Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Covid 19 Part XXVIII- 71,942 ROI(2,050 deaths) 51,824 NI (983 deaths) (28/11) Read OP

1…265266268270271…328

Comments

  • #8012
    manniot2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 713 ✭✭✭manniot2


    Russman wrote: »
    Its all beginning to get a little bit Trumpy, economy over health, isn't it.
    Where do they find the proper balance ? In fairness I don't envy them tbh. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

    I wouldn't agree necessarily with the conclusion in the article that the restrictions didn't lead to good enough public health outcomes - I think its the complete lack of enforcement and lack of ability to enforce is/was the issue. They can have all the laws in the world (about anything) but if there's no enforcement it doesn't matter a jot.

    A little Trumpy, economy over health.

    I have heard it all now.


  • #8013
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,570 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    niallo27 wrote:
    This post shows exactly how out of touch some people are with reality.
    How so?


  • #8014
    Eod100
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,178 ✭✭✭✭Eod100


    Unsurprisingly VFI not too pleased with proposed measure: https://vfipubs.ie/news/latest-news/all-out-attack-on-pub-sector-will-create-massive-unrest-say-vfi/


  • #8015
    podgeandrodge
    Site Banned Posts: 5,975 ✭✭✭podgeandrodge


    Eod100 wrote: »
    Unsurprisingly VFI not too pleased with proposed measure: https://vfipubs.ie/news/latest-news/all-out-attack-on-pub-sector-will-create-massive-unrest-say-vfi/

    It's a nonsense measure. Food measure was supposed to be a deterrent as you wouldn't be running from pub to pub spending 9 euro. No science behind this latest bolloxology


  • #8016
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    So a full kitchen of staff vs a chipper fan, this makes a difference how?


  • Advertisement
  • #8017
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Eod100 wrote: »
    Unsurprisingly VFI not too pleased with proposed measure: https://vfipubs.ie/news/latest-news/all-out-attack-on-pub-sector-will-create-massive-unrest-say-vfi/

    A group unhappy that their livelihoods are being destroyed, not sure anyone would be surprised by their reaction.


  • #8018
    MOR316
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,249 ✭✭✭MOR316


    podgeandrodge wrote: »
    It's a nonsense measure. Food measure was supposed to be a deterrent as you wouldn't be running from pub to pub spending 9 euro. No science behind this latest bolloxology

    Define a kitchen?
    Already stated that you don't need a restaurant licence... What's to stop someone making crisp sandwiches?

    90% of the pubs I go to have a kitchen anyways so :D


  • #8019
    MOR316
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,249 ✭✭✭MOR316


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    A group unhappy that their livelihoods are being destroyed, not sure anyone would be surprised by their reaction.

    You new to this thread?

    Some will be absolutely delighted


  • #8020
    rob316
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,684 ✭✭✭✭rob316


    AdamD wrote: »
    So a full kitchen of staff vs a chipper fan, this makes a difference how?

    I sat in the same pub in June as I did in september and the only difference was I didn't have a plate of food on my table. It was still socially distanced, you weren't allowed mix with other people, wear a mask when you let your seat.

    Opening all the pubs is much safer, lesser numbers per pub and less house parties which can't be controlled. The science around the pubs we seem to have goes against everything in every other european state.


  • #8021
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    manniot2 wrote: »
    Define chef and kitchen :-) A George Foreman and a lad making toasties and bobs your uncle.
    This is already actually well defined elsewhere in legislation.

    There must be a separate food preparation area that complies with health and safety rules, as well as staff appropriately trained and qualified to prepare food.

    A george foreman hidden in the back beside the boxes of crisps isn't good enough.
    AdamD wrote: »
    So a full kitchen of staff vs a chipper fan, this makes a difference how?
    The intention - as it always was, even with the €9 - is to allow bona fide restaurants to reopen so they can serve actual meals to people. The selling of alcohol is incidental; their primary business is serving food.

    This is versus a pub whose primary business is serving drinks and supplying food is incidental to that.


  • Advertisement
  • #8022
    CruelSummer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,336 ✭✭✭CruelSummer


    pjohnson wrote: »
    Criticising Luke O'Neill and citing fcuking Ivor Cummins :pac:

    Are you suggesting that in the middle of a tough time for parents and families, it’s ok that children be told at school that it’s a good idea for us all to be put in permanent non-removable bracelets?


  • #8023
    podgeandrodge
    Site Banned Posts: 5,975 ✭✭✭podgeandrodge


    seamus wrote: »
    This is already actually well defined elsewhere in legislation.

