# Easing of Restrictions from 10th May



## odyssey06

Inter county travel ban is to be lifted on 10 May under plans agreed by the Cabinet Committee on Covid-19 tonight.
Three households can also meet up outside from 10 May.

Places of worship - 50 attendees permitted at normal services, as well as funerals and weddings.
However, six people can only attend the wedding reception indoors or 15 outdoors. This will increase to 25 in June.

House viewings in person will also resume on 10 May, as will driving tests.

*Construction:*
Full construction work will open earlier than most industries on 4 May, having been partially reopened in recent weeks.

*Retail:*
On 10 May, hairdressers, barbers and salons are due to reopen, as is click and collect shopping.
Full retail will resume on 17 May.

*Hospitality to re-open from June:*
_The Journal_ has learned that among the major changes, is the reopening of outdoor dining and beer gardens on 7 June, after the bank holiday weekend.
There will be no distinction between restaurants, pubs or other food outlets and the €9 meal measure will not return.
Hotels and B&Bs can reopen on 2 June and will be permitted to serve residents indoors it is understood.
There is no fixed date for indoor dining, but it is set to be some time in July.

*Gyms and Sports Matches:*
Gyms and swimming pools will reopen their doors on 7 June, but will not be permitted to hold classes – it will be individual training only.
On that day too sports matches will resume but no crowds will be allowed to attend









						Hairdressers and inter-county travel due to reopen on 10 May, while beer gardens and outdoor dining set for 7 June
					

Government will give a detailed roadmap today after a full Cabinet meeting.




					www.thejournal.ie


----------



## EasilyAmused

odyssey06 said:


> Inter county travel ban is to be lifted on 10 May under plans agreed by the Cabinet Committee on Covid-19 tonight.
> Three households can also meet up outside from 10 May.
> 
> Places of worship - 50 attendees permitted at normal services, as well as funerals and weddings.
> However, six people can only attend the wedding reception indoors or 15 outdoors. This will increase to 25 in June.
> 
> House viewings in person will also resume on 10 May, as will driving tests.
> 
> *Construction:*
> Full construction work will open earlier than most industries on 4 May, having been partially reopened in recent weeks.
> 
> *Retail:*
> On 10 May, hairdressers, barbers and salons are due to reopen, as is click and collect shopping.
> Full retail will resume on 17 May.
> 
> *Hospitality to re-open from June:*
> _The Journal_ has learned that among the major changes, is the reopening of outdoor dining and beer gardens on 7 June, after the bank holiday weekend.
> There will be no distinction between restaurants, pubs or other food outlets and the €9 meal measure will not return.
> Hotels and B&Bs can reopen on 2 June and will be permitted to serve residents indoors it is understood.
> There is no fixed date for indoor dining, but it is set to be some time in July.
> 
> *Gyms and Sports Matches:*
> Gyms and swimming pools will reopen their doors on 7 June, but will not be permitted to hold classes – it will be individual training only.
> On that day too sports matches will resume but no crowds will be allowed to attend
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hairdressers and inter-county travel due to reopen on 10 May, while beer gardens and outdoor dining set for 7 June
> 
> 
> Government will give a detailed roadmap today after a full Cabinet meeting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thejournal.ie



Lots of kites flying, eh?  I don't think the official announcement will be made 'til 6pm today. Best wait 'til then.



odyssey06 said:


> Inter county travel ban is to be lifted on 10 May under plans agreed by the Cabinet Committee on Covid-19 tonight.



But, may as well get tongues wagging by saying that according to the Cork Examiner this ban will be lifted for the vaccinated only.


----------



## odyssey06

I thought this was the official announcement in the age of Twitter!

If anyone spots discrepancies between what's been announced in the media today versus officially confirmed please post here so I can correct.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

odyssey06 said:


> I thought this was the official announcement in the age of Twitter!
> 
> If anyone spots discrepancies between what's been announced in the media today versus officially confirmed please post here so I can correct.


Everything you posted is fine and matches up to other outlets .
The only thing different might be if the passport office will reopen as there is 90k backlog.


----------



## EasilyAmused

I'm seeing "set to approve" and "to sign off" on some reputable Irish news apps.


----------



## EasilyAmused

Paul O Mahoney said:


> The only thing different might be if the passport office will reopen as there is 90k backlog.



I assume this backlog is with non-online applications?
I read a poster on Boards or maybe here where an online applicant got their passport the following day


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

EasilyAmused said:


> I'm seeing "set to approve" and "to sign off" on some reputable Irish news apps.


The parliamentary parties have been told what's going to be announced, the news apps caveats are irrelevant.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

EasilyAmused said:


> I assume this backlog is with non-online applications?
> I read a poster on Boards or maybe here where an online applicant got their passport the following day


Dunno


----------



## Leo

Paul O Mahoney said:


> The only thing different might be if the passport office will reopen as there is 90k backlog.



Once we're out of level 5 they will start again.


----------



## Leo

Paul O Mahoney said:


> Dunno


Others here have reported renewals being processed within days.


----------



## EasilyAmused

EasilyAmused said:


> I read a poster on Boards or maybe here where an online applicant got their passport the following day



Here it is:





__





						Passport application delays
					

Just because we cannot travel at this point in time does not mean that we should not be able to renew our passports.  I feel your pain. I’m in a similar position as I’m trying to get a passport for our youngest in good time for any possible escape later this year when things calm down.  One...



					www.askaboutmoney.com


----------



## RedOnion

Leo said:


> Once we're out of level 5 they will start again.


According to some news outlets there's a proposal being put forward by Simon Coveney today to reclassify it as an essential service so that it can resume.


----------



## Leo

RedOnion said:


> According to some news outlets there's a proposal being put forward by Simon Coveney today to reclassify it as an essential service so that it can resume.


That makes sense, it seems to have been an internal decision rather than government policy that led to their reduced service.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

EasilyAmused said:


> Here it is:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Passport application delays
> 
> 
> Just because we cannot travel at this point in time does not mean that we should not be able to renew our passports.  I feel your pain. I’m in a similar position as I’m trying to get a passport for our youngest in good time for any possible escape later this year when things calm down.  One...
> 
> 
> 
> www.askaboutmoney.com


Thanks


----------



## EasilyAmused

Roisin Shorthall on Prime Time is very wary and says, “Covid is airborne”. What a fool.


----------



## joe sod

Why have they surprised everyone by actually opening everything much faster now, what has suddenly changed ?
The minister said that nphet gave a much more positive assessment this time , I doubt it sure Tony holohan was trying to add more countries to the mandatory hotel quarantine a few days ago only to be rejected by government.
Also havn't heard much from nphet only what the government said what nphet said.
I think in reality the government realised that people had moved on especially after last weekend, the UK and North are opening substantially and also the economic stresses of continued lockdowns is really weighing now. They need to get people off PUP and back to work as quickly as possible now


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

joe sod said:


> Why have they surprised everyone by actually opening everything much faster now, what has suddenly changed ?
> The minister said that nphet gave a much more positive assessment this time , I doubt it sure Tony holohan was trying to add more countries to the mandatory hotel quarantine a few days ago only to be rejected by government.
> Also havn't heard much from nphet only what the government said what nphet said.
> I think in reality the government realised that people had moved on especially after last weekend, the UK and North are opening substantially and also the economic stresses of continued lockdowns is really weighing now. They need to get people off PUP and back to work as quickly as possible now


You sound disappointed Joe , the main change is 1.5m vaccines administered and the elderly and vulnerable protected and are now planning to vaccinate the population from 50.
It's been pointed out numerous times that Nphet advise the Government with data and recommendations and the Government makes decisions on that advice and that hasn't changed. 

While there are economic consequences from the effect of covid the revenue/tax  figures especially for income tax has remained robust obviously our spending has significantly increased in order to allow people to eat and take care of their families, PUP will be in place for a minimum of 2 months and there maybe a case to extend it further depending on the easing of restrictions goes.

I doubt very much what is happening in the UK or Northern Ireland was a major factor in the decision making .

You may as well resign yourself Joe to the fact that the reasons why restrictions have been eased now is down to people in general complying to restrictions and getting the vaccine into people even with the difficulties encountered and sometimes baffling announcements.

"Abundance of caution " has been replaced Joe with " Abundance of Hope"


----------



## EasilyAmused

joe sod said:


> I think in reality the government realised that people had moved on especially after last weekend,



I agree with you. As far as I can see people have moved on an are following their own rules rather then the official guidelines.

My son is cranky that he can’t go on play dates whereas many of his friends have had regular play dates in recent weeks.

I did allow him attend a kids birthday party on Tuesday. It was in a park next to the school. There were about a dozen households represented.

The week after the Easter holidays I noticed  a neighbouring family not around. They were back the following week, overheard him saying to someone “but we had negative tests, so it was OK”, and she’s had hair straightened.

Then, of course, there are my neighbouring house extensions which continued all through Lockdown Three.

And that’s just local to me.

All through Lockdown Three (until the lifting of the 5km limit) the Gardai have had a well advertised 24 hour Covid checkpoint outside the Commons Bar on the N20. 
Meanwhile there’s been a constant stream of cars on the Old Mallow Road and Redforge Road looping around the checkpoint. 

As far as I can see the Government are following the public.


----------



## joe sod

@Paul O Mahoney no I am happy that we are opening up , it's just the sudden change in tone and its unexpectedness judging from what they have been saying only a few days ago. I think nphet have been taken off the stage now and are now as you say back to advising the government. But I think it's all orchestrated too and the media are playing the game , something changed at a high level that made them completely change tact suddenly.

It's like that episode in Fr Ted where Ted kicks bishop Brennan up the ass and then pretends he didn't do it, and convinces bishop Brennan that he didn't do it because doing so would be so outlandish for Ted.


----------



## Laughahalla

Reminds me a bit of Mayor Harry Vaughn in Jaws keeping the beaches open in Amity Island to save the summer trade.


----------



## EasilyAmused

Maybe Arlene Foster’s departure has given them all a lift in Leinster House. 
Even Michelle O’Neill has scraped back a few millimetres of makeup.

All jokes aside though, I was very surprised to hear Catherine Martin talking about indoor live music gigs.


----------



## EasilyAmused

Anyone watch that Indian doctor on Prime Time? The male doctor?

He was on a Zoom call from India. He’s fully vaccinated but has tested positive for Coronavirus. He’s asymptomatic and is on day three of a ten day quarantine.


----------



## odyssey06

EasilyAmused said:


> Anyone watch that Indian doctor on Prime Time? The male doctor?
> 
> He was on a Zoom call from India. He’s fully vaccinated but has tested positive for Coronavirus. He’s asymptomatic and is on day three of a ten day quarantine.


That seems an abundance of caution. The situation in India seems to have gotten out of control very quickly and its now grave... I think it really deserves its own discussion topic.


----------



## demoivre

EasilyAmused said:


> I agree with you. As far as I can see people have moved on an are following their own rules rather then the official guidelines.
> 
> My son is cranky that he can’t go on play dates whereas many of his friends have had regular play dates in recent weeks.
> 
> I did allow him attend a kids birthday party on Tuesday. It was in a park next to the school. There were about a dozen households represented.
> 
> The week after the Easter holidays I noticed  a neighbouring family not around. They were back the following week, overheard him saying to someone “but we had negative tests, so it was OK”, and she’s had hair straightened.
> 
> Then, of course, there are my neighbouring house extensions which continued all through Lockdown Three.
> 
> *And that’s just local to me.*
> 
> All through Lockdown Three (until the lifting of the 5km limit) the Gardai have had a well advertised 24 hour Covid checkpoint outside the Commons Bar on the N20.
> Meanwhile there’s been a constant stream of cars on the Old Mallow Road and Redforge Road looping around the checkpoint.
> 
> *As far as I can see the Government are following the public.*




I've  seen widespread non compliance also but it's countrywide imo. I have adult kids/ family/ friends in different parts of the country.

The 5k rule was widely ignored when it was in force.

There were as many D reg cars on the Hook peninsula in Wexford last weekend as I've seen at any time pre Covid . It will be the same this weekend I'd imagine.

The meet ups and the booze ups, especially amongst the younger generation never stopped.

Last two funerals near me saw about 150 in the cemetery at one and over 400 at the other ( 18 yo in tragic circumstances) Aware of several other funerals where numbers in the graveyard way exceeded the limit.

Some  hairdressers and barbers continue to operate locally and I know that to be the case from friends / family in other parts of the country. Beauticians too !

Free Home STI test kits were suspended in January due to inability to cope with demand.

I could go on.


----------



## demoivre

EasilyAmused said:


> Anyone watch that Indian doctor on Prime Time? The male doctor?
> 
> He was on a Zoom call from India. He’s fully vaccinated but has tested positive for Coronavirus. He’s asymptomatic and is on day three of a ten day quarantine.



I didn't see it but what was his point ? As far as I can see the vaccine worked as intended in his case ie he isn't ill ( yet anyway)  even though he's tested positive to sars cov2 . The vaccines don't stop you contracting sars cov2.


----------



## odyssey06

demoivre said:


> I've  seen widespread non compliance also but it's countrywide imo. I have adult kids/ family/ friends in different parts of the country.
> 
> The 5k rule was widely ignored when it was in force.
> 
> There were as many D reg cars on the Hook peninsula in Wexford last weekend as I've seen at any time pre Covid . It will be the same this weekend I'd imagine.


For my locality Dublin Bay North there was a huge surge in traffic around Howth & Clontarf after the 5 km limit was lifted.
I understand similar in Malahide and Donabate.
It did suggest significant numbers were observing the 5 km limit.
But there were a lot of Garda checkpoints in the Dublin 3 and Dublin 5 area.


----------



## Purple

demoivre said:


> I've  seen widespread non compliance also but it's countrywide imo. I have adult kids/ family/ friends in different parts of the country.
> 
> The 5k rule was widely ignored when it was in force.
> 
> There were as many D reg cars on the Hook peninsula in Wexford last weekend as I've seen at any time pre Covid . It will be the same this weekend I'd imagine.
> 
> The meet ups and the booze ups, especially amongst the younger generation never stopped.
> 
> Last two funerals near me saw about 150 in the cemetery at one and over 400 at the other ( 18 yo in tragic circumstances) Aware of several other funerals where numbers in the graveyard way exceeded the limit.
> 
> Some  hairdressers and barbers continue to operate locally and I know that to be the case from friends / family in other parts of the country. Beauticians too !
> 
> Free Home STI test kits were suspended in January due to inability to cope with demand.
> 
> I could go on.


There are D reg cars owned all over the country so that doesn't necessarily mean the people in Hook are from Dublin, though many probably are.
Given the very low risk of transmission outdoors I really don't have a problem with young people meeting up in Parks, people going for walks in the countryside etc. 

Hairdressers doing house calls, meeting up indoors etc are high risk activities.


----------



## Purple

demoivre said:


> he vaccines don't stop you contracting sars cov2.


Yes, but they greatly reduce the chance of you getting infected by it to an extent that you have a sufficient viral load to pass it on, even if you are exposed to it.
Vaccines which result in 'sterilizing immunity', blocking the virus from ever getting into our cells in the first place, are extremely rare.


----------



## EasilyAmused

odyssey06 said:


> That seems an abundance of caution. The situation in India seems to have gotten out of control very quickly and its now grave... I think it really deserves its own discussion topic.



