Coronavirus 2020



Is it just NPHETs dealing with the pandemic you have serious issues with? Or the response of governments in the whole of Western Society?
Seems to me Ireland is somewhere in the ‘middle’ in terms of their response to the pandemic


It… depends on the circumstances? That’s why I referred to the effective reproduction number. Indoors vs, outdoor, ventilation vs no ventilation, spending prolonged time with others vs social distancing. All that stuff. Set up optimal conditions for the virus spreading, and it’s very infectious indeed. Take away those conditions, and it isn’t.

I’m sorry, but after 9 months of this stuff I can’t believe that you’re engaging in good faith. If you are, you have my sympathies.


Only one member of HIQA on NPHET? I presume they have to keep their head down given their lukewarm take on the effectiveness of masks? (National and international public health guidance on the use of face masks is based on low certainty direct evidence of clinical effectiveness. Their applicability to COVID-19 is uncertain. HIQA - Aug 2020)

Nice to see a former Heineken marketing manager on NPHET all the same!


That very list was discussed here back in May (I think) when we went though the vast relevant “expertise” of those involved. Basically none.

They are mostly HSE/Dept of Health people. Career bureaucrats. Either the kind of people who brought you all the other HSE total fuck-ups over the years or from a Dept so inept that takes almost a year to produce even the most basic morality statistics. (The CSO depend on RIP.IE) There are a few MD’s, all deeply involved in the HSE /Dept Health etc bureaucracy some way or other. The few “scientists” are mostly basically HIV guys one way or another. Which if you know how that particular business works tells you all you need to know about the academic abilities. When I looked through their published papers I saw nothing to indicate relevant domain expertise. And more importantly I have not heard on single comment from this lot that indicated any real familiarity with the relevant domain literature. Very basic stuff. Very basic maths and statistics for starters.

Both the guy from Maynooth and the CMO are compete spoofers. Very typical careerist bullshit artists. Watch just five mins of the CMO in front of the Dail committee to get an idea of just what a complete fraud he is. He reminded me of when the NAMA guys were in front of a Dail committee. Even down to the supercilious mannerisms.

Over the last 11 months I’ve heard a lot of “expert” opinion from various health agency people. From HK, SK, Taiwan, Singapore, Sweden, Norway etc. They pretty much always gave the impression that they at least knew the basic science involved. Some were very very impressive. Then there are countries like France, Italy, Germany, UK were some of the “experts” sounded like they knew what they were talking about and some did not. Some first rate bullshitters in both the UK and Italy.

Then there were countries like Spain, the US, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc were most of the health officials were bullshitting one way or another. They made statements where the basic science was wrong or no supporting literature could be found.

Then you have places were almost ever single statement made by health officials is completely and total bullshit. Very basic stuff completely wrong. That includes NPHET, and all big city Health Depts in the US, the completely bat-shit crazy guys in the State of Victoria, etc The pathetic sociologist in LA being easily the worst but I noticed the HIV huckster in SF buggered off very quickly after saying stupid stuff and left it to his deputy, who actually did study epidemiology at one stage in college. Not that it made much difference due to politics. The NYC guys, well, what can one say. It seems the virus is deeply racist based on what they have been obsessing about. Old sick people, who cares, pack 'em in tight in those care homes…

So I know exactly who the NPHET guys are and more importantly I have not heard one public comment from any of them that indicate they have even a basic grasp of the concept of random diffusion spread with no effective physical barriers. Which is what we are dealing with here. And thats just for starters. So its just another totally incompetent government committee that consists mostly of insiders with the rest very much part of the establishment who will never rock the boat.

And thats who runs the country at the moment. A bunch of bureaucratic charlatans when you consider what the actual subject at hand actually is. A low general population health risk human corona-viruses with the same clinical and epidemiological characteristics of all other general circulation human corona-viruses.

A think a perfect definition of criminal incompetence is shutting down the country and screaming end of the world all the time for a new common cold virus. Which is what it very quickly turned out to be. A subject discussed here back in February (I think) when someone linked to a article which discussed that actual outcome.