    There must be a separate food preparation area that complies with health and safety rules, as well as staff appropriately trained and qualified to prepare food.

    A george foreman hidden in the back beside the boxes of crisps isn't good enough.

    The intention - as it always was, even with the €9 - is to allow bona fide restaurants to reopen so they can serve actual meals to people. The selling of alcohol is incidental; their primary business is serving food.

    This is versus a pub whose primary business is serving drinks and supplying food is incidental to that.

    But restaurants serving food and drink shouldn't be treated differently to pubs serving drink and food, once the constraints such as numbers gathering etc. are in place.


  • #8024
    KrustyUCC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,077 ✭✭✭KrustyUCC


    This move from the government is going to backfire spectacularly when they keep every single pub in many villages up and down the country officially shut

    What do they think will happen?

    I bet many will just open on the qt

    They're harming viable businesses as well as take away at the most important time of the year

    Funny this reeks of a measure Tony Holohan thought up


  • #8025
    MOR316
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,249 ✭✭✭MOR316


    Did Luke O'Neill, tell a classroom that they wouldn't be let go to their Debs if they didn't get a vaccine? :D

    Must be lost in translation and had to be tongue in cheek.


  • #8026
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    seamus wrote: »
    This is already actually well defined elsewhere in legislation.

    There must be a separate food preparation area that complies with health and safety rules, as well as staff appropriately trained and qualified to prepare food.

    A george foreman hidden in the back beside the boxes of crisps isn't good enough.

    The intention - as it always was, even with the €9 - is to allow bona fide restaurants to reopen so they can serve actual meals to people. The selling of alcohol is incidental; their primary business is serving food.

    This is versus a pub whose primary business is serving drinks and supplying food is incidental to that.
    Actual meals is very much a subjective point..

    With time limits (though I question the logic here, increasing turnover of people is more dangerous if anything), mandatory seating, no bar service and capacity limits, there is no reason why pubs should be treated any different to restaurants.

    Its difficult to see it as not being targeted against pubs at this point. If they aren't safe enough, either are indoor dining restaurants.


  • #8027
    rob316
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,684 ✭✭✭✭rob316


    Its simple, open all the pubs who can control the social interaction and environment or risk endless house parties and private indoor gatherings which can't be controlled to any degree.

    The rest of the argument is absolute nonsense.


  • #8028
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    CruelSummer wrote: »
    Are you suggesting that in the middle of a tough time for parents and families, it’s ok that children be told at school that it’s a good idea for us all to be put in permanent non-removable bracelets?

    A non removable bracelet? for some reason this suggestion makes me really uncomfortable. It seems a erosion of rights should be an acceptable price to return to normal.


  • #8029
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    podgeandrodge wrote: »
    But restaurants serving food and drink shouldn't be treated differently to pubs serving drink and food, once the constraints such as numbers gathering etc. are in place.
    The intention is to allow for people to go out for a meal, not for a few pints. Which means that you need to draw a line in the sand somewhere.

    There is a significant overlap between "restaurants that serve alcohol" and "pubs that serve food", I agree. In many cases they are the same thing.

    But if a pub that serves food doesn't even have a kitchen, it can't reasonably be considered a place that people go out for a meal. It's a place that people go to drink. And the intention is to not have these places open, because that's one of the riskiest environments.

    If a pub didn't have a kitchen before March, then the addition of a chipper van in the car park doesn't magically turn it into a gastropub. It's still a boozer.


  • #8030
    LeeroyJ.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 713 ✭✭✭LeeroyJ.


    The only plan I can see them having is getting cases low for Christmas, loads of people flying in and out to gather with friends and family, sharp increase in January, another lockdown and then hope Vaccines start reducing cases from there onward. Risky but it's the only path I see the government taking at this point.


  • #8031
    Loafing Oaf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,880 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    AdamD wrote: »
    Actual meals is very much a subjective point..

    With time limits (though I question the logic here, increasing turnover of people is more dangerous if anything), mandatory seating, no bar service and capacity limits, there is no reason why pubs should be treated any different to restaurants.

    Its difficult to see it as not being targeted against pubs at this point. If they aren't safe enough, either are indoor dining restaurants.

    I presume the main difference is lowered inhibitions due to alcohol consumption. Okay the time and capacity limits are intended to curtail this, but obviously it's much easier to keep pubs shut entirely than to enforce these.


  • Advertisement
  • #8032
    caveat emptor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,134 ✭✭✭caveat emptor


    Back to the pubs debate. Here we go again. Ground hog day. You have to feel for them. The words "controlled environment" seems to not take into account the mechanics of an airborne virus.


