I am sure the Taoiseach would agree that we need to focus on giving stronger public health messages to control the spread of the Covid-19 virus because the indications are that many people across all age groups are not hearing the messages. That is the case for various reasons, which I will not go into now. The Taoiseach spoke at the weekend about using influencers and I hope he will go ahead and do that quickly. It is important that we use influencers for all age, interest and ethnic cohorts. I would like to see the Government doing that quickly.

Would the Taoiseach also agree that there is a role for cross-party messaging to urge people to comply with public health advice? Ideally, we would have done that last Friday but it is not too late. An initiative should be taken by this House in that regard.

If compliance rates can be raised substantially, we have the prospect of bringing down the current critically high rates. The aim should be to do that in the quickest possible time, ideally in the next three weeks, but certainly within a reasonable period.

I wish to raise a wider issue with the Taoiseach. What strategy should be pursued in the medium and long term? There has been little or no political or public discussion in that regard. There are essentially three possible strategies, namely, herd immunity, zero or near elimination and what we are doing. The five-level plan is a good framework because it distinguishes rates and responses in different areas but it is not a strategy. We are doing a certain level of testing. There are few controls on flights. We are continuing with public health messaging about mask wearing and social distancing but that is clearly not enough. Our response to a surge is a lockdown or a close-down. That can work in the short term but is not a sustainable strategy even in the medium term because the price being paid is simply too high and we will not keep the public with us.

Should we not consider the pros and cons of alternative strategies? There is no perfect strategy by any means and there are winners and losers in every approach but we need public and political discussion on which is the optimal way of managing the virus. The way we manage the virus, the strategy that we use, should be reached through open discussion, based on evidence and taking a broad view of what is in our health, social and economic interest. It is unfortunate that there is no forum for that at the moment. We need to reach consensus. Things like cutting the pandemic unemployment payment and extending protections for tenants are political issues but agreeing the best way of managing and controlling the virus should not be political issues.

I thank the Deputy for her questions and the points she has raised. I accept that a debate on public health should transcend party politics and politics in general. I said at the weekend that it is important to communicate in different ways on different platforms to different age cohorts, ethnic minorities and migrant workers. We worked on the issue of employment in meat plants and people in direct provision over the summer in terms of language, messaging and communication in respect of sick pay being available to people in direct provision, for example, if they were positive for coronavirus and required to self-isolate. I take those points.

On the Deputy's point about cross-party messaging, after the announcement on Friday evening in respect of restrictions, we briefed all parties in Dublin. The latter are representative of all parties in this House. I will go further and organise a briefing with party leaders. The health spokespersons of different parties were also looking for a briefing. Last Thursday and Friday were hectic days for members of NPHET and for the acting Chief Medical Officer, CMO, and all involved but they stayed late on Friday evening to brief Dublin representatives.

The Deputy is correct about compliance rates. We want people to comply with the guidance. An enormous collective effort is required to get these numbers down significantly. It is within our capacity, as a people, to do that by reducing our social contacts, avoiding unnecessary congregations and wearing masks where possible. We can make an impact on the numbers by doing that.

On the point that the Deputy made about strategy, by instinct I do not believe in the herd immunity approach. Those who advocated for it early on did not fully realise the impact of this virus on people's health. It seems that the virus can be damaging to some people's lungs and health over the medium term even if they survive. It can have longer term health implications for some people and we do not know enough about how deadly this virus is to go along with the idea of a herd immunity approach because it carries enormous risks.

The strategy of elimination has not quite worked where it has been tried. It has been effective in New Zealand but its geographic location is different to ours. We are in a different situation geographically. We must also accept that the economic and social implications of an elimination strategy would be significant and severe on workers and society.

I think that the strategy to suppress the virus that we are pursuing now is the correct one. That said, I am not an expert on public health. I recall the Deputy saying, as I said, at the outbreak of the virus that we should adhere as much as possible to public health advice. Our public health advice at the moment is to endeavour to stabilise and suppress the spread of the virus while maintaining a quality of life, having as many people working as possible, with our schools open and health services resumed to the greatest extent possible.

I did not ask the Taoiseach to have the discussion about different strategies here. I am saying that a situation needs to be created where we can have that open discussion, where we are prepared to be open and frank and face up to the serious problems and challenges in testing and tracing. We need a forum to ask are we adequately resourced and ready for rapid test technology. Is it right that the HSE should be expected to manage testing and tracing while it is running the health service and coping with the demands of Covid? Can we trace the places where the virus is being transmitted? Is there potential for an all-Ireland approach to this?

What can we do about importation? All of those things need to be discussed, not just thrown out here in this adversarial setting. We need to have proper discussion about the pros and cons of different strategies and how we are going to move forward in the medium and longer term in managing this virus.

I do not expect a reply today but I ask the Taoiseach to give consideration to facilitating cross-party discussion of the approach to managing the virus. What is happening at the moment is not working. We need to reinforce the immediate messages because they are the only way we can drive down the critical figures now. That is not sustainable, however. I ask the Taoiseach to consider a cross-party approach to this issue.

I have absolutely no difficulty in accepting a cross-party approach to this issue. My understanding is that the Covid committee has met a lot of experts.

No, that is not what is involved. We are talking about discussions.

Let me finish, please. The Covid committee has met a lot of experts who have discussed herd immunity and elimination strategies. There has been a reasonable degree of public debate on this on the airwaves. I have watched infectious disease consultants with different perspectives, some of whom advocate elimination and others who advocate herd immunity.

It needs to be a cross-party-----

There has been a public debate among the scientific community, the medical community and some politicians.

All of my comments in response to the Deputy endeavour to be constructive. The Deputy referred to the three strategies, so it is reasonable to respond to them. If she is suggesting some new forum should be created in a non-contentious environment that would facilitate a calmer and more reasonable timeframe to explore these issues, it would be a good idea.

One of the challenges we face is that many people who could usefully contribute to that debate are on the front line. I will give it consideration. I understand where she is coming from because we have to think through how we will manage the situation over the next period of time. There is a lot of wishful thinking around a vaccine. That may not come immediately. The WHO feels it may be the middle of next year before one is available. I take the Deputy's point overall, and I am willing to respond positively to it and will give it some thought and consideration.