“… all of America must receive vaccine within 24 hours…”

:fire: Viral And Insane @ViralAndInsane

Now I think I know why TRUMP said ‘CALM before the STORM’… #trump #donaldTrump #maga #biden #joebiden #maga2020


0:25 / 1:00

8:27 AM · Nov 19, 2020·Twitter Web App

Video @ Src:

I think this is a statement of logistical distribution first and foremost, America not “Americans” as the maker of the video claims. However, after it’s disturbed. I have no idea. Interesting statements none the less, using the military to fight a heavy dose, but it does get the US military equitably and strategically disturbed across all the States within 24 hours, so there is that. :ninja:


18th November - Mask efficacy study released.

Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers



Observational evidence suggests that mask wearing mitigates transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). It is uncertain if this observed association arises through protection of uninfected wearers (protective effect), via reduced transmission from infected mask wearers (source control), or both.


To assess whether recommending surgical mask use outside the home reduces wearers’ risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a setting where masks were uncommon and not among recommended public health measures.


Randomized controlled trial (DANMASK-19 [Danish Study to Assess Face Masks for the Protection Against COVID-19 Infection]). ( NCT04337541)


Denmark, April and May 2020.


Adults spending more than 3 hours per day outside the home without occupational mask use.


Encouragement to follow social distancing measures for coronavirus disease 2019, plus either no mask recommendation or a recommendation to wear a mask when outside the home among other persons together with a supply of 50 surgical masks and instructions for proper use.


The primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 infection in the mask wearer at 1 month by antibody testing, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), or hospital diagnosis. The secondary outcome was PCR positivity for other respiratory viruses.


A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%). The between-group difference was −0.3 percentage point (95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) (odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33). Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results. Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection.


Inconclusive results, missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others.


The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection.

Full Text here:


Its pretty much all Western Governments. But the Irish response (which is being discussed here) when compared to other countries is very much on the totally incompetent side of the scale. Its about as bad as Spain, Italy and (French) Belgium in Europe.

From the beginning I was using Norway as my public health policy “control”. Its a small country very akin to Ireland in a whole bunch of ways. Much better comparison than Finland or Denmark who have serious key differences. Norway actually had a comprehensive response plan in place before hand. Ireland did not. The moment the Norwegian plan was triggered it all pretty much worked like clock work being incrementally changed and reviewed by the day / week as the situation evolved. The Irish government scrambled to put together some adhoc response not helped by the fact it actually had no government, no suitable central health authority organization in-place to implement the “plan”, actually nothing beyond an outline “plan”, a PowerPoint presentation, and no mechanism to bring in necessary relevant expertise or change plans or policy at very short notice.

By May the Irish reposes was still thrashing about changing policy direction and emphases on almost a daily basis in a very random manner with zero transparency and no accurate detailed clinical data being publisher. In Norway the relevant controlling health authority had already produced an interim audit report on the effectiveness of the initial response and made substantive recommendations for changes which were implemented immediately. The Norwegian health authority at all times published detailed clinical data on cases, the epidemiological models used by them were fully published and the values used explained and discussed. The model values were modified on a weekly basis as more accurate larger data sets became available. At the same time a number of papers and studies published by Norwegian researchers on the government response some of which argued against some assumption used by the response plan. These were discussed. And sometimes acted up.

The epidemiological model used by NPHET has never been published , no substantive public information is available on models used, values used, or any discussion of the reasoning used for these values. Based on public statements by NPHET and others there is no indication that the models used are any more sophisticated that basic training / teaching models and there is zero evidence that any real adjustments have been made to the model key values since March. They are still quoting R0 numbers which not only make no sense but which they are in no position to calculate accurately. In fact there is a large body of published literature that shows that the R0 estimation technique they are probably using has no mathematical or scientific basis. Its always gives the wrong results, grossly overestimating that actual field R0.

So by June the daily news in Norway had pretty much relegated COVID to secondary minor story. They were much more interested in the economic impact etc. Since then there have been the usual up and downs in Norway and now it has moved into the Winter Flu plan. Long term Norway is converging on the same rates / mortality as Sweden (when adjusted for demographic differences) which is another interesting data point but a very different subject;

At all stages over the last 9 months there has always been a readily available and published explanation for each and every step taken in Norway in response to the epidemic. Everything is transparent. Everything is available online. Plans, data, models, decision process. In more recent months I might have more of a problem with some of the steps taken but the Norwegian plan cannot be faulted for coherence, consistency, transparency and the ability of the people responsible for implementing the plan to argue their case from the basic science invoked.

In Ireland from the very beginning its just been a bunch of totally unqualified people just making up shit as they go along. With zero transparency. And it shows.