I might watch it again later, just his interview.
I’m going to theorise here. Apologies in advance to anyone that doesn’t like assumptions.

He didn’t say what vaccine he got but I can assume that it’s a vaccine based on the parent strain that was prevalent in early-mid 2020.
B1617, the Indian double variant is running riot through the country. I assume that this is the one he’s contracted. His vaccine is protecting him: he’s not dying, he’s not seriously ill, hors not even
he’s just asymptomatic. However, he’s Covid positive therefore he’s infectious and he must quarantine.

Like Leo said last night, Covid-19 is likely to be with us forever.
When the entire planet is vaxxed it’ll be benign.
I still expect life to go back to normal by the  Autumn. I expect we’ll have many more waves of Covid-19 and a few surges, but no more lockdowns.
People will no longer get seriously ill due to herd immunity via vaccination. Masks will be with us for years to come. Positive cases will be the norm but they’ll just self-isolate.

To put it succinctly, vaccines will stop the pandemic and stop the lockdowns. They won’t stop the Coronavirus.


----------



## Sunny

Friends of mine let their child go and get his haircut 'because they are all doing it'. The boy himself, two siblings, both parents, an Aunt and two cousins have now tested positive on the back of it. (Yes they broke the meeting up rules as well). Some of them are pretty sick. There is still a sense of 'It Won't happen to us' out there. I certainly haven't adhered to every restriction religiously so not going to judge anyone apart people taking ridiculous risks like parties but people still need to be careful.


----------



## EasilyAmused

demoivre said:


> I didn't see it but what was his point ? As far as I can see the vaccine worked as intended in his case ie he isn't ill ( yet anyway)  even though he's tested positive to sars cov2 . The vaccines don't stop you contracting sars cov2.



It’s just something he said in passing. His point was nothing to do with him. He was talking about what happening in India.

I just thought it was worth pointing out because a lot of people think that the vaccines are a silver bullet. They’re just a very important arrow in the quiver.


----------



## EasilyAmused

Sunny said:


> Friends of mine let their child go and get his haircut 'because they are all doing it'.



The teenage son of a colleague of my wife got sick of his growing hair during Lockdown One so he bought himself hair clippers. Apparently, ever since he’s been making a fortune cutting the hair of family/friends/neighbours, €5 a pop. 
Even started paying home tax. His mother’s delighted.


----------



## Leo

EasilyAmused said:


> He was on a Zoom call from India. He’s fully vaccinated but has tested positive for Coronavirus.



That's hardly a surprise at this stage?


----------



## EasilyAmused

A timely reminder that restrictions have been eased but not lifted:









						More than 120 revellers defy court order to attend wedding party in Longford
					

More than 120 revellers defied a court order tonight by attending a wedding after party in Longford.




					m.independent.ie


----------



## noproblem

EasilyAmused said:


> A timely reminder that restrictions have been eased but not lifted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than 120 revellers defy court order to attend wedding party in Longford
> 
> 
> More than 120 revellers defied a court order tonight by attending a wedding after party in Longford.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> m.independent.ie


Just watched this on the 9 O' Clock news tonight. I know if it was my family we would all have been arrested along with the other family and everything would have been forcibly stopped. Can't believe it went ahead and was allowed to go ahead. Absolutely ridiculous laugh made of the law by the people involved


----------



## demoivre

Purple said:


> Yes, but they greatly reduce the chance of you getting infected by it to an extent that you have a sufficient viral load to pass it on, even if you are exposed to it.


Is there definitive evidence of that ? As a healthy, fit man with no underlying conditions the only appeal of the vaccines to me is that they might prevent transmission of sar cov2. I don't and never did have the slightest concern about contracting sars cov2 in terms of my own health.


----------



## Purple

demoivre said:


> Is there definitive evidence of that ? As a healthy, fit man with no underlying conditions the only appeal of the vaccines to me is that they might prevent transmission of sar cov2. I don't and never did have the slightest concern about contracting sars cov2 in terms of my own health.


I'm of a similar mindset. This suggests that vaccinations reduce transmissibility and while the Studies are all early stage logic suggest that a lower viral load should lead to lower rates of transmission.


----------



## demoivre

noproblem said:


> Just watched this on the 9 O' Clock news tonight. I know if it was my family we would all have been arrested along with the other family and everything would have been forcibly stopped. Can't believe it went ahead and was allowed to go ahead. Absolutely ridiculous laugh made of the law by the people involved


Yeah it's laughable but entirely predictable.  Breaches of the restrictions are widespread anyway though. Huge amount of tourist traffic in South Wexford  last weekend again and any amount of house parties going on last Sunday night.


----------



## EasilyAmused

demoivre said:


> Is there definitive evidence of that ? As a healthy, fit man with no underlying conditions the only appeal of the vaccines to me is that they might prevent transmission of sar cov2. I don't and never did have the slightest concern about contracting sars cov2 in terms of my own health.



My understanding is that the vaccine will prevent you of dying or getting seriously ill.

The vaccine will also *reduce* though not eliminate your chances of transmitting the virus to others. 

However, the vaccines we have at present are based on the parent strain of Covid-19 which was widespread in spring 2020. 
The transmissibility of B117, B1617, P1, et cetera is at or close to normal levels.

This is my understanding of it all.[/B]


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Purple said:


> I'm of a similar mindset. This suggests that vaccinations reduce transmissibility and while the Studies are all early stage logic suggest that a lower viral load should lead to lower rates of transmission.


As your link says they are still trying to find out , but small studies not just in the UK have shown reduced transmission by varying percentages. 
I would say that over the Summer into Autumn there will be more emphasis on this as we will be heading back into the "season " but even if it was a 50% reduction in transmission that would be better than 0.
I still hold the view that it will be years before every aspect of this virus and its variants is known and all we can do now is suppress it with vaccines.


----------



## odyssey06

Hotels, B&Bs, hostels, guesthouses and other tourism accommodation are now permitted to reopen.
Indoor hotel bars and restaurants, along with leisure facilities, can also resume for overnight guests only. 









						Hotels, B&Bs and guesthouses can reopen from today
					

Indoor dining and leisure facilities at hotels are also permitted to reopen for guests.




					www.thejournal.ie


----------



## odyssey06

Planned opening of indoor dining on July 5th has been delayed due to Delta variant concerns.
Possibility that indoor dining will re-open initially to the fully vaccinated.

*Hospitality sector will be hoping the weather stays good to encourage people to socialise outdoors 









						Taoiseach: 'Safest way' to return to indoor hospitality is to limit access to those vaccinated or recovered from Covid
					

The reopening was planned for 5 July but is to be delayed for at least two weeks.




					www.thejournal.ie


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

odyssey06 said:


> Planned opening of indoor dining on July 5th has been delayed due to Delta variant concerns.
> Possibility that indoor dining will re-open initially to the fully vaccinated.
> 
> *Hospitality sector will be hoping the weather stays good to encourage people to socialise outdoors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taoiseach: 'Safest way' to return to indoor hospitality is to limit access to those vaccinated or recovered from Covid
> 
> 
> The reopening was planned for 5 July but is to be delayed for at least two weeks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thejournal.ie


Hospitality sector will not be positive in anyway with the proposals,  and if it rains and it will we will probably have them on the TV asking Met Eireann for the data on how it rained and why couldn't the clouds be "quarantined " for a few months.

I do have sympathy for them but Jaysus they do play the poor mouth well.

I went for a pint Sunday evening and I'll guarantee that the amount of people outside were far in excess of what could have fitted into the entire pub in normal times.


----------



## joe sod

odyssey06 said:


> Planned opening of indoor dining on July 5th has been delayed due to Delta variant concerns.
> Possibility that indoor dining will re-open initially to the fully vaccinated.


looks like major controversy over this decision, discriminating against young people who are not vaccinated will not be accepted. I don't think the government will be able to hold the line on this for much longer especially based on dubious nphet modelling completely at odds with whats happening internationally


----------



## Prosper

joe sod said:


> discriminating against young people who are not vaccinated will not be accepted


I don't think there's any chance the authorities will actually rule that restaurants, pubs etc can open to indoor customers but only for those fully vaccinated or who have had Covid because many of these businesses will not ask people to prove they are in this cohort. It's unpoliceable.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Prosper said:


> I don't think there's any chance the authorities will actually rule that restaurants, pubs etc can open to indoor customers but only for those fully vaccinated or who have had Covid because many of these businesses will not ask people to prove they are in this cohort. It's unpoliceable.


Exactly, but the debate is going to be hilarious.


----------



## Clamball

We will follow the UK & NI numbers of cases if we re-open indoor dining.  Who wants 2K extra deaths?  I am surprised at the number but it is pure math based on the facts, not guesses or prediction.  Our death rate is pretty high already.  2% of cases currently are ending up in hospital.  Denmark are open for fully vaccinated people to dine indoors, Ireland would not be unusual in going in that direction.

 Currently it is a race, getting people vaccinated versus the delta wave taking off.  The restaurant and pub lobby are very powerful and fill the radio waves.  But no one hears the 19 yr old server who is on minimum wage afraid to work because they are unvaccinated.  Most staff are unvaccinated due to their age group.  And they are pushing hard to vaccinate, I had a co-worker yesterday say that she is getting the second Pfizer dose after 3 weeks not 4.   But we are still less vaccinated than the UK and they had 20K cases yesterday so it is back to the maths.

The most optimistic Nepht model is 82K cases between 1 July & 30 Sept, 1530 hospitalised and 250 deaths (most over 40 yr old).  Worst case model is touching 20K cases a day by mid September.  

And despite wanting to open up indoors fully we are in a worse position than UK with regards to fully vaccinated and if we compare ourselves to Denmark their numbers are declining and ours are static.  That have had more cases than us but 2K fewer deaths, we are not in a good position compared to them.

The modelling team in NEPHT have access to a lot more data and nuanced interpretation than I have, but it is clear it is all based on maths, not wishful thinking, or doomsday predictions.  Our health system is not robust to pandemics and we are stuck in the middle of one.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Clamball said:


> if we compare ourselves to Denmark their numbers are declining and ours are static.That have had more cases than us but 2K fewer deaths, we are not in a good position compared to them.
> 
> The modelling team in NEPHT have access to a lot more data and nuanced interpretation than I have, but it is clear it is all based on maths, not wishful thinking, or doomsday predictions.  Our health system is not robust to pandemics and we are stuck in the middle of one.


Ok just some figures versus Denmark,  you are correct on deaths, but every other metric is almost identical, 1st doses (62.4 v 63.5% , and fully vaccinated (35.6%).  Denmark has received about 400,000 more vaccines than us but I don't think that's a huge factor. 

The big hole in our data is deaths, Denmark's 7 day is 0, ours on the 11th of May was 3 but we haven't had any updates since , its probably reasonable to assume there has been some improvement?

I think the problem here is that NPHET gave the worst and best case scenarios and the worst case frightened the pants of many ministers and as you say the amount of data that they have is far more than we have.

We all appreciate that modelling isn't easy or in fact is 100% accurate but if actual and forecasted results were within 95% significance the figures produced would be stark in the worst case scenario. 

Modelling for something like a virus where minute changes have huge effects is even more difficult and perhaps some input variables aren't quantifiable and assumptions aren't accurate. 

So, I think that an independent review now would be a good idea. We know for example that vaccines appear to weaken the link between cases and hospitalisation to what extent is a question. We still don't really know what exactly the transmission rate of the Delta variant actually is and these unknowns will affect modelling outcomes.

I don't know how many scenarios they run but if its only 3 that's not enough they might run more and average out to 3 but that has issues too.

Either way the public now need absolute assurance that the modelling is of the highest level possible.


----------



## Bluefin

As someone who's fully vaccinated (pfizer) I will not support any bar or rest. that discriminates against young people who put their life's on hold for the last 15 months to protect 'auld' fellas like me. Its completely wrong and needs to be legally challenged. Hopefully the high court case next week goes in favour of the rest. organisation.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Bluefin said:


> As someone who's fully vaccinated (pfizer) I will not support any bar or rest. that discriminates against young people who put their life's on hold for the last 15 months to protect 'auld' fellas like me. Its completely wrong and needs to be legally challenged. Hopefully the high court case next week goes in favour of the rest. organisation.


But are you not adding to their plight by not being a customer.? 

Have they really "put their lives on hold" though, I think there is a lot of emotive language banded about by all sides and it doesn't help any argument. 

Obviously it's your choice to do as you think is right.


----------



## odyssey06

Prosper said:


> I don't think there's any chance the authorities will actually rule that restaurants, pubs etc can open to indoor customers but only for those fully vaccinated or who have had Covid because many of these businesses will not ask people to prove they are in this cohort. It's unpoliceable.


I find it strange that restaurants and pubs have no problem with discriminating against 17 year olds every day, but this to them crosses some sort of moral boundary?

Now on practical grounds, we don't have the equivalent level of docs to support the certification, so on those grounds I don't see it as workable and objectsions on that grounds are reasonable.

Otherwise, most of the howls about in the media are just embarrassing.
They discriminate and police matters like this all the time when it comes to age.
They are actually supposed to do it too when it comes to serving intoxicated people, but most seem to laugh at that idea too.

I have no objections to this on any moral grounds or grounds of fairness. 
If unvaccinated people want to socialise, they can. They are younger sorts too who can stand it better 
They haven't had the equivalent of a sword of damocles hanging over their heads like the highly vulnerable for the last year.

Allowing fully vaccinated indoors, and everyone else outdoors, would allow the pub or restaurant to make better use of their space, staff, kitchens etc and make more money. Which I thought was something they'd want to do. Guess not.

IF indoors dining isn't opened sooner to vaccinated people, it will be longer than that to open for everyone. I don't see who that helps.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

odyssey06 said:


> I find it strange that restaurants and pubs have no problem with discriminating against 17 year olds every day, but this to them crosses some sort of moral boundary?
> 
> Now on practical grounds, we don't have the equivalent level of docs to support the certification, so on those grounds I don't see it as workable and objectsions on that grounds are reasonable.
> 
> Otherwise, most of the howls about in the media are just embarrassing.
> They discriminate and police matters like this all the time when it comes to age.
> They are actually supposed to do it too when it comes to serving intoxicated people, but most seem to laugh at that idea too.
> 
> I have no objections to this on any moral grounds or grounds of fairness.
> If unvaccinated people want to socialise, they can. They are younger sorts too who can stand it better
> They haven't had the equivalent of a sword of damocles hanging over their heads like the highly vulnerable for the last year.
> 
> Allowing fully vaccinated indoors, and everyone else outdoors, would allow the pub or restaurant to make better use of their space, staff, kitchens etc and make more money. Which I thought was something they'd want to do. Guess not.
> 
> IF indoors dining isn't opened sooner to vaccinated people, it will be longer than that to open for everyone. I don't see who that helps.


The vintiners and restaurant associations simply went on the attack immediately because they knew it would get media attention and deflect from their practices that as you say discriminate daily on age, appearance and any other thing they can make up.

There is a solution that isn't 100% what they want but as you say would be better their businesses .

Ok, the implementation might be a bit tricky but that would be only for a time.


