Itâs Korma for them allowing Covid to spread.
1 Like
I donât agree. They have knowingly tried to mislead a frightened public and, and political leaders, and their efforts have undermined the governmentâs (admittedly shit) approach.
2 Likes
I wouldnât necessarily agree with that. The debacle at Christmas turned it right round. Politicians who were bellowing to open it up at Christmas did a 180 on it
Cabinet ministers have revealed the reopening plan to the Mail on Sunday supposedly. It goes as follows.
May
Week 1 - Click and collect retail. All construction
Week 2- All retail to open.
Week 3- Personal Services to open
Week 4- Increase in the number of household to meet outdoors Limited return of outdoor dining
June
Week 1 - Inter county travel
Week 2- Outdoor dining for pubs and restaurants
Week 3- Indoor dining and full opening of hotels B&Bs ( With all the social distancing requirements they used in 2020)
Week 4- Re opening of society complete
1 Like
I would take the view that itâs because weâve had more restrictions than most EU countries for far longer periods, and because zero covid advocates have been given so much prominence and airtime.
The truth was somewhere in the middle indeed. But thatâs not what ISAG stated because they wanted the government to come around to âour way of thinkingâ. So they willingly misled the government. The other stuff in the leaks shows a clear streak of arrogance. NPHET are âarse coverersâ, politicians and journos are fools. Anybody that disagrees with us is a charlatan. A âstacked panelâ is required to enter a debate. Dissenters must be met with a hurley in a dark room.
Griptâs background or editorialising doesnât take away from the fact that ISAGâS MO is ramping up fear, a convenient relationship with the truth, arrogant dismissal of other scientists and experts and a view of the world consistent with those on a secure wage in an academic bubble where everyone can click and collect a book from their favourite bookstore in Blackrock.
12 Likes
Does that mean we can go to a match?
Iâd know that pool table anywhere.
The public were frightened because cases were rising quickly. Because the truth was scary. We knew about the B117 variant, that it was more transmissible, and that a 70% more transmissible variant with the same lethality - which is what it was assumed B117 was, was much more serious for the public health situation than a hypothetical 70% more lethal virus with the same transmissibility. John Edmunds of SAGE in the UK had already called the spread of the variant in the UK âthe worst moment of the pandemicâ.
It became very apparent, very quickly in the days before Christmas that we needed to lock down hard and lock down quickly, and NPHET and the Government knew this themselves, they arenât stupid.
The idea that ISAGâs emails were some sort of a âscandalâ is like telling a weather forecaster that they are to blame for a storm. The job of a weather forecaster is also to warn people when a storm is approaching, as Michael Fish found out to his cost. You donât say âweather forecasters are spreading fearâ.
That this Gript propaganda trash gained any traction at all is bizarre and it really does make me question peopleâs state of mind.
Donnelly was on Radio 1 half an hour ago. He was not convincing.
But what ISAG was saying was true. It entirely reflected the reality of the situation.
Where would gyms feature there?
Personal service? What about the cinema?
Week 3 May but Donnelly said nothing has been discussed yet
Whereâs the Club game in that?
The email was sent on 28th December. The ISAG line was "hook is the new strain is the key driver at the moment (which may or may not be true).
On 1st January, De Gascun released a study stating it wasnât the key driver
1 Like
Anybody looking at the situation with any degree of objectivity had to assume the B117 variant was a key driver. It was unquestionably a key danger. The alternative - what Gript wanted - was to dismiss it as a threat.
Go back to December on this forum. Certain people were dismissing the B117 variant as a threat, that it had been hyped up by Boris Johnson for political reasons, when it was obvious this was not the case.
And if it wasnât a key driver, wouldnât that have been an even scarier situation? Because the mass spread of Christmas would have been because of the less transmissible variant, not the more transmissible one?
This was an incredibly serious situation and it was clear that acting quickly and acting decisively was paramount.
Who would you trust, those who take the emergence of a new, more transmissible variant seriously amid a situation which was already incredibly serious, or those who wanted to dismiss that variant as a threat?
What does this mean?
Youâre playing the man here and bringing in Griptâs agenda. Gript undoubtedly have an agenda but the ISAG content is presented verbatim and the reader can make up their mind as to itâs veracity.
Why was De Gascun presenting a study to the media on a date after the email outlining ISAGâs agenda, that based on a scientific study stated it wasnât a key driver. Is De Gascun dismissing the variant as a threat? Maybe we should fire him for not being objective and replace him with the neuroscientist and Geographer.
2 Likes