the time, but we can combine antigen testing with PCR testing. A lot of US-based scientists are now calling for their government to rollout antigen testing.

Tough to listen to BBC breakfast this morning with their opening up plans, sounds like a return so some normality very very soon.
Funny though some of Johnson's own Mp's saying its too slow and needs to open up quicker, just proves you'll never keep everyone happy