----------



## Sunny

odyssey06 said:


> I find it strange that restaurants and pubs have no problem with discriminating against 17 year olds every day, but this to them crosses some sort of moral boundary?
> 
> Now on practical grounds, we don't have the equivalent level of docs to support the certification, so on those grounds I don't see it as workable and objectsions on that grounds are reasonable.
> 
> Otherwise, most of the howls about in the media are just embarrassing.
> They discriminate and police matters like this all the time when it comes to age.
> They are actually supposed to do it too when it comes to serving intoxicated people, but most seem to laugh at that idea too.
> 
> I have no objections to this on any moral grounds or grounds of fairness.
> If unvaccinated people want to socialise, they can. They are younger sorts too who can stand it better
> They haven't had the equivalent of a sword of damocles hanging over their heads like the highly vulnerable for the last year.
> 
> Allowing fully vaccinated indoors, and everyone else outdoors, would allow the pub or restaurant to make better use of their space, staff, kitchens etc and make more money. Which I thought was something they'd want to do. Guess not.
> 
> IF indoors dining isn't opened sooner to vaccinated people, it will be longer than that to open for everyone. I don't see who that helps.



That's pretty dismissive of the impact of something like this.

So children under 12 can't eat indoors even though there are no plans for them to be vaccinated?

A married couple or a couple on a date have to eat outside unless both people are vaccinated? A family or group of friends can't eat indoors unless they have all been vaccinated?

The plan is that this will be extended to other indoor activities like cinemas and theatres as it will be a vaccine pass. So it's not just a case of 'socialising' in a pub.

A lot of older people choose not be vaccinated for whatever reason. You and I might not understand that but vaccination is not mandatory. It is not a legal requirement. And yet we are talking about excluding these people from certain activities. I suppose we could stop them using public transport as well.

Young people who are not vaccinated will be allowed serve vaccinated people in restaurants but they won't be allowed sit with them and have a meal. NPHET's explanation for this is that they will be wearing a mask. If wearing a mask is all it takes, why has retail been closed for the past few months?

50 people can eat inside at a wedding reception without being vaccinated but 50 people can't eat in a restaurant unless they are vaccinated?

Vaccinated and non vaccinated people can eat and drink in hotel restaurants and bars and have been for weeks so no large outbreaks. But yet can't do that in a restaurant on the street.

Who is going to be fined if an unvaccinated person eats in a restaurant? The Restaurant? The Individual? What's law is in place to allow enforcement? Are Guards going to be called?

How are tourists going to prove they are vaccinated? What if they are not vaccinated but have negative PCR tests and are perfectly allowed to be here?

Young people have occasions to celebrate too but they are not welcome in pubs and restaurants until they are vaccinated. They are not welcome at family occasions that would normally be celebrated with a meal out. So people are driven to celebrate at home despite us hearing for months that household mixing is what drives the cases.

I want to sit down, have a coffee and a pastry in a coffee shop. I now need to show a vaccine cert and probably some form of ID to someone behind the counter earning minimum wage and is now expected to police this.

I could go on and on about how unworkable this is....And that's without even starting on the modelling that projects nearly 700k cases in three months on a worst case scenario. Zero mention about the probability of this scenario and yet that seems to be what the Government focused on.

And this isn't just about the economic impact on pubs and restaurants. There is a huge wider economic impact to this so it is unfair to say that this is just a problem for greedy pub and restaurant owners.


----------



## odyssey06

Sunny said:


> That's pretty dismissive of the impact of something like this.
> 
> So children under 12 can't eat indoors even though there are no plans for them to be vaccinated?
> 
> A married couple or a couple on a date have to eat outside unless both people are vaccinated? A family or group of friends can't eat indoors unless they have all been vaccinated?
> 
> The plan is that this will be extended to other indoor activities like cinemas and theatres as it will be a vaccine pass. So it's not just a case of 'socialising' in a pub.
> 
> A lot of older people choose not be vaccinated for whatever reason. You and I might not understand that but vaccination is not mandatory. It is not a legal requirement. And yet we are talking about excluding these people from certain activities. I suppose we could stop them using public transport as well.
> 
> Young people who are not vaccinated will be allowed serve vaccinated people in restaurants but they won't be allowed sit with them and have a meal. NPHET's explanation for this is that they will be wearing a mask. If wearing a mask is all it takes, why has retail been closed for the past few months?
> 
> 50 people can eat inside at a wedding reception without being vaccinated but 50 people can't eat in a restaurant unless they are vaccinated?
> 
> Vaccinated and non vaccinated people can eat and drink in hotel restaurants and bars and have been for weeks so no large outbreaks. But yet can't do that in a restaurant on the street.
> 
> Who is going to be fined if an unvaccinated person eats in a restaurant? The Restaurant? The Individual? What's law is in place to allow enforcement? Are Guards going to be called?
> 
> How are tourists going to prove they are vaccinated? What if they are not vaccinated but have negative PCR tests and are perfectly allowed to be here?
> 
> Young people have occasions to celebrate too but they are not welcome in pubs and restaurants until they are vaccinated. They are not welcome at family occasions that would normally be celebrated with a meal out. So people are driven to celebrate at home despite us hearing for months that household mixing is what drives the cases.
> 
> I want to sit down, have a coffee and a pastry in a coffee shop. I now need to show a vaccine cert and probably some form of ID to someone behind the counter earning minimum wage and is now expected to police this.
> 
> I could go on and on about how unworkable this is....And that's without even starting on the modelling that projects nearly 700k cases in three months on a worst case scenario. Zero mention about the probability of this scenario and yet that seems to be what the Government focused on.
> 
> And this isn't just about the economic impact on pubs and restaurants. There is a huge wider economic impact to this so it is unfair to say that this is just a problem for greedy pub and restaurant owners.


None of the cohorts you have listed can eat indoors today.
All of the cohorts you have listed can eat, socialise and celebrate outside at pubs and restaurants today.

They can also socialise indoors at hotels where they are staying, and therefore mixing with a fixed set of known individuals.

If you're talking about economic impact, you would want indoor dining to open for vaccinated people sooner;
Rather than wait longer for it to open for everyone.

People who aren't vaccinated would only be serving people indoors who are vaccinated, and vaccines are known to reduce transmission and viral load.

It's your right not take the vaccine, just as it is your right to smoke. But you can't smoke indoors in a pub or restaurant, though you can outdoors.

You want to have a drink in a pub, or buy a bottle of wine in a shop, you have to show ID if you look under 25.
Do you expect that to be policed?
How is this any different in terms of responsibility?

If you want to talk about how it could be enforced and what documentation could be used, that is a different argument and that is one for the administration to see if they can resolve, or not.

The other objections I think are self-defeating nonsense from the vintners to be honest, the same crowd who demanded the exemption to open to serve food and spent the rest of the time whinging about it.


----------



## Bluefin

As Sunny has stated above, we as a society are heading down the road of making it a legal and mandatory requirement to get vaccinated for all in door services.. Will it be mandatory for kids between 15 and 23 to attend school and college!


----------



## michaelm

A vaccine apartheid regime is not the way to go.  It could quickly creep into more areas of life resulting in a de facto forced vaccine policy.  This is not China.


----------



## joe sod

@odyssey06 so you still think nphet are correct with the very pessimistic analysis, the most pessimistic on the continent of Europe. Also the fact that the Irish government are afraid to diverge from what nphet say , this is a very dangerous precedent for an unelected body. 
Look at Wembley yesterday with stadium half full of joyful fans, yes they are taking risks but with the over half their population vaccinated they have decided this is worth the risk. Real normal life has to come back it cannot be postponed indefinitely because of academic and extreme scenarios that have not been risked properly anyway.


----------



## Sunny

odyssey06 said:


> None of the cohorts you have listed can eat indoors today.
> All of the cohorts you have listed can eat, socialise and celebrate outside at pubs and restaurants today.
> 
> They can also socialise indoors at hotels where they are staying, and therefore mixing with a fixed set of known individuals.
> 
> If you're talking about economic impact, you would want indoor dining to open for vaccinated people sooner;
> Rather than wait longer for it to open for everyone.
> 
> People who aren't vaccinated would only be serving people indoors who are vaccinated, and vaccines are known to reduce transmission and viral load.
> 
> It's your right not take the vaccine, just as it is your right to smoke. But you can't smoke indoors in a pub or restaurant, though you can outdoors.
> 
> You want to have a drink in a pub, or buy a bottle of wine in a shop, you have to show ID if you look under 25.
> Do you expect that to be policed?
> How is this any different in terms of responsibility?
> 
> If you want to talk about how it could be enforced and what documentation could be used, that is a different argument and that is one for the administration to see if they can resolve, or not.
> 
> The other objections I think are self-defeating nonsense from the vintners to be honest, the same crowd who demanded the exemption to open to serve food and spent the rest of the time whinging about it.



I really don't get your point. Of course they can't eat indoors today. So you are saying it is ok  because if we don't just limit to vaccinated people then we won't allow anyone. So that black and white choice is just accepted as gospel? 

Comparing a vaccine cert to carrying out age checks is complete nonsense. It is against the law to serve alcohol to someone under age. It is not against the law to not get vaccinated. People who want to get vaccinated might have to wait until September or October to get vaccinated even if they wanted to do. Children under 12 will not be vaccinated at all. So what choice do they have? 

So hotels are safe because it is a fixed set of known individuals? That's what makes is safe compared to a restaurant who has the names and numbers of any person dining in their restaurant and where they were sitting at any time? Having recently spent time in a hotel bar, I can tell you that they no idea who was sitting where and for how long.

This isn't just about vintners and whatever agenda you have against them. They want to protect their business just like every other sector of the economy. This goes way beyond that. They are already linking these vaccine passports to concerts, theatres, cinemas and other indoor and outdoor events and a way to get them back. So after spending months completely dismissing the idea, they suddenly decide on the back of no preparation that we now we need this system to re-open

There are huge ethical questions on this that can't be just dismissed as whinging by pub owners. It deserves proper debate. Not as a gun to held to people's heads. Accept this or no-one gets to eat indoors or go to an event.....


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Bluefin said:


> As Sunny has stated above, we as a society are heading down the road of making it a legal and mandatory requirement to get vaccinated for all in door services.. Will it be mandatory for kids between 15 and 23 to attend school and college!


Really and you think that this would be tolerated by the vast majority of the population?
These measures are in response to a global pandemic and talk of "mandatory requirements " being used in other settings is frankly conspiracy theories being dreamt up.


----------



## odyssey06

joe sod said:


> @odyssey06 so you still think nphet are correct with the very pessimistic analysis, the most pessimistic on the continent of Europe. Also the fact that the Irish government are afraid to diverge from what nphet say , this is a very dangerous precedent for an unelected body.
> Look at Wembley yesterday with stadium half full of joyful fans, yes they are taking risks but with the over half their population vaccinated they have decided this is worth the risk. Real normal life has to come back it cannot be postponed indefinitely because of academic and extreme scenarios that have not been risked properly anyway.


That's a different debate again.
I have doubts when we are 'outliers' in terms of the rest of the EU and their health authorities, whether that is on restrictions or vaccines. 
We seem to be on our own here, which suggests it may represent an abundance of caution.
Although if anyone is aware of other countries which these kind of rules, please shout.

I am assuming this is a temporary measure until more people are vaccinated, which should bring down the case count and get us to something like an effective herd immunity.


----------



## michaelm

Is the case count a genuine problem though?  The measures are largely to protect the health system.  But there are only 44 people in hospital with Covid in the whole country.  The health system is not under threat.  This Government, and their Covid policy, has jumped the shark.


----------



## odyssey06

Sunny said:


> I really don't get your point. Of course they can't eat indoors today. So you are saying it is ok  because if we don't just limit to vaccinated people then we won't allow anyone. So that black and white choice is just accepted as gospel?
> 
> Comparing a vaccine cert to carrying out age checks is complete nonsense. It is against the law to serve alcohol to someone under age. It is not against the law to not get vaccinated. People who want to get vaccinated might have to wait until September or October to get vaccinated even if they wanted to do. Children under 12 will not be vaccinated at all. So what choice do they have?
> 
> So hotels are safe because it is a fixed set of known individuals? That's what makes is safe compared to a restaurant who has the names and numbers of any person dining in their restaurant and where they were sitting at any time? Having recently spent time in a hotel bar, I can tell you that they no idea who was sitting where and for how long.
> 
> This isn't just about vintners and whatever agenda you have against them. They want to protect their business just like every other sector of the economy. This goes way beyond that. They are already linking these vaccine passports to concerts, theatres, cinemas and other indoor and outdoor events and a way to get them back. So after spending months completely dismissing the idea, they suddenly decide on the back of no preparation that we now we need this system to re-open
> 
> There are huge ethical questions on this that can't be just dismissed as whinging by pub owners. It deserves proper debate. Not as a gun to held to people's heads. Accept this or no-one gets to eat indoors or go to an event.....


It's against the law to serve alcohol to someone under 18. It's not against the law to be under 18.
What choice does a 17 year old have?
And someone 18 needs to get ID to prove their age.
Ditto for someone wanting to drive, they have to wait until age X and then go through the process to get the documentation.

People can't eat indoors today. So the choice as presented is either indoors stay shut for everyone, or opens for the fully vaccinated.
Hospitality isn't opening on 5th July for anyone is it? It's a fait accompli.
I'm saying there is merit in doing so for fully vaccinated, as a temporary measure, until we get to effective herd immunity.
*If* it can be done practically _(which it probably can't so it's hypothetical)_
It will bring more money into the hospitality sector than NOT doing it, if the alternative is that they stay shut.


----------



## michaelm

odyssey06 said:


> I'm saying there is merit in doing so for fully vaccinated, as a temporary measure, until we get to effective herd immunity.


While I'm entirely opposed to the idea of excluding unvaccinated people, if they are to push ahead with it they should clearly state that this is a temporary measure and that once everyone has been *offered* a vaccine, all restrictions will be lifted.  At that point we should also be offering all tourists a free vaccine.


odyssey06 said:


> If it it can be done practically.


It can't.  The Government are overreaching and it will prove self-defeating.


----------



## odyssey06

Actually The Journal has a summary here and in several other EU countries there are restictions on indoor hospitality such as proof of vaccine, PCR test e.g.
*Austria*_ – Indoor dining is allowed, but for a maximum of four adults, plus children, per table. A negative Covid test, proof of vaccination or past infection is also required to visit a restaurant._









						FactCheck: Is Ireland one of the only countries in Europe without indoor dining?
					

The claim was first made last Friday. The Journal FactCheck finds it to be true.




					www.thejournal.ie


----------



## Bluefin

Paul I'm not a person who believes in conspiracy theories. I firmly believe that the only possible way out if this is vaccination and I implore and encourage all family and friends to get vaccinated and continue following all other measures that will help to protect everyone. 

I do believe in being logical and following logic. I was recently watching A quite place part 2 in the cinema.. People were not wearing masks as they were all munching on there popcorn and drinking their cokes. Few of the people were vaccinated based on age profile. 

Should un-vaccinated people be allowed to attend a cinema setting?