Thats the problem I have with NPHET.


Why I think schools are responsible for confirmed cases not declining despite level 5 is as follows:

1 Why kids are risky.

Johnny goes to school A class 1 where he is isolated in a bubble with a few kids as the class is split into groups. His teacher wears a screen where his/her breath is directed downwards. Oh he also gets on a bus where its overcrowded like a clown car even though the government has ambitions of social distancing on school transport he now mixes with class 2 through 11.

His siblings go to school B class 12 and College C class 13, 14, 15, 16. Johnny attends an after school facility (where noone has to wear a mask except if changing a nappy or other occasions where bodily fluids are involved) or afterschool activity (I’m not sure if these are open) attended by kids from schools D classes 17,18,19 E, classes 20,21,22. etc. He goes and mixes with kids on the street classes 23, 24, 25.

Johnny hobbies include picking his nose and his version of washing his hands is its a job that takes 5 seconds (soap is optional) if he remembers or is reminded after taking a shit.

  1. School surroundings are risky

One of Johnnys parents picks up covid and infects Johnny and siblings and they infect other parents having a chat at school gate etc (you know the logic is sporting matches crowds cancelled cause people can social distance in grounds but won’t keep to that distancing outside). There is no decent social distancing when the bell goes or outside the gate.

  1. Figures

These consist of people coming forward because they are symptomatic and contacts of a confirmed case.

My theory is schools being back for a day leads to 1/5th of their weekly effect on figures so you really need them back full time for 5 days to get their full effect of open schools.

You need to wait 2-14 days (5 days average) from infection for someone to be symptomatic enough to seek a test and a further 2-3 days for results to come back.

It therefore takes 13ish days (maybe a little longer) for most of the effects of schools being open to properly show up in the rates of infection.

Schools were closed for 9 days over Halloween (including the 2 weekends). The first people to show signs of infection after being infected on day 1 of schools being back would show up in figures at least 4-5 days later (average 7-8 days later). It would take an average 11-12 days for most of the effects of schools being open to show up in figures. It would start to filter through to the 7 day average figure after about 5 days but not fully effect it till about day 18 or 19.

I think around day 13 it would show a decent effect on the figures.
For Day 10 of schools being open the previous week had a total of 2869 confirmed cases this compares to Day 17 of schools being open 2909 confirmed cases. This was a 1.4% increase.

2 Days before school reopened we had 5856 confirmed cases the previous week, on Day 5 of schools being open the previous week had a total of 3591 confirmed cases there had been a 38.7% decrease in confirmed cases.

I would speculate the weekly figures are being affected significantly by schools being open however this is just a theory other factors may be at play and I freely admit my evidence is weak. I’ve been wrong plenty before. This is just my own theory from looking at figures its one possible mechanism to explain the current numbers.
I’m putting this out there with the question can anyone direct me to evidence that opening schools is safe?


Have you considered contacting NPHET etc directly with these issues?

Would you go on a discussion programme or give prominence to these issues by writing a newspaper article for example?


Ah bollox, I’ve been waiting what seems like all year for a vaccine and now you’re telling me that when presumably the WHO, ECDC, etc recommend the thing, to ignore them, telling my wife etc it’s because a few of the lads on the pin know better?

So any efficacy rates claimed for this vaccine are basically statistically meaningless with their current testing protocols.


Truth hurts sometimes.


It should allow the bureaucrats to exit the panic, if it doesn’t work so what, the whole thing is a common cold anyway, if it does work and it’s not a common cold. What if it’s not a common cold and doesn’t work though?


Whatever is going on in the hospitals, 23 discharged - 20 admitted should result in -3 in hospital but the graph shows a net increase of 16. So they are basically describing anyone with a positive PCR as a positive covid patient.


Russian one could be promising… standard (although rapid) development, presumably based on their previous work / research into coronavirus vaccines (SARS, MERS).

Personally I’d rather it than an mRNA one


And the police state in ‘Zero-Covid’ land is in overdrive:


What’s going on here?

Cesare Sacchetti @CesareSacchetti

This is happened to doctor Andreas Noack in Germany. After the unconstitutional approval of the infection law, police broke into his house while he was having a live transmission on YouTube. Those who cried against “fascism” have created the most criminal dictatorship in history.

