Prof. Philip Nolan published a long Twitter thread on the modelling last night. I don't think it passes the sniff test at all and it boggles the mind that NPHET's modelling is not subject to any external oversight or interrogation. There's probably plenty of people on here that prepare projections for work and we all know how significant a few minor changes in assumptions can be when compounded over time. With exponential growth this would seem an even bigger issue. The professor also seems to completely misrepresent or misunderstand what 95% vaccine efficacy actually means with his 5% of 500,000 calculation - truly bonkers stuff. The probability of some of these pessimistic scenarios coming to pass seems pretty remote given the real world evidence we have. Case numbers may rocket but an IFR rate of 0.29% seems to be at the very upper end of the scale, which paints a far grimmer picture. It seems a classic case of plugging figures into a model to arrive at the answer you want.