They new themselves it was pure rubbish they were just afraid of holahan
The principle of improving ventilation is a good one. Whether opening windows made any difference, maybe not, maybe if it did the effect was very minor. It’s impossible to quantify these things. Is that a reason not to have tried it? What harm did opening windows do?
All the other measures were done because they were things that could be done, that were thought might help, even if only in a very minor way, and that maybe the accumulation of many small things might make some more meaningful difference.
With the sanitising things there was a fairly recent memory of the 2001 Foot and Mouth outbreak and how disinfecting things was widely used to try and combat the spread of that. Again, what harm was done by sanitising things? In that Foot and Mouth outbreak brutal things were done, whole herds were slaughtered and burned in massive bonfires. Was that right? I don’t know. Probably not. Was it necessary?
I’ve no doubt all the other measures would be tried again if we had another pandemic. Lads are now commenting from a position where the worst is clearly in the past and we have returned to a normal society. Of course from that vantage point the measures that were taken during the pandemic might seem ludicrous and dystopian, and we all hope they never have to be used ever again. But they were not brought in for no good reasons, they were brought in because the pandemic was real and deadly. There’s nothing to say another pandemic can’t or won’t happen in the future.
2 Likes
Speaking of measures…anyone dare mention vitamin d?
Only here would you find screaming Marys who would get offended by labelling cervical check Holohan as an alco, he is a hell of a lot worse than that, steamers.
1 Like
In your own words, what did Holohan do wrong as regards Cervical Check?
Gross negligence no need for an essay.
What gross negligence?
Did he not advise advise the Government against a review of the screening programme?
Using it daily 
1 Like
A perfectly fair and legitimate viewpoint in terms of a public confidence perspective given there was no actual evidence that Cervical Check was underperforming in comparison to screening programmes in other countries.
When you baselessly undermine confidence in a valuable public health programme, the public loses confidence in it, and the likely result is that people die unnecessarily because an increased amount of people do not avail of it precisely because they have lost confidence in it.
But people did die unnecessarily that’s the whole point, as CMO his absolute priority should have been to ensure no stone was left unturned in finding out why, instead he put his own reputation ahead of that and doubled down on his position.
Untrue
Ah stop man.
Was that not yesterday?
It was a random plucked from nowhere and not backed by any sort of science
I just explained the ‘science’ in perfectly clear terms. The governing idea: encouraging people not to visit more than one pub in an outing. This idea is hardly difficult to grasp.
The fact you did not agree with the measure does not mean the measure was ‘unscientific’ or irrational or “plucked from nowhere”. You really need to think rather than just give in to emoting.
It is untrue. There’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what a screening programme is. It is not a test for cancer and false negatives are built into the system, unfortunately. Sweden did an audit of its cervical cancer screening programme for the same years the audit of the Irish programme was done for and the Irish programme performed better.
Other countries do not routinely perform audits and those that do do not routinely inform the patients whose results are audited, of the results of these audits.
Had Vicky Phelan been informed of the results of the audit of her smear tests in 2015 as opposed to 2017, she would still have had the exact same cancer, which she was diagnosed with in 2014. The story was essentially a right to information story. In other countries these payouts do not happen. In Ireland they do because of the way information is handled, because a mass panic arises about unavoidable faults which are tragically inbuilt into the programme. But the programme overall is a good one and saves lives.
This is a wind up. Right?
The split season has a lot to answer for
1 Like