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Bluefin said:


> Paul I'm not a person who believes in conspiracy theories. I firmly believe that the only possible way out if this is vaccination and I implore and encourage all family and friends to get vaccinated and continue following all other measures that will help to protect everyone.
> 
> I do believe in being logical and following logic. I was recently watching A quite place part 2 in the cinema.. People were not wearing masks as they were all munching on there popcorn and drinking their cokes. Few of the people were vaccinated based on age profile.
> 
> Should un-vaccinated people be allowed to attend a cinema setting?


I can only respond to what is typed.

Cinemas have greatly reduced audiences and therefore have the space to spread out people attending vaccinated or not. 

Pubs and restaurants would not be similar in size, now if a proposal of restricting capacity to say 50% and say 4 people from the same family or household , like many European countries,  that might work, but I'll guarantee that the restaurant owners wouldn't be happy with that either. 

The only solution that the vested interests want is full opening without restrictions and irrespective of the risks associated with a variant that is transmitted far easier.

Personally,  if they don't want to do this keep them closed, or have them create a solution that allows them to open and serve indoors whilst protecting staff, customers and the community they operate in.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Clamball said:


> The modelling team in NEPHT have access to a lot more data and nuanced interpretation than I have, but it is clear it is all based on maths, not wishful thinking, or doomsday predictions. Our health system is not robust to pandemics and we are stuck in the middle of one.



The view of representative organizations is that their industry is safe because they say so.

They take no responsibility for the cost of hospital and ICU care nor indeed for deaths of cases and outbreaks attached to their industry.

They are not experts but don’t accept expertise for no other reason than it doesn’t square with their objectives.


----------



## joe sod

odyssey06 said:


> Actually The Journal has a summary here and in several other EU countries there are restictions on indoor hospitality such as proof of vaccine, PCR test e.g.
> *Austria*_ – Indoor dining is allowed, but for a maximum of four adults, plus children, per table. A negative Covid test, proof of vaccination or past infection is also required to visit a restaurant._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FactCheck: Is Ireland one of the only countries in Europe without indoor dining?
> 
> 
> The claim was first made last Friday. The Journal FactCheck finds it to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thejournal.ie


But Austria has that already in place, they set up all the infrastructure for that and were honest with their population, therefore they are already open . However we made the explicit policy that indoor drinking and dining would open on July 5, there was nothing about vaccine passports in fact the politicians explicitly ruled this out on the basis that young people would not be vaccinated and this would be grossly unfair. Then as soon as indoor dining is about to open the goalposts are moved and suddenly vaccine passports are now required .Nphet and Tony holohan were at this game all last summer continuously moving the goalposts with new excuse as soon as a reopening date approached


----------



## odyssey06

joe sod said:


> But Austria has that already in place, they set up all the infrastructure for that and were honest with their population, therefore they are already open . However we made the explicit policy that indoor drinking and dining would open on July 5, there was nothing about vaccine passports in fact the politicians explicitly ruled this out on the basis that young people would not be vaccinated and this would be grossly unfair. Then as soon as indoor dining is about to open the goalposts are moved and suddenly vaccine passports are now required .Nphet and Tony holohan were at this game all last summer continuously moving the goalposts with new excuse as soon as a reopening date approached


That's a fair point... I think someone earlier in the thread hinted that there's a bit of maneuvering here. They've lobbed a serve to the government that's unworkable given that we're nearly into July already.
I don't think this can be made to happen here in those timeframes; I am defending the idea behind it which has been done properly in those countries - with proper prep time not as a last minute thing.


----------



## Purple

Sophrosyne said:


> The view of representative organizations is that their industry is safe because they say so.
> 
> They take no responsibility for the cost of hospital and ICU care nor indeed for deaths of cases and outbreaks attached to their industry.
> 
> They are not experts but don’t accept expertise for no other reason than it doesn’t square with their objectives.


And the people saying keep everything closed take no account of the costs of keeping everything closed. That will be a multiple of the financial cost of looking after people in hospitals, in the very unlikely event of them ending up in hospital.
The rest of Europe is doing this. Young people are at a very low risk. We have one of the youngest populations in Europe.
It potentially puts a strain on the health system. We have one of the best funded healthcare systems in Europe.

There is a realistic chance that if we open up young people will get infected and spread it to older and vulnerable people who have refused to get the vaccine but people who have refused the vaccine have chosen to put themselves in harms way so if they end up in ICU or dead then good enough for them. We should bill them (or their estate) the full cost of whatever treatment they received.

Other than them who exactly is going to make up the fatalities that Tony is talking about? 
Again, what do they know that nobody else in Europe knows?


----------



## Prosper

Clamball said:


> Denmark are open for fully vaccinated people to dine indoors, Ireland would not be unusual in going in that direction.


Deaths per million in last 7 days: Ireland 2.02 ; Denmark 0.17.  Cases per million last 7 days: Ireland 392 ; Denmark 195
I agree with you that we are not in as good a position as Denmark.


Clamball said:


> And despite wanting to open up indoors fully we are in a worse position than UK with regards to fully vaccinated and if we compare ourselves to Denmark their numbers are declining and ours are static.


Deaths per million in last 7 days: Ireland 2.02 ; UK 1.78.  Cases per million in last 7 days: Ireland 392 ; UK 1372.
UK's lower death rate no doubt due to higher vaccination rate (although I think that we are still more liberal in how we count covid deaths). Their recent case numbers are 3.5 times ours and this must reflect the fact that people can be served indoors in bars and restaurants and attend indoor entertainment. So I think we should hold off on relaxing the indoors rule.


----------



## Purple

Prosper said:


> Deaths per million in last 7 days: Ireland 2.02 ; UK 1.78. Cases per million in last 7 days: Ireland 392 ; UK 1372.
> UK's lower death rate no doubt due to higher vaccination rate (although I think that we are still more liberal in how we count covid deaths). Their recent case numbers are 3.5 times ours and this must reflect the fact that people can be served indoors in bars and restaurants and attend indoor entertainment. So I think we should hold off on relaxing the indoors rule.


So with 3.5 times our infection rates their death rate is still lower.
We need to remember that a) as you say we inflate the numbers of deaths by counting anyone and everyone who died who also has Covid and b) our death rates are not necessarily current in that we have deaths in this weeks figures that may have happened weeks or months ago.

The hospitalisation rate for under 30's is 6 times lower than those over 65 and the death rate is 95 times lower. The death rate for under 30's is 610 times lower than over 85's. (Source) In other words an unvaccinated person under 30 us still far less likely to die from Covid19 than a vaccinated person over 85. Why would we let vaccinated over 85's dine and drink indoors and not let the unvaccinated under 30's in with them?


----------



## demoivre

Sophrosyne said:


> The view of representative organizations is that their industry is safe because they say so.
> 
> They take no responsibility for the cost of hospital and ICU care nor indeed for deaths of cases and outbreaks attached to their industry.
> 
> *They are not experts but don’t accept expertise for no other reason than it doesn’t square with their objectives.*


So much the same as the autocratic narcissist Holohan and NPHET who are the the only country in Europe not to embrace Antigen testing ?. In fact , according to Ronan Glynn at the recent Oireachtas transport committee meeting, Nphet never even discussed the Ferguson report. 
At a very minimum the latest NPHET figures should be peer reviewed - nothing to loose by doing it and everything to gain. 
It's hard to believe that there's indoor dining in every other EU, EEA, EFTA  and UK countries ( Greece and Cyprus from tomorrow) and they have all gotten it wrong and Holohan and co are right. 
If 700,000 cases through to September is one possible outome form allowing indoor hospitality, or about 14% of the population , we can expect about 260,000 cases in the North over the same period. Lets see, and I'm not even a fan of case numbers, even more so with vaccine roll out.
Of course , farcically , you can book in to a hotel in Ireland today and drink and eat to your hearts contents indoors.

Back in a few days to read the hilarious pile on for criticising St Tony.


----------



## Prosper

demoivre said:


> the the only country in Europe not to embrace Antigen testing ?


You might be right in saying that, I'm not sure. What I do know is that the "compo" culture in Ireland is pretty bad (remember the tram-surfer who was awarded €550k). Antigen testing is more like a screening test. You cannot have "absolute confidence" in the result. But some judge could rule that "absolute confidence" is required. So if someone has covid but an antigen test shows up negative for covid then could that person claim the test gave them a false sense of security and this lead them to infect others in their circle one of whom became seriously ill and another suffers from long covid etc etc etc...


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

demoivre said:


> It's hard to believe that there's indoor dining in every other EU, EEA, EFTA  and UK countries ( Greece and Cyprus from tomorrow)


You forgot to say " with restrictions " as all countries have their own unique restrictions in place,  some fairly lax others fairly tight.


----------



## Sunny

odyssey06 said:


> It's against the law to serve alcohol to someone under 18. It's not against the law to be under 18.
> What choice does a 17 year old have?
> And someone 18 needs to get ID to prove their age.
> Ditto for someone wanting to drive, they have to wait until age X and then go through the process to get the documentation.
> 
> People can't eat indoors today. So the choice as presented is either indoors stay shut for everyone, or opens for the fully vaccinated.
> Hospitality isn't opening on 5th July for anyone is it? It's a fait accompli.
> I'm saying there is merit in doing so for fully vaccinated, as a temporary measure, until we get to effective herd immunity.
> *If* it can be done practically _(which it probably can't so it's hypothetical)_
> It will bring more money into the hospitality sector than NOT doing it, if the alternative is that they stay shut.



Again I have no idea why you are comparing someone getting vaccinated with under age drinking or getting a licence to drive. Under no plan are children under 12 going to be vaccinated. They are not looking to drive a car or knock back a few pints and a couple of shots. So when exactly are these disease ridden unvaccinated kids going to be allowed to go out with their vaccinated parents to celebrate a meal? You talk about Herd Immunity but NPHET have already said they don't know when this will be as the number required is constantly changing due to variants. 

Young people will have to wait until September or October for a vaccine. Yesterday they were told that

a) They can have a vaccine that up to yesterday was not safe for them but hey we are desperate and if they don't take it, they will be punished
b) The interval for the vaccine will be cut to 4 weeks with no scientific evidence to back this up for AZ or Jansen vaccine. We have gone from one of the most cautious approaches to this vaccine in Europe to the other end of the spectrum. 
c) They are entitled to work in hospitality but not entitled to enjoy hospitality simply because they are wearing a mask when working. (When exactly did we decide that masks offer such protection and why have we been complete shut downs up to now if that is the case)

That is not to mention that Leo and Micheal have already linked these so called passes to other things like entertainment, concerts, large indoor and outdoor events. So we are not just talking about a large cohort missing out on a few pints. We are talking about young people potentially missing out on lots of things while people like you and me enjoy life while expecting them to serve us but God forbid they might want to actually share some of the same experiences.

Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of this scheme, the Delta variant is in every other country in Europe. They have all opened indoor hospitality with restrictions including some Countries that use this pass. Ireland as usual spend months saying no, no, no, no and then just as they about to reopen as promised to thousands of employees and despite no rise in case numbers, hospitalisations or deaths, NPHET and the Government decide that we now have to introduce a scheme like this. Zero work has been done on this. It was considered such a good idea and such a useful contingency that NPHET, the HSE and the Government have spent zero time and effort up to now. This is despite constant warnings about the threats of variants.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

demoivre said:


> If 700,000 cases through to September is one possible outome form allowing indoor hospitality, or about 14% of the population , we can expect about 260,000 cases in the North over the same period. Lets see, and I'm not even a fan of case numbers, even more so with vaccine roll out.


The 700,000 is the "worst case" there were other scenarios presented but you've chosen to ignore those for reasons that are apparent.

Northern Ireland are very much further down the vaccination road than us and with a much smaller population and secure vaccine supplies for over six months. 
Your elementary mathematics of simply multiplying its population by 14% based on our forecasts , which will be based on unique variables present here and not valid in Northern Ireland,  renders the figure you posted as useless in any analysis.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

demoivre said:


> Back in a few days to read the hilarious pile on for criticising St Tony.


Criticising Tony isn't an issue, you posted enough in your post to question if you actually understand the issue(s).


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

demoivre said:


> At a very minimum the latest NPHET figures should be peer reviewed - nothing to loose by doing it and everything to gain.


I agree and hopefully this will happen.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Its been reported by RTE and others that the modelling carried out by NPHET did not account for the usage of both AZ and J&J in younger people. 

NPHET should now immediately put those figures " into the hopper " and compare the output and publish. 

The effects of not having these included might be significant.


----------



## 24601

Prof. Philip Nolan published a long Twitter thread on the modelling last night. I don't think it passes the sniff test at all and it boggles the mind that NPHET's modelling is not subject to any external oversight or interrogation. There's probably plenty of people on here that prepare projections for work and we all know how significant a few minor changes in assumptions can be when compounded over time. With exponential growth this would seem an even bigger issue. The professor also seems to completely misrepresent or misunderstand what 95% vaccine efficacy actually means with his 5% of 500,000 calculation - truly bonkers stuff. The probability of some of these pessimistic scenarios coming to pass seems pretty remote given the real world evidence we have. Case numbers may rocket but an IFR rate of 0.29% seems to be at the very upper end of the scale, which paints a far grimmer picture. It seems a classic case of plugging figures into a model to arrive at the answer you want. 



			https://twitter.com/President_MU/status/1410315246791802884?s=20


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of this scheme, the Delta variant is in every other country in Europe. They have all opened indoor hospitality with restrictions including some Countries that use this pass. Ireland as usual spend months saying no, no, no, no and then just as they about to reopen as promised to thousands of employees and despite no rise in case numbers, hospitalisations or deaths, NPHET and the Government decide that we now have to introduce a scheme like this. Zero work has been done on this. It was considered such a good idea and such a useful contingency that NPHET, the HSE and the Government have spent zero time and effort up to now. This is despite constant warnings about the threats of variants.


What I don't get is the logic of the vaccine passport for indoor hospitality. What it the purpose of such a scheme? A fully vaccinated person over 75 is still more likely to die from Covid19 than an unvaccinated 29 year old. Both can carry the virus so both can spread the disease so what's the point of it all?
US CDC risk ratio by age for unvaccinated people.

Rate ratios compared to 18-29 year olds0-4 years old5-17 years old18-29 years old30-39 years old40-49 years old50-64 years old65-74 years old75-84 years old85+ years oldCases<1x1xReference group1x1x1x1x1x1xHospitalization<1x<1xReference group2x2x4x6x9x15xDeath<1x<1xReference group4x10x35x95x230x610x


----------



## Purple

24601 said:


> Prof. Philip Nolan published a long Twitter thread on the modelling last night. I don't think it passes the sniff test at all and it boggles the mind that NPHET's modelling is not subject to any external oversight or interrogation. There's probably plenty of people on here that prepare projections for work and we all know how significant a few minor changes in assumptions can be when compounded over time. With exponential growth this would seem an even bigger issue. The professor also seems to completely misrepresent or misunderstand what 95% vaccine efficacy actually means with his 5% of 500,000 calculation - truly bonkers stuff. The probability of some of these pessimistic scenarios coming to pass seems pretty remote given the real world evidence we have. Case numbers may rocket but an IFR rate of 0.29% seems to be at the very upper end of the scale, which paints a far grimmer picture. It seems a classic case of plugging figures into a model to arrive at the answer you want.
> 
> 
> 
> https://twitter.com/President_MU/status/1410315246791802884?s=20


I'm not on Twitter. Can you post the details of his errors?


