“Was due process followed in implementing legislation with regard to Covid-19 (Dáil Standing Orders); has the State or any other party been guilty of deception?”

Short, succinct & topic-relevant commentary only please..

7 thoughts on “PTI/Q/16.8.20/001/BF”

  1. Dear Council Members,
    I have done a lot of research on primary information in relation to the covid-19.
    First, I focus on the evolution of the disease since the beginning of August. It seems that while the number of case is increasing exponentially, the number of death remains flat (same for Ireland & France). I can see several hypothesis to explain same
    a) treatment now used are making covid-19 on a non-lethal disease (hypothesis which would require insider medical confirmation and/or confirmation that Hydroxychloriquine has been used in Portugal and/or South Korea from day one);
    b) availability & multiplication of tests, makes that treatment can be administered at a earlier stage of the infection and prevent its lethal development (though the test of non-at-risk people should be limited to people who intend to enter in contact with at risk people to be cost effective);
    c) herd immunity has been developed: “the best way I can describe it is that asymptomatic carrier of the virus transmit the virus with a small viral load. A person infected with a smaller viral load may develop an infection ie. multiplication of the virus. But the multiplication of the virus from this small viral load will be outmatched by:
    i) the non-specific immune reaction and ii) the specific immune response which kicks in after 2 weeks of the infection. The problem with the non-specific immune reaction is that to phagocyte (ie. eat & destroy) the viral particle and infected cells, macrophage produce H2O2, aka Hydrogen Peroxide, which kills them. To increase macrophage life expectancy, people needs to take anti-oxydant such as vitamin C and tea. [this last 2 points are not hypothesis but public knowledge studied at University +20 years ago]

  2. In addition of the above research of information, I came across an interesting legal argument which I like to be tested.
    It seems that ANY lockdown goes against article 5.1.e of the European Convention of Human Rights. While the English makes exception for (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases […]; the French version is clearer: “1. […] Nul ne peut être privé de sa liberté, sauf dans les cas suivants […] (e) s’il s’agit de la détention régulière d’une personne susceptible de propager une maladie contagieuse (i.e. if it is the regular detention of person susceptible of propagating an infectious disease) which means they need to be infected and contagious…
    Please see decision of the ECHR in Enhorn v Sweden which concludes at paragraph 55.: “the authorities failed to strike a fair balance between the need to ensure that the HIV virus did not spread and the applicant’s right to liberty.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *