Opening of "No-Food" pubs pushed out again

El_Duderino 09 · 26-09-2020 01:36PM

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Anti drinkers are revelling in it in fairness.

I'm not anti-drink. I love a drink and i miss the pub. Doesn't mean I let that interfere with the reasoning process on whether pubs should be open or not.

26-09-2020 01:39PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'm not anti-drink. I love a drink and i miss the pub. Doesn't mean I let that interfere with the reasoning process on whether pubs should be open or not.

I don’t mean you. I wasn’t in favour of them opening during the early clamour either and I love a pint, but there is a real smugness about it from non drinkers about it all that just riles people up more.

HeidiHeidi · 26-09-2020 01:50PM

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

I don’t mean you. I wasn’t in favour of them opening during the early clamour either and I love a pint, but there is a real smugness about it from non drinkers about it all that just riles people up more.

I think that might be more in your (in the general sense, not you in particular) heads, than in reality, though.

There's something quite shocking and depressing about the seemingly widespread absolute obsession with getting pubs back open again, sometimes even at the possible expense of schools (and I'm a drinker with no kids).

El_Duderino 09 · 26-09-2020 02:00PM

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

I don’t mean you. I wasn’t in favour of them opening during the early clamour either and I love a pint, but there is a real smugness about it from non drinkers about it all that just riles people up more.

How do you know ow how many of them are non-drinkers? I've been assumed to be a non-drinker and anti-drink a few times in this and other threads. Loads of people assume if you're not pro pub, you're anti-drink.

IAMAMORON · 26-09-2020 02:21PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I expect you to pretend not to understand the point, but god almighty the motivated reasoning is so childish and to watch adults post these things is actually pretty disappointing. .

I don't appreciate your condescension if I am being honest. Peoples' opinions are allowed. Your disapproval or objection to them should not warrant such a patronising rebuke.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

How do you know ow how many of them are non-drinkers? I've been assumed to be a non-drinker and anti-drink a few times in this and other threads. Loads of people assume if you're not pro pub, you're anti-drink.

I think it really irrelevant. Your biting response is enough for me to consider your opinion. Which I feel is inconsiderate of others, enough for me to consider you are a non drinker if I am being honest. Are you?

The fact remains that non-drinkers have been smugly high fiving the status quo for months now.

HeidiHeidi · 26-09-2020 02:23PM

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I don't appreciate your condescension if I am being honest. Peoples' opinions are allowed. Your disapproval or objection to them should not warrant such a patronising rebuke.

I think it really irrelevant. Your biting response is enough for me to consider your opinion. Which I feel is inconsiderate of others, enough for me to consider you are a non drinker if I am being honest. Are you?

The fact remains that non-drinkers have been smugly high fiving the status quo for months now.

That's quite some leap of logic! :eek:

26-09-2020 02:36PM

There are anti-drinkers but non-drinkers does not automatically mean anti-pub.

Pre-covid I frequented a local pub regularly (3/4 times a month, at least) with my family for their excellent carvery on Sunday, including my mother whom I used to collect from her nursing home and bring down with us. No drink involved.

On average once, maybe twice a week people from work would go for coffee or lunch in the pub next door, soup and sandwiches, no drink involved as it was back to work afterwards.

I can live without my carvery dinner and indeed have done so, even since the pubs reopened offering food because I prioritise my health and the public health as more important then a trip to the pub.

Those who wish to drink were never denied alcohol, off licences are open, supermarkets selling alcohol are open and lots of people have taken to socialising in their own back gardens.

Pubs were never needed if you wanted to have a drink.

IAMAMORON · 26-09-2020 02:39PM

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

That's quite some leap of logic! :eek:

i know, how shocking.

The patronising just never ends, does it?

El_Duderino 09 · 26-09-2020 02:43PM

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I don't appreciate your condescension if I am being honest. Peoples' opinions are allowed. Your disapproval or objection to them should not warrant such a patronising rebuke.

I think it really irrelevant. Your biting response is enough for me to consider your opinion. Which I feel is inconsiderate of others, enough for me to consider you are a non drinker if I am being honest. Are you?

The fact remains that non-drinkers have been smugly high fiving the status quo for months now.

Indeed you didn't pretend not to understand the response, you just ignored them.

Yes, so you consider me a non-drinker. And just as when you assume a lot of other people to be non-drinkers, you're wrong. I love a drink and I miss the pub. But for me the questions of pubs opening and whether pubs will increase transmission and whether it's worth it, isn't simply a matte of whether i personally enjoy the pub , as it is for you. They're separate questions to me.

IAMAMORON · 26-09-2020 02:48PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Indeed you didn't pretend not to understand the response, you just ignored them.

Yes, so you consider me a non-drinker. And just as when you assume a lot of other people to be non-drinkers, you're wrong. I love a drink and I miss the pub. But for me the questions of pubs opening and whether pubs will increase transmission and whether it's worth it, isn't simply a matte of whether i personally enjoy the pub , as it is for you. They're separate questions to me.

How come there were no increases in transmission when the restaurants were open? I frankly don't care if you drink or don't at this point. This is some frivolous stuff you are dangling if I am being honest.

El_Duderino 09 · 26-09-2020 02:52PM

IAMAMORON wrote: »

How come there were no increases in transmission when the restaurants were open? I frankly don't care if you drink or don't at this point. This is some frivolous stuff you are dangling if I am being honest.

But you accept your instinct was wrong? You assumed I'm a non-drinker because i don't agree with you or whatever reasons and you were just wrong about it.

How do you know there was no transmissions in restaurants? What does the research say?

IAMAMORON · 26-09-2020 03:09PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

But you accept your instinct was wrong? You assumed I'm a non-drinker because i don't agree with you or whatever reasons and you were just wrong about it.

How do you know there was no transmissions in restaurants? What does the research say?

The conversation is not about you.

There is no proof of anything, or research, hence the barney.

Talk later.

hynesie08 · 26-09-2020 03:13PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

But you accept your instinct was wrong? You assumed I'm a non-drinker because i don't agree with you or whatever reasons and you were just wrong about it.

How do you know there was no transmissions in restaurants? What does the research say?

The research didn't say anything, they said "we can't prove it's pubs because we don't have the ability to check contacts past 2 days, but we can't prove it's not pubs so it is"

El_Duderino 09 · 26-09-2020 03:33PM

IAMAMORON wrote: »

The conversation is not about you.

There is no proof of anything, or research, hence the barney.

Talk later.

LOL. In the last post you claimed there was no transmission in restaurants, now you admit you don't have a clue.

You've perfectly summed up the points from my post earlier. Posters assuming those who don't support opening pubs are non drinkers or anti drink. Posters using motivated reasoning because they want the pubs open. Very childish to see a grown adult using motivated reasoning.

freak scence · 26-09-2020 03:42PM

Deleted User wrote: »

There are anti-drinkers but non-drinkers does not automatically mean anti-pub.

Pre-covid I frequented a local pub regularly (3/4 times a month, at least) with my family for their excellent carvery on Sunday, including my mother whom I used to collect from her nursing home and bring down with us. No drink involved.

On average once, maybe twice a week people from work would go for coffee or lunch in the pub next door, soup and sandwiches, no drink involved as it was back to work afterwards.

I can live without my carvery dinner and indeed have done so, even since the pubs reopened offering food because I prioritise my health and the public health as more important then a trip to the pub.

Those who wish to drink were never denied alcohol, off licences are open, supermarkets selling alcohol are open and lots of people have taken to socialising in their own back gardens.

Pubs were never needed if you wanted to have a drink.

Yep and domestic abuse up massively

mountgomery burns · 26-09-2020 03:43PM

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

I

There's something quite shocking and depressing about the seemingly widespread absolute obsession with getting pubs back open again, sometimes even at the possible expense of schools (and I'm a drinker with no kids).

Ah c'mon nobody was arguing for pubs over schools. But the two shouldn't be conflated.

How when there was an average of 16 cases a day was it unsafe, and then they open there was an average of 250 a day? Makes no sense, that's the argument

PommieBast · 26-09-2020 04:30PM

Irish Steve wrote: »

Bluntly, while I accept that there's a lot of pain for the publicans and their staff, which needs to be addressed by relevant supports from Government, WE DO NOT NEED pubs and bars for the duration of this pandemic

Trouble is the bit about support. A €4k grant is not going to help with six months and counting of unpaid rent and bills.

xvril · 26-09-2020 04:33PM

Was in a wet pub last night in rural Donegal. Have to feel bad for owner and the patrons. Looked to be the only social outlet for some people.

26-09-2020 04:38PM

freak scence wrote: »

Yep and domestic abuse up massively

And you think thats down to wet pubs being kept closed? (Remember those serving food have been open for the last 3 months).

Here's the thing - if someone is an abuser, they're an abuser, whether the pubs are open or not.

I thought i'd read just about every stupid excuse for keeping pubs open during a pandemic, now its because they prevent domestic abuse.

You couldn't make this **** up.

MrStuffins · 26-09-2020 04:40PM

This "Anti-Drink" or "Anti-Pub" stuff is absolute nonsense.

It's just a cheap way for anyone who can't accept the opinions of others and who refuses to take into account that pubs will most likely exacerbate the spread of Covid.

I don't see those who think the schools shouldn't be open being called "Anti-Education".

Calling someone "Anti-Drink" is a tactic used because those who use the term don't have any other argument for the pubs to be open other than "It's part of our culture".

freak scence · 26-09-2020 04:48PM

Deleted User wrote: »

And you think thats down to wet pubs being kept closed? (Remember those serving food have been open for the last 3 months).

Here's the thing - if someone is an abuser, they're an abuser, whether the pubs are open or not.

I thought i'd read just about every stupid excuse for keeping pubs open during a pandemic, now its because they prevent domestic abuse.

You couldn't make this **** up.

an cop on this was during lockdown same as now , maybe engage your head before typing .

freak scence · 26-09-2020 04:52PM

Deleted User wrote: »

There are anti-drinkers but non-drinkers does not automatically mean anti-pub.

Pre-covid I frequented a local pub regularly (3/4 times a month, at least) with my family for their excellent carvery on Sunday, including my mother whom I used to collect from her nursing home and bring down with us. No drink involved.

On average once, maybe twice a week people from work would go for coffee or lunch in the pub next door, soup and sandwiches, no drink involved as it was back to work afterwards.

I can live without my carvery dinner and indeed have done so, even since the pubs reopened offering food because I prioritise my health and the public health as more important then a trip to the pub.

Those who wish to drink were never denied alcohol, off licences are open, supermarkets selling alcohol are open and lots of people have taken to socialising in their own back gardens.

Pubs were never needed if you wanted to have a drink.

they are for 50k plus people to work , time to live with it rather than hide under rocks , people will die no matter what we do it's called life . People looking for cancer treatment ****ed , can't hide till there is a vaccine , and this **** will come again , as china are horrible fuc ks who will eat and kill anything that moves

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000 · 26-09-2020 05:17PM

xvril wrote: »

Was in a wet pub last night in rural Donegal. Have to feel bad for owner and the patrons. Looked to be the only social outlet for some people.

Pub.

xvril · 26-09-2020 05:27PM

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Pub.

I prefer

"Non food selling establishment that serves glasses containing drinkable liquids often containing alcohol"

IAMAMORON · 26-09-2020 05:59PM

MrStuffins wrote: »

I don't see those who think the schools shouldn't be open being called "Anti-Education".
.

Go on, lets have some elaboration here please?

MrStuffins · 26-09-2020 06:32PM

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Pub.

Good to see people are finally accepting that pubs are pubs!

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000 · 26-09-2020 06:36PM

MrStuffins wrote: »

Good to see people are finally accepting that pubs are pubs!

Says yer man... jaysus.

26-09-2020 07:04PM

The fact that they went with "wet pubs" instead of something simple like catering pubs vs non-catering pubs is kinda symptomatic of the whole situation. Just make **** up.

MOH · 26-09-2020 07:06PM

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

The rants never stop. What powers did the Gardai fail to use?

joeguevara wrote: »

Couldn't have said it better. Police arrive. Crowds dispersed. Seems people want arrests. But let's say that happens. People in close proximity are a Covid risk. The enforcement powers are a deterrent but only a tool for people who are not following directions etc.

Well they could have turned up quicker than five hours after they were called.
I've seen similar all summer. Large areas with small groups of 3 or 4 people meeting up outside for a few drinks, well distant from each other, guards will
turn up and move everyone on. Bigger things like the rave, pubs/restaurants blatantly violating rules, the 30+ teenagers having a party on the canal last Sunday - it's too much effort for them. They're just interested in the low hanging fruit

Similar to the constant anti government rants. No idea what any other party could do differently. No interest in politics but hate the rants for the sake of giving out.

Meat packing outbreaks in April not investigated and issues addressed, resulting in 3 county shutdown 3 months later; I still don't think we've actually hit the 100K tests a week we were promised for May - although we allegedly have capacity for 15K per day there seem to be significant slowdowns before we get anywhere near that; pubs kept closed for 3 months while numbers low, then allowed open as numbers increase under the exact same conditions as initially proposed (and many then immediately closed again); no enforcement of quarantine for people entering country.

Worst of all, no attempt is being made to actually identify causes of clusters, which is mind-boggling. it's impossible to make any rational decisions on curtailment when there's no coherent plan for even a basic attempt at determining causes of community transmission.

bobbyy gee wrote: »

Bars spread covid

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/09/more-evidence-points-bars-adding-covid-19-spread

Irish Steve wrote: »

Rather than just dump a repeat of the link, let's see what they said.

Bluntly, while I accept that there's a lot of pain for the publicans and their staff, which needs to be addressed by relevant supports from Government, WE DO NOT NEED pubs and bars for the duration of this pandemic, life can continue without them, and if that means a lot less Covid being passed, it is a worthwhile price to pay for the health of the nation.

I could go on more, but the hard core drinkers here have already switched off, so I won't bother.

It's not just the hard core drinkers, anyone interested in logical discussion has switched off listening to you given the misleading tripe you're spouting.

Even the bit you quoted refers to bars and restaurants (and the first only refers to dining), yet in your mind that somehow just means pubs

Did you get bitten by a pub when you were a child or something?

(It's also worth noting that both studies quoted are careful to avoid confusing correlation with causation)

26-09-2020 09:02PM

freak scence wrote: »

they are for 50k plus people to work , time to live with it rather than hide under rocks , people will die no matter what we do it's called life . People looking for cancer treatment ****ed , can't hide till there is a vaccine , and this **** will come again , as china are horrible fuc ks who will eat and kill anything that moves

I have a close friend and neighbour who was first diagnosed with cancer at the very end of March.

He has been receiving treatement, including surgery, and more than one inpatient stays in hospital all during the pandemic. Hes doing well, thank god.

It is not true that all cancer treatment has stopped. Another myth bandied about by the anti-restriction fans.

Opening of "No-Food" pubs pushed out again

Comments