----------



## Bluefin

Why is no one reporting the fact that the Taoiseach misled his cabinet at the meeting on Monday that NPHETs modeling included the additional vaccination of the under 30's?


----------



## Purple

Bluefin said:


> Why is no one reporting the fact that the Taoiseach misled his cabinet at the meeting on Monday that NPHETs modeling included the additional vaccination of the under 30's?


Did he?


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Purple said:


> I'm not on Twitter. Can you post the details of his errors?


Thanks for posting the tweet, his first mistake was to publish it on Twitter,  a blog would be an easier read.

I'll have to try and read this later on a big screen, its highly complex but there appears to be a reliance on data from last year, for example on social mixing , then using a model that assumes everyone can transmit the virus in the same manner? But it's simple to use?

In one scenario they forecast more people dying than in ICU , its possible but how would they know it was covid? Of course there seems little information/data on recovery from ICU which we know happens and has to be a variable in forecasting .

My forecasting/modelling skills are 20 years old , and this is probably way beyond my pay grade.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Bluefin said:


> Why is no one reporting the fact that the Taoiseach misled his cabinet at the meeting on Monday that NPHETs modeling included the additional vaccination of the under 30's?


The modelling didn't include the change in rolling out AZ and J&J to sub 40 year olds.

Bad communication between various parts of the HSE , nothing novel there.


----------



## Purple

Paul O Mahoney said:


> Thanks for posting the tweet, his first mistake was to publish it on Twitter, a blog would be an easier read.


Paul, @24601 posted the Tweet.


----------



## Bluefin

Check out article on the journal.ie..can't copy text or link due to spam restrictions​


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Purple said:


> Paul, @24601 posted the Tweet.


My bad thanks 24601


----------



## 24601

All, you can view the full thread without having to do so via the awful medium of 36 tweets here: 








						Thread by @President_MU on Thread Reader App
					

Thread by @President_MU: It has been a difficult and disappointing week for many, as the rise to dominance of the delta variant has delayed plans for wider reopening; but the likely impact of delta is stark,...…




					threadreaderapp.com


----------



## Purple

24601 said:


> All, you can view the full thread without having to do so via the awful medium of 36 tweets here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thread by @President_MU on Thread Reader App
> 
> 
> Thread by @President_MU: It has been a difficult and disappointing week for many, as the rise to dominance of the delta variant has delayed plans for wider reopening; but the likely impact of delta is stark,...…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> threadreaderapp.com


Having read the full article he noted that with the Delta Variant 99% of deaths will be in the over 40's age group and the group in danger are the over 75's who have been vaccinated since the vaccine only offers 95% protection.


> While 70-80% of cases will be in people under 40, there will be a lot of infections and a lot of adverse outcomes in people over 40; about 70% of the hospitalisations and over 99% of the deaths would be in people over 40. 25/36





> Vaccines offer extraordinary protection, but not perfect. We have almost 500,000 people aged 70 and over; even if the vaccine is 95% effective in preventing severe disease, 25,000 people remain vulnerable.


That backs up my earlier post about the proposed vaccine passport; what is the logic of allowing vaccinated older people to dine and drink in-doors and not younger people when the older group are at a high higher risk?
Either open for everyone or open for no-one.


----------



## joe sod

24601 said:


> picture. It seems a classic case of plugging figures into a model to arrive at the answer you want.


I think nphet and Tony holohan (well nphet is Tony holohan because he has enormous power over it) have been guilty of that before last summer. They had the case numbers down to single figures and as soon as the July opening date approached suddenly jump in figures and the "very concerning" narrative . But the jump in figures was really just the distortion around weekends and when figures were added to the system. But the media not the most numerate people lapped it all up and sensationalized the whole thing.
Of course reopening last summer would have caused an increase in numbers but it would have been a release valve and maybe prevented the mayhem at Christmas when the pressure to socialize was too great after so long locked down


----------



## 24601

Am I losing my marbles or is he completely misrepresenting 95% efficacy by suggesting that 1 in 20 fully vaccinated persons with have 0% protection against severe illness or death? In that scenario 25,000 people are not vulnerable in such a way. That is not how vaccines work. 

I'm bemused by the approach to indoor dining now @Purple . As you have outlined they should logically be prohibiting older, fully vaccinated people above a certain age from indoor dining. It makes no sense. 

The goal posts keep moving. If the modelling was even believed by NPHET they would be arguing for a full lockdown, not just a delay to the return of indoor dining. They're not, because they know it's nonsense. And also, it's not like any of those pessimistic scenarios would even be allowed to transpire, the Government would lockdown as soon as the hospital system came under severe pressure. 

If Delta is as transmissible and as concerning as the modelling predicts then cases are going to rise exponentially anyway with or without indoor dining. And what then? Never-ending restrictions?  Banning pubs forever? It has descended into farce. What if the next more transmissible variant comes along between now and the 19th? Will we lockdown in future years during a particularly bad flu season? I'm with Paul Moynagh on this, we need to just get on with the reopening and do what we can to mitigate it. We don't have a crystal ball but if we continue to outsource government to NPHET we'll never be out of this.


----------



## joer

I am amazed at the Vaccine centre at the Aviva is been halted to facilitate a rugby international. Where is the priority in this instance. 
Surely there are rugby grounds in the country which this match could have been used. I wonder how many unvaccinated people will be at this match. 
Baffling.


----------



## Leo

24601 said:


> Am I losing my marbles or is he completely misrepresenting 95% efficacy by suggesting that 1 in 20 fully vaccinated persons with have 0% protection against severe illness or death?


What is your understanding of vaccine efficacy and we'll be able to tell if your marbles are in place or not.


----------



## Purple

joer said:


> I am amazed at the Vaccine centre at the Aviva is been halted to facilitate a rugby international. Where is the priority in this instance.
> Surely there are rugby grounds in the country which this match could have been used. I wonder how many unvaccinated people will be at this match.
> Baffling.


Surely there are other sports grounds that could be used for vaccinations...


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Purple said:


> Having read the full article he noted that with the Delta Variant 99% of deaths will be in the over 40's age group and the group in danger are the over 75's who have been vaccinated since the vaccine only offers 95% protection.
> 
> 
> That backs up my earlier post about the proposed vaccine passport; what is the logic of allowing vaccinated older people to dine and drink in-doors and not younger people when the older group are at a high higher risk?
> Either open for everyone or open for no-one.


Just on this , let's assume the risk is there and it's a valid calculation, however how many of those 500,000 are going to be in regular contact with younger people in an environment that would cause them to contract covid?

This seems a very blunt analysis with little or no consideration to the fact that many will be in care homes, or at home with carers. Its highly unlikely that a majority of these 500,000 will be out slugging pints and dining in restaurants. If they did frequent such an establishment it would probably be during the day when its quieter.( Staff will still,  hopefully,  be masked and carrying out good hygiene practices)

My parents are in that category and before covid they rarely went anywhere and since my sister does everything for them even though they are fully vaccinated for months.

The overall modelling is beyond my total understanding and I have attempted to read the links too, but it just seems very rigid and seems to ignore real life situations.

"Academic" was the word I was looking for to describe it.

While he says vaccination has been factored in there isn't a mention of those effects on cases and then by extension hospitalisation and deaths, I'm not doubting they are included but surely as a very important variable its effect should be explained.


----------



## 24601

Leo said:


> What is your understanding of vaccine efficacy and we'll be able to tell if your marbles are in place or not.


95% VE reduces the number of cases in the population by 95%. It does not mean that 5% of fully vaccinated people have 0% protection, which is what is being insinuated by Nolan.


----------



## Leo

24601 said:


> 95% VE reduces the number of cases in the population by 95%. It does not mean that 5% of fully vaccinated people have 0% protection, which is what is being insinuated by Nolan.


So if you understand that 95% efficacy means that 95% of a cohort will be protected, surely you understand that this means 5%, or 1 in 20 will not be protected?

If it wasn't so, and that 5% had some level of protection, then the efficacy would be higher.


----------



## Sunny

Leo said:


> So if you understand that 95% efficacy means that 95% of a cohort will be protected, surely you understand that this means 5%, or 1 in 20 will not be protected?
> 
> If it wasn't so, and that 5% had some level of protection, then the efficacy would be higher.



It doesn't mean that. A 95% efficacy means that the chance of a vaccinated person getting Covid is 95% less than someone who is not vaccinated. This does not mean that the other 5% of the population is 100% guaranteed to get Covid or a severe case of covid. So to simply say that 5% of 500k people or 25,000 vaccinated people are at risk of Covid which Philip Nolan claimed and seemed to suggest is in his model is simply incorrect. There are other public health measures and other reasons that will reduce the risk further so only a % of the 5% will actually catch Covid and even then might not be severe.

Going by what Nolan said, they have modelled 25,000 (5% of population) vaccinated elderly people catching covid because of the 95% efficacy and calculated deaths and hospitalisations on this number.


----------



## Leo

Sunny said:


> It doesn't mean that. A 95% efficacy means that the chance of a vaccinated person getting Covid is 95% less than someone who is not vaccinated.


You can't apply an efficacy rating to a single person, that's not what it is intended to measure or convey. It is a community measure assuming ideal conditions. A vaccine will provide a wide range of protection. Some will be fully, or 100% protected, many somewhat less protected, some not at all. 



Sunny said:


> here are other public health measures and other reasons that will reduce the risk further so only a % of the 5% will actually catch Covid and even then might not be severe.


Yes, once you start to consider the effects of public health measures on outcomes, then you need to speak in terms of vaccine effectiveness, and not efficacy.


----------



## joe sod

It's not really nphet that is the issue but the power that they have been given by the government and media, why ? Why have we given this body so much power in comparison to our European peers, they maybe correct about the delta wave sweeping Europe but nobody else is panicking like us. 
In other countries economic and social consequences have a much higher weighting in decision making than here. Yet we have the highest per capita debt load in the eu with the pandemic set to cost 50 billion but nobody sounding alarms about this. The 50 billion spent is spending that will not go on "green infrastructure" building houses and could put the whole welfare system in jeopardy if interest rates begin rising faster


----------



## Sunny

Leo said:


> You can't apply an efficacy rating to a single person, that's not what it is intended to measure or convey. It is a community measure assuming ideal conditions. A vaccine will provide a wide range of protection. Some will be fully, or 100% protected, many somewhat less protected, some not at all.
> 
> 
> Yes, once you start to consider the effects of public health measures on outcomes, then you need to speak in terms of vaccine effectiveness, and not efficacy.



95% efficacy does not mean that 95% of the population are protected from getting covid and that 5% have zero protection. It means the chance of getting Covid or severe Covid is reduced by 95% compared to an unvaccinated population. 100% of the unvaccinated population will not get Covid. It will only be small % of that population

Assume an attack rate of about 10% (No idea what it is for Delta). If we have a population of 1,000,000 people that are vaccinated and a population of 1,000,000 that are not vaccinated. We can assume we will see 100,000 cases in the non vaccinated population. In the vaccinated population, what Philip Nolan is saying that 5% of the vaccinated population could get covid so we would expect to see 50,000 cases and has implied that this is in the model. That is simply not true. A 95% efficacy means that we would expect to see 5000 cases based on the attack rate and the efficacy.

Apologies if my maths are wrong. I am hungover!....


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> I am hungover!....


Well it is Friday.
That's my understanding of it as well but there's a high likelihood I'm wrong.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Efficacy = what is the desired effect usually in a controlled environment 

Effectiveness = what happens in the real world 

So, a drug might have 95% efficacy but be 90% effective in the real world. 

I might be wrong too.


----------



## Sunny

Paul O Mahoney said:


> Efficacy = what is the desired effect usually in a controlled environment
> 
> Effectiveness = what happens in the real world
> 
> So, a drug might have 95% efficacy but be 90% effective in the real world.
> 
> I might be wrong too.



Thats my understanding as well. I think Philip Nolan is just guilty of phrasing something carelessly as I doubt they have modelled the scenario he described. It is just worrying that the guy in charge of modelling made a statement that because of 95% vaccine efficacy, 5% of vaccinated elderly people are at risk of catching covid. He then backed it up with actual numbers of 25,000 out of 500,000 vaccinated people could get covid. This is simply wrong as he is assuming 100% attack rate.

It would be good to see the complete model released rather than tweets. At the very least they should be able to provide the basic assumptions made under each scenario.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Sunny said:


> Thats my understanding as well. I think Philip Nolan is just guilty of phrasing something carelessly as I doubt they have modelled the scenario he described. It is just worrying that the guy in charge of modelling made a statement that because of 95% vaccine efficacy, 5% of vaccinated elderly people are at risk of catching covid. He then backed it up with actual numbers of 25,000 out of 500,000 vaccinated people could get covid. This is simply wrong as he is assuming 100% attack rate.
> 
> It would be good to see the complete model released rather than tweets. At the very least they should be able to provide the basic assumptions made under each scenario.


If you click on the links on the Twitter above you can see all the reports to date, and a plethora of references to back up the assumptions made.

Its heavy reading btw, and a lot of cross referencing and dead boring.

They use "homogeneous mixing"  as the basis of everything eventhough he said it's not real world but it has other advantages such as simplicity as fewer variables are needed to forecast. Its internationally used.


----------



## Sunny

Paul O Mahoney said:


> If you click on the links on the Twitter above you can see all the reports to date, and a plethora of references to back up the assumptions made.
> 
> Its heavy reading btw, and a lot of cross referencing and dead boring.



So they didn't provide a nice one page summary??? 

Thanks. I might have a look over the weekend but I don't think I have the attention span to be honest! I will continue to make unsupported accusations of flawed modelling as it is the lazier option! 

By the way, I should state that I am in awe of what these guys produce from a modelling point of view. But I strongly believe that models work best when they are completely open to scrutiny and are not black boxes that only the people who designed them know how they work. We had a whole financial crisis built on black box models. It's good if they are publishing everything. I hope the academic and public health world step up and voice their opinions.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Sunny said:


> So they didn't provide a nice one page summary???
> 
> Thanks. I might have a look over the weekend but I don't think I have the attention span to be honest! I will continue to make unsupported accusations of flawed modelling as it is the lazier option!
> 
> By the way, I should state that I am in awe of what these guys produce from a modelling point of view. But I strongly believe that models work best when they are completely open to scrutiny and are not black boxes that only the people who designed them know how they work. We had a whole financial crisis built on black box models. It's good if they are publishing everything. I hope the academic and public health world step up and voice their opinions.


It's all new given the speed of transmission since it began they have achieved quite a bit, if I knew reports were in the public domain I would have read them last and this year, but you would expect them to run more scenarios and show different results by changing key variables, a sensitivity analysis I think they call it.


----------



## Sunny

It's quotes like this that really bother me

A_t the NPHET briefing on Thursday, Prime Time asked Professor Philip Nolan, Chair of the Irish Epidemiological Modelling Advisory Group, if he'd run the models without the step change in social mixing included, and what the outcome would be.

"I did, and the answer is: it’s modest," he said. "Frankly, it is anywhere between Alpha-only and the optimistic scenario."_

So we are only seeing a 'modest' change in the forecasts by not opening indoor hospitality on the 19th. Given that they are now seeing a risk (but won't tell us the probability) of anything from Alpha only outbreak with hospitality closed to a more severe outbreak than Alpha if opened, why aren't we locking down again? The answer has to be the probability of an outbreak like January to be so unlikely that NPHET are prepared to take the risk.