9:58 AM · Nov 19, 2020

Video @ Src:

It’s like he missed his train and they reached out to him to get him back on track. :icon_neutral:


Sep, 2019




Everyone should be able to benefit from the power of vaccination.

Despite the availability of safe and effective vaccines, lack of access, vaccine shortages, misinformation, complacency towards disease risks, diminishing public confidence in the value of vaccines and disinvestments are harming vaccination rates worldwide. Vaccination is indisputably one of public health’s most effective interventions. We must endeavor to sustain vaccination’s hard-won gains but also aim to do more and to do better, in view of achieving effective and equitable health systems and reduce the harm that is caused as a result of the illness and suffering that is otherwise preventable. This also includes making the necessary R&D investments to address unmet medical needs by developing new vaccines and improving existing ones.

Lessons from the day and actions needed towards vaccination for all and elimination of vaccine preventable diseases:

  1. Promote global political leadership and commitment to vaccination and build effective collaboration and partnerships -across international, national, regional and local levels with health authorities, health professionals, civil society, communities, scientists, and industry- to protect everyone everywhere through sustained high vaccination coverage rates.

  2. Ensure all countries have national immunisation strategies in place and implemented and strengthen its financial sustainability, in line with progress towards Universal Health Coverage, leaving no one behind.

  3. Build strong surveillance systems for vaccine-preventable diseases, particularly those under global elimination and eradication targets.

  4. Tackle the root-causes of vaccine hesitancy, increasing confidence in vaccination, as well as designing and implementing evidence-based interventions.

  5. Harness the power of digital technologies, so as to strengthen the monitoring of the performance of vaccination programmes.

  6. Sustain research efforts to continuously generate data on the effectiveness and safety of vaccines and impact of vaccination programmes.

  7. Continue efforts and investment, including novel models of funding and incentives, in research, development and innovation for new or improved vaccine and delivery devices.

  8. Mitigate the risks of vaccine shortages through improved vaccine availability monitoring, forecasting, purchasing, delivery and stockpiling systems and collaboration with producers and all participants in the distribution chain to make best use of, or increase existing, manufacturing capacity.

  9. Empower healthcare professionals at all levels as well as the media, to provide effective, transparent and objective information to the public and fight false and misleading information, including by engaging with social media platforms and technological companies.

  10. Align and integrate vaccination in the global health and development agendas, through a renewed Immunisation agenda 2030.


Times UP Mink!

Irish mink population to be culled to stop Covid-19 spread

It is understood there are no immediate plans to carry out the proposed cull, but officials in the Department of Agriculture have informed farm owners in Laois, Kerry and Donegal that it will happen.

Mink farmers have accused the Government of culling healthy animals, “without providing any scientific or legal basis”.

They say the decision has, “left 3 farm families in rural Ireland devastated and without a livelihood”.

In a statement issued to RTÉ News, the farmers said the decision is a “copycat version” of a similar move in Denmark.

The farmers come under the umbrella of Fur Europe.

The statement said: "While the Irish government is leaning on the recent Danish decision to cull all animals on these farms, it neglects to mention that the Danish decision was based on a rapid increase in the number of infected mink farms.

“This increase was triggered by many farms located in the same geographical area, but this is far from the case in Ireland, where there are just 3 farms in rural areas located in Kerry, Donegal and Laois.”

There is already a commitment in the Programme for Government to phase out mink farming in Ireland.

However, it is also understood that the farms will be allowed to “pelt” the remaining animals to fill outstanding orders.

Pelting is when the skin of the animal is removed after it has been euthanised by the farmers. The practice is known as “harvesting” in the industry.

A virologist at University College Dublin, Dr Gerald Barry, has said he is surprised by the decision to cull mink.

Speaking on RTÉ’s News at One, he described it as a “little bit of an overreaction” and said the science does not yet justify it.

Meanwhile in Denmark, a plan to cull its entire mink populations was scrapped after the industry raised concerns. The controversy has forced the resignation of the country’s agriculture minister.

The Department of Agriculture issued a statement in November 2020 saying that the Department of Health had advised, following the detection of coronavirus among animals on a Danish mink farm, that the roughly 120,000 farmed Irish mink should be culled. Mink farming was already due to be discontinued under the 2020 Programme for Government but the coronavirus risk had expedited the closure of the industry


HIQA came to the same conclusion…


I posted a direct link to the study 8 hours ago, i.e back up a bit in the thread, click here to see the post.