So the question still remains. How much extra risk would we have taken on by opening up indoor hospitality on the 19th? They have obviously modelled it.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Paul O Mahoney said:


> Efficacy = what is the desired effect usually in a controlled environment
> 
> Effectiveness = what happens in the real world
> 
> So, a drug might have 95% efficacy but be 90% effective in the real world.
> 
> I might be wrong too.


No you are right.

Efficacy means that under the same conditions as the trials, vaccine reduces infection by the same percentage as that in the trials.

The Pfizer trial found an infection rate of 0.74% in the placebo group and 0.04% in the vaccinated group.

Therefore, the vaccine reduced the infection rate by 0.7%.

Scaled up this means an efficacy rate of 95.05% (0.70 / 0.74)

However, trials do not show how the percentage might vary on populations with different exposures and different transmission and attack rates.

The modelling is attempting to achieve this with best and worst case scenarios in the Irish context.

Other countries model on their own prevalent conditions.


----------



## joe sod

Sophrosyne said:


> The Pfizer trial found an infection rate of 0.74% in the placebo group and 0.4% in the vaccinated group.
> 
> Therefore, the vaccine reduced the infection rate by 0.7%.


That doesn't make sense, 0.74 % to 0.4% is actually a 50% reduction not 0.7%, !! Are you sure you have your figures correct. These don't sound like Pfizer figures anyway ?


----------



## Purple

Sophrosyne said:


> The Pfizer trial found an infection rate of 0.74% in the placebo group and 0.4% in the vaccinated group.
> 
> Therefore, the vaccine reduced the infection rate by 0.7%.
> 
> Scaled up this means an efficacy rate of 95.05% (0.7 / 0.74)


Should that be 0.04%?


----------



## 24601

Leo said:


> So if you understand that 95% efficacy means that 95% of a cohort will be protected, surely you understand that this means 5%, or 1 in 20 will not be protected?
> 
> If it wasn't so, and that 5% had some level of protection, then the efficacy would be higher.



That's not what it means and he has been widely ridiculed for presenting this impression. For what it's worth I think he was being a bit careless with his language rather than actually suggesting that 1/20 fully vaccinated people have no protection.

In any event, NPHET don't believe any of these pessimistic scenarios are at all probable or we'd all be back doing laps of our 2km radius.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Purple said:


> Should that be 0.04%?



Yes it should. I have amended post.


----------



## Sophrosyne

joe sod said:


> These don't sound like Pfizer figures anyway ?



Phase 111 of the Pfizer trial enrolled 43,661 people half of whom received a placebo and the other half were vaccinated.

There were 170 confirmed cases of which 162 (0.74%) were in the placebo group and 8 (0.04) in the vaccinated group.


----------



## Purple

Sophrosyne said:


> Yes it should. I have amended post.


Lucky guess on my part.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

24601 said:


> In any event, NPHET don't believe any of these pessimistic scenarios are at all probable or we'd all be back doing laps of our 2km radius.


I wouldn't be so sure of that, looking back to February they over egged the forecasts too and the reality, while still terrible were a good 30% lower.

Providing good analytics and forecasting is essential for good decision making in any business and if anything is flawed it leads to flawed decisions with a scale of irrelevant to serious , and this is a pandemic.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Sophrosyne said:


> Phase 111 of the Pfizer trial enrolled 43,661 people half of whom received a placebo and the other half were vaccinated.
> 
> There were 170 confirmed cases of which 162 (0.74%) were in the placebo group and 8 (0.04) in the vaccinated group.


Yep and the initial trial size was 35,000 the additional numbers were for other minorities, but I also know that production was still started based on the original and in September 2020.

I can say that now as it's in the public domain.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Sunny said:


> It's quotes like this that really bother me
> 
> A_t the NPHET briefing on Thursday, Prime Time asked Professor Philip Nolan, Chair of the Irish Epidemiological Modelling Advisory Group, if he'd run the models without the step change in social mixing included, and what the outcome would be.
> 
> "I did, and the answer is: it’s modest," he said. "Frankly, it is anywhere between Alpha-only and the optimistic scenario."_
> 
> So we are only seeing a 'modest' change in the forecasts by not opening indoor hospitality on the 19th. Given that they are now seeing a risk (but won't tell us the probability) of anything from Alpha only outbreak with hospitality closed to a more severe outbreak than Alpha if opened, why aren't we locking down again? The answer has to be the probability of an outbreak like January to be so unlikely that NPHET are prepared to take the risk.
> 
> So the question still remains. How much extra risk would we have taken on by opening up indoor hospitality on the 19th? They have obviously modelled it.


If he did he should publish the results or make them available.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Sophrosyne said:


> Other countries model on their own prevalent conditions.


That's what should happen but we are in "emergency mode" now.

Resources need to be put at this as the next one is around the corner.


----------



## EmmDee

joer said:


> I am amazed at the Vaccine centre at the Aviva is been halted to facilitate a rugby international. Where is the priority in this instance.
> Surely there are rugby grounds in the country which this match could have been used. I wonder how many unvaccinated people will be at this match.
> Baffling.



Isn't it moving to UCD not being shut. I think they are doing the same with other grounds where activity will start during the Summer and into the Autumn.

The Aviva will have a number of games over the next month and then you have football and rugby in the Autumn.


----------



## Leo

Sunny said:


> 95% efficacy does not mean that 95% of the population are protected from getting covid and that 5% have zero protection. It means the chance of getting Covid or severe Covid is reduced by 95% compared to an unvaccinated population. 100% of the unvaccinated population will not get Covid. It will only be small % of that population


No, efficacy only applies to controlled trial conditions where the non-control groups are exposed to sufficient virion load to contract the virus.  You're talking about contagion outside of trial conditions, so you need to talk in term of effectiveness.


----------



## Leo

joe sod said:


> It's not really nphet that is the issue but the power that they have been given by the government and media, why ?


What powers do they have?

If you want to direct your ire at someone, perhaps ask why more than a year later why we still lag behind many who spend far less than us on heath in terms of intensive and critical care capacity. That limited capacity, and the fear of it being overrun is a driver behind continued restrictions.


----------



## Sunny

Leo said:


> No, efficacy only applies to controlled trial conditions where the non-control groups are exposed to sufficient virion load to contract the virus.  You're talking about contagion outside of trial conditions, so you need to talk in term of effectiveness.



Leo, we are talking about what Philip Nolan said and what you agreed with when you are saying:

_*So if you understand that 95% efficacy means that 95% of a cohort will be protected, surely you understand that this means 5%, or 1 in 20 will not be protected?*_

*If it wasn't so, and that 5% had some level of protection, then the efficacy would be higher.*

That is not what efficacy is. I know the difference about what they mean when they talk about how efficant an vaccine is and how effective a vaccine is in the real world. It doesn't matter what term you want to use. What you say above is simply not true. A 95% efficacy or a 95% effectiveness does not mean that 5% of the population are un-protected or 95% of the population are protected for the reasons why I explained above. Saying 25,000 elderly vaccinated people are at risk of this variant is simply not correct. It's not a matter of opinion. It's maths.


----------



## Leo

Sunny said:


> Leo, we are talking about what Philip Nolan said and what you agreed with when you are saying:


I didn't mention what Philip Nolan said, I simply explained the efficacy term should not be applied to individuals or non-trial conditions.


----------



## Sunny

Leo said:


> I didn't mention what Philip Nolan said, I simply explained the efficacy term should not be applied to individuals or non-trial conditions.



Your understanding that you stated is incorrect. 95% efficacy does not mean 95% of the population are protected and 5% aren't. It means people with the vaccine are 95% less likely to catch Covid or severe covid than non vaccinated people. It's a subtle but important point when you have people claiming that 5% of vaccinated people are 'not protected' from covid and you are trying predict future case numbers, hospitalisations and deaths.


----------



## joe sod

Sophrosyne said:


> The Pfizer trial found an infection rate of 0.74% in the placebo group and 0.04% in the vaccinated group.
> 
> Therefore, the vaccine reduced the infection rate by 0.7%.


But even with corrected figures this statement is still wrong, the vaccine reduced the infection rate by 95%, that's all anyone needs to know and was widely publicized data by Pfizer from last November. Why did you go to all the rounds to  say that it reduced it from 0.74% to 0.04%, even after correction,  it's still a 95% reduction its "classic damn lives and statistics stuff" you were trying to engage in


----------



## Sophrosyne

@joe sod do you understand how efficacy in clinical trials is worked out?


----------



## settlement

Yeah 95% efficacy is the important data. The reduction in covid rate of 0.7% is a bit misleading as it doesn't capture scaling and the knock on effect of having fewer cases in the community which reduces the r rate etc. That's why scientists use efficacy as the truest measure of a vaccine.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

settlement said:


> Yeah 95% efficacy is the important data. The reduction in covid rate of 0.7% is a bit misleading as it doesn't capture scaling and the knock on effect of having fewer cases in the community which reduces the r rate etc. That's why scientists use efficacy as the truest measure of a vaccine.


Is there methodology used to understand the effects of vaccines,  they hardly ignore it and it must be an important variable.

Edit; not in the trials but in the general population.


----------



## settlement

Paul O Mahoney said:


> Is there methodology used to understand the effects of vaccines,  they hardly ignore it and it must be an important variable.
> 
> Edit; not in the trials but in the general population.


Yes, healthcare practitioners report all side effects and these are counted, analysed etc for patterns. Eg you get a vaccine and 1 week later you get a rash, your nurse or doc will report this


----------



## Leo

Sunny said:


> Your understanding that you stated is incorrect. 95% efficacy does not mean 95% of the population are protected and 5% aren't.


Efficacy DOES NOT apply to the population at large, it's a measure that refers to candidates in trial conditions. 



Sunny said:


> It means people with the vaccine are 95% less likely to catch Covid or severe covid than non vaccinated people.


The 95% efficacy rates quoted IS NOT a measure of how sick someone will become! Pfizer efficacy there is ~100%.


----------



## Sophrosyne

settlement said:


> Yeah 95% efficacy is the important data. The reduction in covid rate of 0.7% is a bit misleading as it doesn't capture scaling and the knock on effect of having fewer cases in the community which reduces the r rate etc. That's why scientists use efficacy as the truest measure of a vaccine.





Paul O Mahoney said:


> Is there methodology used to understand the effects of vaccines, they hardly ignore it and it must be an important variable.
> 
> Edit; not in the trials but in the general population.



That’s correct. I explained here, how Pfizer arrived at the efficacy rate, i.e., by dividing 0.70 by the infection rate of the placebo group, 0.74% = 95%.

The efficacy rate, while truly remarkable, is theoretic rather than an absolute. It is the rate that would be expected if the people and conditions in the clinical trial exactly mirrored real world.

Real world effectiveness can be higher or lower depending on prevailing conditions such as attack rates, variants, underlying illnesses, behaviour, exposure, transmissibility, vaccine availability & uptake, etc.

They will vary from country to country and areas within countries.

Vaccine effectiveness is discovered during its rollout in the real world by observation, data collection and study and this is going on worldwide.

And that is what NPHET and its contributors do all day every day in the Irish context.

Doubtless their work was and continues to be obstructed by the cyber-attack on the HSE’s IT systems.

Israel, which is more on with vaccinations than other countries, has put a lot of work into analysing real-world vaccine effect - here.

But as you can see, because the real world cannot be controlled in the same way as in a clinical trial, analysis can be tortuous.


----------



## 24601

I think the main point here is that the risk of breakthrough infections resulting in serious illness/death for fully vaccinated people is not 5% as insinuated by Nolan. To suggest that this is the case is misleading at best and intentionally scaremongering at worst.


----------



## Sunny

Leo said:


> Efficacy DOES NOT apply to the population at large, it's a measure that refers to candidates in trial conditions.
> 
> 
> The 95% efficacy rates quoted IS NOT a measure of how sick someone will become! Pfizer efficacy there is ~100%.



 Use Efficacy or effectiveness to your hearts content. You are still wrong when you say 

*So if you understand that 95% efficacy means that 95% of a cohort will be protected, surely you understand that this means 5%, or 1 in 20 will not be protected?

If it wasn't so, and that 5% had some level of protection, then the efficacy would be higher.*

You pulled up another poster for correctly pointing out that Philip Nolan was incorrect when he said 

_We have almost 500,000 people aged 70 and over. Even if the vaccine is 95% effective in preventing severe disease, 25,000 people remain vulnerable._

That was either badly worded or complete scare mongering and we still don't know if this statement is reflected in the model.


Also the 95% efficacy at trial does measure how sick you become to a certain extent as it only captures symptomatic cases i.e. All the identified covid cases in the trial had to show symptoms. It didn't include asymptomatic cases. The Pfizer vaccine does not have 100% efficacy in adults with regard severe illness (as defined by the FDA). Even at the initial trial, there was 1 severe case in the vaccinated group versus 3 severe cases in the placebo group.  It had 100% efficacy in trials for 12-18 year olds. 

The last I heard about vaccine effectiveness was 96/97 % against infection, serious illness or death and about 90/91% against asymptomatic infection. Though not sure with the Delta variant what it is now.


----------



## Leo

Sunny said:


> The last I heard about vaccine effectiveness was 96/97 % against infection, serious illness or death and about 90/91% against asymptomatic infection. Though not sure with the Delta variant what it is now.


So you're back confusing efficacy with effectiveness?


Sunny said:


> The Pfizer vaccine does not have 100% efficacy in adults with regard severe illness (as defined by the FDA).


It's 100% per CDC criteria, 95.3% for FDA.



Sunny said:


> Even at the initial trial, there was 1 severe case in the vaccinated group versus 3 severe cases in the placebo group. It had 100% efficacy in trials for 12-18 year olds.


Are you referring to the phase 3 clinical trial? If using FDA criteria, the placebo group had 21 severe cases versus 1 in the vaccinated group. Using CDC criterial, there were 32 cases of severe disease in the control group versus 0 among the vaccinated.


----------



## Sunny

Leo said:


> So you're back confusing efficacy with effectiveness?
> 
> It's 100% per CDC criteria, 95.3% for FDA.
> 
> 
> Are you referring to the phase 3 clinical trial? If using FDA criteria, the placebo group had 21 severe cases versus 1 in the vaccinated group. Using CDC criterial, there were 32 cases of severe disease in the control group versus 0 among the vaccinated.



Why do some people on this board just refuse to accept they are wrong? It is just tiresome having to go back debating pedantic points while ignoring the main point.

I am not confusing anything about efficacy or effectiveness. Why don't you tell me why you are correct with the below statement that you made.

*So if you understand that 95% efficacy means that 95% of a cohort will be protected, surely you understand that this means 5%, or 1 in 20 will not be protected?*

*If it wasn't so, and that 5% had some level of protection, then the efficacy would be higher.*

It is completely wrong. It isn't a matter of opinion. Tell me what you think 95% efficacy means then and how none of the 5% have any protection. You are basically saying that in the trial period, Pfizer discovered the vaccine protected 95% of the people and didn't work for 5%. That is not what the trial shows. The trial showed that a vaccinated person was 95% less likely to get sympomatic covid than someone who wasn't vaccinated. That is very different to saying the vaccine protected 95% of people and the other 5% got no protection. All the vaccine efficacy does in trial conditions or vaccine effectiveness in real world conditions does is show the proportionate reduction in the attack rate of the virus between the vaccinated group and the unvaccinated group. To suggest like you and Philip Nolan have done that 5% of the elderly population who have been vaccinated have no protection is completely wrong.


----------



## Bluefin

What is this debate about efficiency and effectiveness really about? 

Is it just another element being used by people who don't really want indoor dining and socialising opened up without being guaranteed 100% there's no chance of being exposed to any Covid19 virus! 

Risk is part of life - every time you get in a car, walk or cycle 150 people every year fail to come home and probably 10 times more are seriously injury with life changing injuries but we still do it.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Sunny said:


> I am not confusing anything about efficacy or effectiveness.



With respect @Sunny, you are mistaken about the efficacy rate.

Lets take 2 trial examples, each has 200 participants, half of whom are vaccinated.

*Example 1*

*Infected*​*Infection rate*​Unvaccinated100​100​*100%*​Vaccinated100​3​3%​*Reduction %**97%*​

Therefore vaccine reduced the infection rate by 97%

The efficacy formula is arrived at by dividing the reduction %, *97% *by the unvaccinated rate, *100% *= *97%*.

So, in this case, the efficacy rate and the vaccine reduction rate are the same because *all *of the unvaccinated became infected.

*Example 2*

*Infected*​*Infection rate*​Unvaccinated100​65​*65%*​Vaccinated100​3​3%​*Reduction %**62%*​

In this case the vaccine reduced the infection rate by 62% but the efficacy rate is higher.

The reduction rate is *62%*, but the efficacy rate, (62% divided by 65%) is *95%, *because it takes account of the 35 unvaccinated who did not become infected.


----------



## Sunny

Sophrosyne said:


> With respect @Sunny, you are mistaken about the efficacy rate.
> 
> Lets take 2 trial examples, each has 200 participants, half of whom are vaccinated.
> 
> *Example 1*
> 
> *Infected*​*Infection rate*​Unvaccinated100​100​*100%*​Vaccinated100​3​3%​*Reduction %**97%*​
> 
> Therefore vaccine reduced the infection rate by 97%
> 
> The efficacy formula is arrived at by dividing the reduction %, *97% *by the unvaccinated rate, *100% *= *97%*.
> 
> So, in this case, the efficacy rate and the vaccine reduction rate are the same because *all *of the unvaccinated became infected.
> 
> *Example 2*
> 
> *Infected*​*Infection rate*​Unvaccinated100​65​*65%*​Vaccinated100​3​3%​*Reduction %**62%*​
> 
> In this case the vaccine reduced the infection rate by 62% but the efficacy rate is higher.
> 
> The reduction rate is *62%*, but the efficacy rate, (62% divided by 65%) is *95%, *because it takes account of the 35 unvaccinated who did not become infected.



Hence why i said All the vaccine efficacy does in trial conditions or vaccine effectiveness in real world conditions does is show the *proportionate reduction* in the attack rate of the virus between the vaccinated group and the unvaccinated group. Or if you prefer it is simply a relative risk ratio. I never said the efficency was just the reduction in absolute numbers

I never said anything about not taking into account people who did not become infected. I stand over my point that people saying 95% efficacy means that 95% of the pople have protection while 5% don't is completely wrong. 

What Philip Nolan and others here have said is that because vaccine has an efficant of 95%, 5 people in the vaccinated group in the above survey are at risk of Covid because they have zero protection. He used 5% of 500k people and gave an absolute number of 25,000 people over 70 are at risk of Covid which is completely misleading. Again, going back to your trial of 100 people where the attack rate is 65% in the unvaccinated group, then would expect to 65% of the 5% get Covid. So instead of 5 vaccinated people in your trial expected to get Covid, we could realistically expect approximately 3 people get covid. Considering the attack rate in the real world is a small fraction of the 65% you use, then you can see that we can really only expect a small % of the 25,000 people that Philip Nolan mentioned to actually get infected. But yet, we had the head of modelling make it sound that we are looking at 25000 cases of vaccinated elderly people getting infected. It is completely misleading.


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> I never said anything about not taking into account people who did not become infected. I stand over my point that people saying 95% efficacy means that 95% of the pople have protection while 5% don't is completely wrong.


My understanding is that, on average, the chances of getting infected are reduced by 95%.
That doesn't mean 95% of people have a zero chance of being infected and 5% have a 100% chance of being infected but  Nolan's Tweets seems to suggest that.

Basically with an efficacy rate of 95% if you are vaccinated your chance of being infected is reduced 20 fold. That's my understanding of it but I'm open to correction. 
Without wanting to go on about it the fact remains that someone over 85 is more than 600 times more likely to die than someone under 30. The vaccine reduced that to 600/20=30. So a fully vaccinated 85 year old is still 30 times more likely to die from Covid if they get it than an unvaccinated 29 year old.


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> My understanding is that, on average, the chances of getting infected are reduced by 95%.
> That doesn't mean 95% of people have a zero chance of being infected and 5% have a 100% chance of being infected but  Nolan's Tweets seems to suggest that.
> 
> Basically with an efficacy rate of 95% if you are vaccinated your chance of being infected is reduced 20 fold. That's my understanding of it but I'm open to correction.
> Without wanting to go on about it the fact remains that someone over 85 is more than 600 times more likely to die than someone under 30. The vaccine reduced that to 600/20=30. So a fully vaccinated 85 year old is still 30 times more likely to die from Covid if they get it than an unvaccinated 29 year old.


A vaccinated 85 year old is less likely to pass on the virus than an un-vaccinated 29 year old though.


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> A vaccinated 85 year old is less likely to pass on the virus than an un-vaccinated 29 year old though.


Are they though?
Has there been studies on that?


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Purple said:


> Are they though?
> Has there been studies on that?


From CDC May 27th

_"A growing body of evidence indicates that  fully vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) are less likely to have asymptomatic infection or to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others. Studies are underway to learn more about the benefits of Johnson & Johnson/Janssen vaccine. However, the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in fully vaccinated people cannot be completely eliminated as long as there is continued community transmission of the virus."_

Just watching the England update and it was mentioned that the vaccines do reduce transmission but the data isn't complete enough to say anything with certainty. 
They also said that there was clear evidence that the link between cases and hospitalizations has been weakened but not enough to prevent an increase in the Delta variant causing more hospitalisation and deaths but nothing on the scale seen at the start of the year.

So, its still positive news but not as positive as we might want


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> Are they though?
> Has there been studies on that?


Lower viral load for one thing:








						Initial report of decreased SARS-CoV-2 viral load after inoculation with the BNT162b2 vaccine - Nature Medicine
					

Breakthrough infections of SARS-CoV-2 occurring 12 or more days after the first dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine were associated with lower viral loads than those found in unvaccinated individuals, suggesting that the vaccine might reduce infectiousness.




					www.nature.com


----------



## Purple

Paul O Mahoney said:


> From CDC May 27th
> 
> _"A growing body of evidence indicates that  fully vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) are less likely to have asymptomatic infection or to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others. Studies are underway to learn more about the benefits of Johnson & Johnson/Janssen vaccine. However, the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in fully vaccinated people cannot be completely eliminated as long as there is continued community transmission of the virus."_
> 
> Just watching the England update and it was mentioned that the vaccines do reduce transmission but the data isn't complete enough to say anything with certainty.
> They also said that there was clear evidence that the link between cases and hospitalizations has been weakened but not enough to prevent an increase in the Delta variant causing more hospitalisation and deaths but nothing on the scale seen at the start of the year.
> 
> So, its still positive news but not as positive as we might want





odyssey06 said:


> Lower viral load for one thing:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Initial report of decreased SARS-CoV-2 viral load after inoculation with the BNT162b2 vaccine - Nature Medicine
> 
> 
> Breakthrough infections of SARS-CoV-2 occurring 12 or more days after the first dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine were associated with lower viral loads than those found in unvaccinated individuals, suggesting that the vaccine might reduce infectiousness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nature.com


Yes, but is the lower viral load in vaccinated over 75's lower than the viral load in infected otherwise fit and healthy unvaccinated 20 year olds?


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> Yes, but is the lower viral load in vaccinated over 75's lower than the viral load in infected otherwise fit and healthy unvaccinated 20 year olds?


I haven't heard anything to suggest viral load shed was different in 75 year olds versus 20 year olds.
What appears to be unusual is that it is the same. Older people infected with flu have much less viral shed than younger.








						‘When I look at the viral loads we find in elderly people, it is mind boggling’
					

Prodigious virus numbers in Covid-19 linked to contagion, say experts




					www.irishtimes.com


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Israel data reportedly shows plunge in efficacy of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine as delta variant spreads
					

At the same time, the decline in protection against serious cases and hospitalization is considerably milder, the Ynet news website said.




					fortune.com
				




This is being reported widely. As we discussed extensively efficacy and its importance in the vaccination program the above isn't a good new story.


----------



## Purple

Paul O Mahoney said:


> Israel data reportedly shows plunge in efficacy of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine as delta variant spreads
> 
> 
> At the same time, the decline in protection against serious cases and hospitalization is considerably milder, the Ynet news website said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fortune.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is being reported widely. As we discussed extensively efficacy and its importance in the vaccination program the above isn't a good new story.


That is what the WHO warned us about at the start of the year.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Purple said:


> That is what the WHO warned us about at the start of the year.


But at the start of the year it wasn't 100% what a new variant might look like. Of course it was inevitable that variants would evolve. 

Not one for pessimism but the Lambada variant is now making itself known outside of Peru and while its early days the WHO is again warning that this might be even more potent than everything that has been seen to date.


----------



## Purple

Paul O Mahoney said:


> But at the start of the year it wasn't 100% what a new variant might look like. Of course it was inevitable that variants would evolve.
> 
> Not one for pessimism but the Lambada variant is now making itself known outside of Peru and while its early days the WHO is again warning that this might be even more potent than everything that has been seen to date.


It was inevitable that they would be more transmissible. The fact that so far they have not been much more deadly is both positive and surprising.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Purple said:


> It was inevitable that they would be more transmissible. The fact that so far they have not been much more deadly is both positive and surprising.


Don't forget the vaccines while upgradeable might struggle with any new variant for a period of time before new ones are developed. 

3rd jab is now a certainty so another year of statistics .........Ahhhhhhhhh


----------



## Purple

According to the man on the Wireless (NewsTalk) hospitalisations as a proportion of infections in the UK are down 13 fold. Why are we so concerned about the Delta Variant in the UK when the people in the UK aren't?


----------



## Bluefin

Spent day travelling around London..everyone is very compliant in relation to masks on public transport, shops etc. Plenty of people wearing on the streets.. Thing's are fairly quiet in relation to the main tourist attractions.. No queues at London eye,  madam toussaint, dungeons, restaurant etc.. 

English chants started early afternoon.. God help us if they get beat tonight


----------



## Prosper

Purple said:


> Why are we so concerned about the Delta Variant in the UK when the people in the UK aren't?


They are worried about self isolating which is more likely now that they are more likely to be infected with Delta Covid now that mask wearing is no longer mandatory from 19th July.


----------



## Prosper

Bluefin said:


> everyone is very compliant in relation to masks on public transport, shops etc.


Wait until 19th July.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Purple said:


> According to the man on the Wireless (NewsTalk) hospitalisations as a proportion of infections in the UK are down 13 fold. Why are we so concerned about the Delta Variant in the UK when the people in the UK aren't?


Boris and the average joe don't really understand what's happening.

Practically every medical/science professional outside of those appointed by The UK Government is expressing serious concerns that I've seen on SKY, BBC and tonight on C4 news and questioning the decisions. 

One yesterday,  Prof King a former CMO said the UK risks having a large "virus pool " without hospitalisations but that can become a breeding ground for new variants, and also said that the effects of the original variants on younger people was small and there is no guarantee that's going to remain that way.

Again it's his opinion and he maybe incorrect,  but there is concern.

Health care experts have simply said the NHS won't be capable of running normal services,  3 declared Black Alerts today , if hospitalisations increase by a small percentage.


----------



## Purple

Give it a few years and we'll all have to worry about Malaria and Dengue fever. This could just be an amuse-bouche.


----------



## Bluefin

Unless I'm picking every quite restaurant or pub in London, from what I've observed the English are behaving much more sensible than what I've seen in the so called outside pub's /restaurant's in Ireland. 

I see the government and the pubs /restaurants are planning on passing primary legislation to allow only vaccinated people to dine in doors..what a beautiful Republic we live in today!


----------



## Bluefin

Listening to Kingston Mills on newstalk this morning..logical from a virus control perspective having unvaccinated kid's attending lecture halls makes no sense.. 

He stated 30% infections are occurring in U18... Again no logical reason to allow in door dining for this cohort unless it's a pure economic reason and not to upset the middle classes with kids.


----------



## odyssey06

Bluefin said:


> Listening to Kingston Mills on newstalk this morning..logical from a virus control perspective having unvaccinated kid's attending lecture halls makes no sense..
> 
> He stated 30% infections are occurring in U18... Again no logical reason to allow in door dining for this cohort unless it's a pure economic reason and not to upset the middle classes with kids.


It makes no sense re the virus.
Whatever about smaller kids who there is some evidence dont transmit the virus to the same extent... I havent heard anything to suggest secondary school age kids are any different than adults.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Alan Kelly is opposed to confining indoor dining to the fully vaccinated because it is "discriminatory".

His solution is to ramp up vaccination.

But given that only 55% of adults are fully vaccinated, how does he think the rest will be fully vaccinated in two weeks.


----------



## Sunny

Bluefin said:


> Listening to Kingston Mills on newstalk this morning..logical from a virus control perspective having unvaccinated kid's attending lecture halls makes no sense..
> 
> He stated 30% infections are occurring in U18... Again no logical reason to allow in door dining for this cohort unless it's a pure economic reason and not to upset the middle classes with kids.



There are no plans to vaccinate under 18s. Certainly no plans to vaccinate under 12s at any stage in the future. So what exactly does he want to do with these cohorts? Keep them locked down until they reach the age of 18??


----------



## kinnjohn

Sophrosyne said:


> Alan Kelly is opposed to confining indoor dining to the fully vaccinated because it is "discriminatory".
> 
> His solution is to ramp up vaccination.
> 
> But given that only 55% of adults are fully vaccinated, how does he think the rest will be fully vaccinated in two weeks.


Alan is like FF in opposition Michael understands,


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Sunny said:


> There are no plans to vaccinate under 18s. Certainly no plans to vaccinate under 12s at any stage in the future. So what exactly does he want to do with these cohorts? Keep them locked down until they reach the age of 18??


If the EU gives approval by August I think there will be vaccines available for 12/17 years old.

I don't think hes advocating that , anyway most children have been back to school and while some got covid very few were severely sick.

The proposed rules for indoor dining have said that children can enter with family, the details I didn't read .


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Sophrosyne said:


> Alan Kelly is opposed to confining indoor dining to the fully vaccinated because it is "discriminatory".
> 
> His solution is to ramp up vaccination.
> 
> But given that only 55% of adults are fully vaccinated, how does he think the rest will be fully vaccinated in two weeks.


AK23.5 isn't known for making sensible choices or developing sensible policies/plans.


----------



## Bluefin

While the Irish population have been great at taking vaccine todate I'd imagine that there will be a far higher degree of vaccine hesitation for the 12 to 18 age cohort. Parents will be reluctant to give their children any of the approved vaccines (only pfizer at the moment). I'm nervous of giving my only child one.


----------



## odyssey06

Sunny said:


> There are no plans to vaccinate under 18s. Certainly no plans to vaccinate under 12s at any stage in the future. So what exactly does he want to do with these cohorts? Keep them locked down until they reach the age of 18??


Wait until the staff have been offered vaccinations.
If you are going to let teenagers in you may as well let everyone indoors.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Bluefin said:


> While the Irish population have been great at taking vaccine todate I'd imagine that there will be a far higher degree of vaccine hesitation for the 12 to 18 age cohort. Parents will be reluctant to give their children any of the approved vaccines (only pfizer at the moment). I'm nervous of giving my only child one.


Small thing to think about Pfizer are really good with children vaccines and they fully understand that children's immune systems aren't as robust as adults and they take that into account. 

Historically problems with pediatric vaccines were nearly all to do with the adjuvant,  or gunk as I call it, in traditional vaccines. 

MNRA vaccine technology is new yes, but it's a totally different technology. 

Of course there are risks but all vaccines including the 3 in 1, Polio, to name 2 that are given every day.


----------



## Sunny

odyssey06 said:


> Wait until the staff have been offered vaccinations.
> If you are going to let teenagers in you may as well let everyone indoors.



Not really since a 13 year old unvaccinated person is not going to be propping up the bar knocking back pints compared to a unvaccinated 22 year old. So it's not really comparable. A 13 year old is not going to be going for dinner with his friends from numerous different households like an unvaccinated 19 year old.

If we are going to go down this ridiculous route of needing a vaccine cert to sit in coffee shop then allowing people under 18 who don't have a choice whether to be vaccinated or not is the correct decision.

My niece is 13 years old and her dad works for Pfizer. She received her vaccination. Seems they are not waiting around for approval from this Country.


----------



## Bluefin

Pfizer have vaccinated all employees and families who wanted it age's ago. 

13 yr old goes on sleepovers,  living with older and younger siblings etc_... 

30% of all cases are u18..they are catching it somewhere and we all have seen how droplets travel in confined indoor spaces and most independent coffee shops around the country are small in nature.. 

Lets be honest and admit its a pure economic reason for letting youngsters eat indoors and accept the risk and hope deaths or ICU cases won't go through the roof _


----------



## Purple

Paul O Mahoney said:


> Small thing to think about Pfizer are really good with children vaccines and they fully understand that children's immune systems aren't as robust as adults and they take that into account.
> 
> Historically problems with pediatric vaccines were nearly all to do with the adjuvant,  or gunk as I call it, in traditional vaccines.
> 
> MNRA vaccine technology is new yes, but it's a totally different technology.
> 
> Of course there are risks but all vaccines including the 3 in 1, Polio, to name 2 that are given every day.


Measles is an RNA virus. It is highly infectious but it doesn't mutate. The vaccine is very effective and safe for children.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Purple said:


> Measles is an RNA virus. It is highly infectious but it doesn't mutate. The vaccine is very effective and safe for children.


Almost 90% efficacy and has saved countless lives and serious illness.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Sunny said:


> My niece is 13 years old and her dad works for Pfizer. She received her vaccination. Seems they are not waiting around for approval from this Country.


The vaccine is not approved for use for under 18. My wife is a Snr Director of Pfizer and she was involved in the vaccination development and I can assure you that Pfizer would not give an unapproved vaccine to someone especially children.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Bluefin said:


> Pfizer have vaccinated all employees and families who wanted it age's ago.
> 
> 13 yr old goes on sleepovers,  living with older and younger siblings etc_...
> 
> 30% of all cases are u18..they are catching it somewhere and we all have seen how droplets travel in confined indoor spaces and most independent coffee shops around the country are small in nature..
> 
> Lets be honest and admit its a pure economic reason for letting youngsters eat indoors and accept the risk and hope deaths or ICU cases won't go through the roof _


Pfizer program is still going and I only got my second at the end of June, so today is my" immunity day ". I would have been quicker going through the HSE, but as my adult children were getting it we decided to go together........


----------



## Purple

Our  average death rate for Covid19 for the last 3 months has been between 1 and 2 per week.  
It's reasonable to suggest that most or all of those people were dying anyway since the vulnerable, old and fat have all been vaccinated.

If the average remains at that level for another month is it time to just open everything up and go back to normal?


----------



## Sophrosyne

But we don’t really know the number of cases and deaths since the cyberattack.

According to the [broken link removed]

“The reported epidemiology of COVID-19, including the daily number of COVID-19 cases and the 14-day incidence reports, is normally based on the notifications to the Computerised Infectious Disease Reporting (CIDR) system.

The cyber-attack on the HSE on 14 May 2021 has prevented the routine notification of cases, associated deaths and outbreaks of COVID-19 to CIDR.

*As an interim measure, provisional epidemiological reports will be prepared based on the information captured by the HSE COVID Care Tracker.*

Please note that these data do not represent notified cases and have not undergone the data validation procedures undertaken through CIDR.

For this reason, data in this report may differ from that previously reported based on CIDR data for this period. Similarly, future data reported for this period may differ from that presented in this report.

As soon as all COVID-19 surveillance systems are restored, surveillance staff in laboratories, the Departments of Public Health and HPSC will work together to retrospectively collate and validate COVID-19 cases, outbreaks and deaths diagnosed and/or notified during this period”


----------



## michaelm

Purple said:


> If the average remains at that level for another month is it time to just open everything up and go back to normal?


Yes.  In any event, once everyone has been offered a vaccine it is time to revert to normal and bin the vaccine passport.


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> Yes.  In any event, once everyone has been offered a vaccine it is time to revert to normal and bin the vaccine passport.


I think we'll need the vaccine certificate as there is a cohort of people who think Bill Gates is putting a tracker in your body and having a way of knowing who they are is great.


----------



## Bobbyg

If enough people are vaccinated does it really matter if there are some that refuse? they shouldn't be any threat to the vaccinated or am I wrong. There are people who genuinely are afraid to take the vaccine and I don't think they should be punished. I personally don't like the way the government are rushing through some of the legislation, I know it is an emergency and needs must, hopefully there is an end in sight. 

Disclaimer: I am due my second jab of moderna tomorrow and not anti-government or a conspiracy theorist!


----------



## Purple

Bobbyg said:


> There are people who genuinely are afraid to take the vaccine and I don't think they should be punished.


No, but if they choose to put themselves and others at risk by being irrational they should have to continue to wear masks, not be able to dine/drink indoors etc.


----------



## Bobbyg

Purple said:


> No, but if they choose to put themselves and others at risk by being irrational they should have to continue to wear masks, not be able to dine/drink indoors etc.


Not sure I agree, we can all potentially put people at risk with other virus' flu etc. and are not forced to do anything. Is COVID more lethal to someone vaccinated against it then flu to someone not vaccinated against flu. There are also thousands of young adults that never received the MMR and they are not being victimized or discriminated against. 

What risk does an unvaccinated person pose to someone that is vaccinated (genuine question) and is this not a level of risk we should be able to tolerate. Even if they pass the virus to someone that is vaccinated the chances of them being hospitalized now seems extremely low and dying I would think is close to zero.


----------



## Purple

Bobbyg said:


> Not sure I agree, we can all potentially put people at risk with other virus' flu etc. and are not forced to do anything.


The seasonal flu doesn't kill as many people as Covid19. Certainly people working in healthcare settings should be compelled to take the flu vaccine.


Bobbyg said:


> Is COVID more lethal to someone vaccinated against it then flu to someone not vaccinated against flu.


Yes.


Bobbyg said:


> There are also thousands of young adults that never received the MMR and they are not being victimized or discriminated against.


That's because their parents were/are idiots so it's not fair to punish them.


Bobbyg said:


> What risk does an unvaccinated person pose to someone that is vaccinated (genuine question)


More than someone who is vaccinated.


Bobbyg said:


> and is this not a level of risk we should be able to tolerate.


Yes, but we should minimise that risk by taming a vaccine.


Bobbyg said:


> Even if they pass the virus to someone that is vaccinated the chances of them being hospitalized now seems extremely low and dying I would think is close to zero.


There are some vulnerable people who cannot receive a vaccine. Unvaccinated people are putting them at a greater risk. That's not okay.


----------



## Bluefin

A bit harsh Purple...


----------



## Purple

Bluefin said:


> A bit harsh Purple...


What bit?


----------



## Bluefin

I think the vast majority of people are doing the right things tbh.. 

Our vaccination rates are hugely impressive with kids in 16-18 group now getting doses into arms.. Friends kids. 

If the cohort between 16-30 achieve 80% vaccine rates and we can get half of the 12-15 group then we will have achieved herd immunity and with planned booster shots in the autumn for the vulnerable, I think we shouldn't focus on the few who don't get vaccinated for whatever reason and celebrate the millions of people who have got vaccinated to protect themselves but in many cases to protect others


----------



## Purple

Bluefin said:


> I think the vast majority of people are doing the right things tbh..
> 
> Our vaccination rates are hugely impressive with kids in 16-18 group now getting doses into arms.. Friends kids.
> 
> If the cohort between 16-30 achieve 80% vaccine rates and we can get half of the 12-15 group then we will have achieved herd immunity and with planned booster shots in the autumn for the vulnerable, I think we shouldn't focus on the few who don't get vaccinated for whatever reason and celebrate the millions of people who have got vaccinated to protect themselves but in many cases to protect others


I agree but the fact is that the people who refuse to get vaccinated are putting other people at risk for no good reason. Therefore while there are cases being reported they should have to remain masked and should not be allowed into restaurants and pubs. 
I also believe that children who don't get the BCG shouldn't be allowed into schools and playgrounds but that's a different matter. 
In general people who put others at risk because they are stupid should be penalised. We do it with drunk drivers, we don't allow smoking in enclosed public places. This is just more of that sort of thing.


----------



## Bobbyg

I agree with some of the things you say but calling people stupid because they have concerns over a vaccine is a bit harsh. There is a lot of misinformation which doesn't help. There will cases of COVID for the foreseeable future and we may never be able to eliminate it so we will have to learn to live with it. In my opinion discriminating against people is not going to help, fine in the short term until enough people are vaccinated but after that we need to get back to normal living.


----------



## Purple

Bobbyg said:


> calling people stupid because they have concerns over a vaccine is a bit harsh.


Why? What else would you call it? There's more than enough factual information out there to let people know that it's very safe.


----------



## Bobbyg

anxious!


----------



## Purple

Bobbyg said:


> anxious!


Yea, groundlessly anxious. Needlessly anxious. Anxious in the face of fact and reality.

So what's the root cause of their anxiousness? I suggest that it's most likely stupidity.


----------



## Bluefin

Well now would you say that to the parents who gave their children the swine vaccine a few years ago and ended up with serious disabilities....the guilt must be terrible. High Court cases have been settled for some of these cases.. 

Fyi - double vaccinated and I'm 95% certain of giving my 15 yr old pfizer vaccine if she's willing to take it (think she will say bring it on asap)


----------



## Purple

Bluefin said:


> Well now would you say that to the parents who gave their children the swine vaccine a few years ago and ended up with serious disabilities....the guilt must be terrible. High Court cases have been settled for some of these cases..


Yes I would, if they were silly (stupid) enough to think that this was in any way similar. The H1N1 vaccine skipped large scale human trails.  
Even with that the risk of narcolepsy from the Swine Flu vaccine was about one in fifty five thousand. 

The mRNA vaccines are completely new and intrinsically safer.10 minutes on the internet will satisfy any rational person that this is different.


Bluefin said:


> Fyi - double vaccinated and I'm 95% certain of giving my 15 yr old pfizer vaccine if she's willing to take it (think she will say bring it on asap)


I'll follow the advice of the EMA when it comes to vaccinating my children.


----------



## joe sod

Looks like nphet are preparing to leave the stage , the all encompassing ultra powerful body (by irish standards) has signalled the end of restrictions and their involvement with them . They have become very optimistic about the big drop in cases in the UK now despite them opening up their economy and society. They made a very significant statement which RTE reported as a by the way at the very end of the report. Once vaccinations have reached the critical mass and the numbers of cases have fallen off there will be no need for prescriptive rules and it will be back to personal responsibility about what level of risk you want to expose yourself too. It looks like the "old normal" is returning alot faster than many are expecting


----------



## odyssey06

joe sod said:


> Looks like nphet are preparing to leave the stage , the all encompassing ultra powerful body (by irish standards) has signalled the end of restrictions and their involvement with them . They have become very optimistic about the big drop in cases in the UK now despite them opening up their economy and society. They made a very significant statement which RTE reported as a by the way at the very end of the report. Once vaccinations have reached the critical mass and the numbers of cases have fallen off there will be no need for prescriptive rules and it will be back to personal responsibility about what level of risk you want to expose yourself too. It looks like the "old normal" is returning alot faster than many are expecting


This is just their builders holiday... I am hearing I'll Be Back from the musical Hamilton reading your post... in time for Christmas.


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> This is just their builders holiday... I am hearing I'll Be Back from the musical Hamilton reading your post... in time for Christmas.


Aren't you just a ray of sunshine.


----------



## odyssey06

Interestingly Minister Ryan is talking about offices re-opening in September.

Google have announced a policy that only vaccinated staff can attend their offices in the US, and are examining if feasible to roll this out in other locations.


----------



## joe sod

Looks like we are now allowed gatherings of 200 outside along with at long last live music, this is great news. We can thank Katherine zappone for that, the government has been embarrassed into easing of restrictions thanks to their own stupidity. It seems that the government needs to be dragged kicking and screaming in order to relax the restrictions. They didn't need to consult nphet either , when their own necks are on the line nphet becomes irrelevant.

We now have a route out of restrictions thankfully mainly due to vaccinations


----------



## Ceist Beag

Let's be honest Joe, do you really think people were abiding by the restrictions before this announcement (did they even know what they were)? The Katherine Zappone episode was just a reflection of what is happening since the start of July (possibly earlier!).
Never mind what opposition politicians say when the express surprise at the Merrion Hotel episode, it's just point scoring. It wouldn't at all surprise me if a number of them were at similar events themselves.


----------



## odyssey06

Workplaces and wedding noted as sources covid outbreaks in the period July 13th to August 9th.









						More than one-third of Covid-19 cases in Ireland linked to workplaces
					

More than a third of Covid-19 outbreaks are in the workplace as the Delta variant sees increasing numbers of younger workers testing positive.




					www.independent.ie


----------



## Purple

Ceist Beag said:


> Let's be honest Joe, do you really think people were abiding by the restrictions before this announcement (did they even know what they were)? The Katherine Zappone episode was just a reflection of what is happening since the start of July (possibly earlier!).
> Never mind what opposition politicians say when the express surprise at the Merrion Hotel episode, it's just point scoring. It wouldn't at all surprise me if a number of them were at similar events themselves.


If only Zappone was a Good Republican...


----------