  • #8033
    Cona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 591 ✭✭✭Cona


    seamus wrote: »
    The intention is to allow for people to go out for a meal, not for a few pints. Which means that you need to draw a line in the sand somewhere.

    There is a significant overlap between "restaurants that serve alcohol" and "pubs that serve food", I agree. In many cases they are the same thing.

    But if a pub that serves food doesn't even have a kitchen, it can't reasonably be considered a place that people go out for a meal. It's a place that people go to drink. And the intention is to not have these places open, because that's one of the riskiest environments.

    If a pub didn't have a kitchen before March, then the addition of a chipper van in the car park doesn't magically turn it into a gastropub. It's still a boozer.

    Don't post here much, but some of the crap lads be posting would drive you insane. What in gods name has the above got to do with a virus?
    Whether a pub serves food that comes from a kitchen that was there before or whether it comes from a van out the back, what in hell does it have to do with the spread of the virus?

    We've long left the realm of reality and scientific evidence far behind at this stage now and its just gombeen politics being pushed at this stage.


  • #8034
    Eod100
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,178 ✭✭✭✭Eod100


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    A group unhappy that their livelihoods are being destroyed, not sure anyone would be surprised by their reaction.

    Yes that's why I said unsurprisingly


  • #8035
    KrustyUCC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,077 ✭✭✭KrustyUCC


    The unintended consequences of this latest government brainfart is that any pubs that will be open will have large crowds queuing to get into them as opposed to spread out in different pubs

    Its going to cost to keep workers on PUP as opposed to contributing to the economy and also will hurt take away businesses that supplied food the first time

    Also won't help with rural isolation and is giving many communities no social outlet

    Just one example is my aunts town in West Cork. 3 pubs no kitchens or chefs

    None of the three able to open

    Where will people now go to socialise?

    Only place left is house parties


  • #8036
    hmmm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,203 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    seamus wrote: »
    And the intention is to not have these places open, because that's one of the riskiest environments.
    The alternative is to open everything and have to shut everything (pubs, food pubs, restaurants) a few weeks later as cases spike. We've been here before, it's like people learn nothing.


  • #8037
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    hmmm wrote: »
    The alternative is to open everything and have to shut everything (pubs, food pubs, restaurants) a few weeks later as cases spike. We've been here before, it's like people learn nothing.

    It’s a pub or someone’s house. I think the pub is safer tbh


  • #8038
    KrustyUCC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,077 ✭✭✭KrustyUCC


    Its almost like the government wants to drive people to have house parties


  • #8039
    What Username Guidelines
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,139 ✭✭✭What Username Guidelines


    Cona wrote: »
    Don't post here much, but some of the crap lads be posting would drive you insane. What in gods name has the above got to do with a virus?
    Whether a pub serves food that comes from a kitchen that was there before or whether it comes from a van out the back, what in hell does it have to do with the spread of the virus?

    We've long left the realm of reality and scientific evidence far behind at this stage now and its just gombeen politics being pushed at this stage.

    A restaurant is safer than a pub. It's not that difficult if you apply a little critical thinking. It's not an absolute binary that restaurants are iron-clad safe and pubs are dangerous, there's a spectrum. There is a also a non-binary spectrum of definition of restaurant and pub. The measures are attempting to find a balance between the two.
    KrustyUCC wrote: »
    The unintended consequences of this latest government brainfart is that any pubs that will be open will have large crowds queuing to get into them as opposed to spread out in different pubs

    Its going to cost to keep workers on PUP as opposed to contributing to the economy and also will hurt take away businesses that supplied food the first time

    Also won't help with rural isolation and is giving many communities no social outlet

    Just one example is my aunts town in West Cork. 3 pubs no kitchens or chefs

    None of the three able to open

    Where will people now go to socialise?

    Only place left is house parties

    It's not going to solve every situation for every town in Ireland, but the measures should have an effect country-wide, at a larger scale, in terms of the incidence of spread. Some towns will have 3 pubs with kitchens and chefs, some won't. It's not easy, none of it is, and there is no perfect answer.

    We can look at things at a micro level and realise some things don't work. Or argue that if we do [something], certain people will be on PUP for longer. But on a macro level, and medium/long term, the benefits outweigh the negatives. Is it fair? Not particularly, unfortunately.


  • #8040
    hmmm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,203 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    Deleted User wrote: »
    It’s a pub or someone’s house. I think the pub is safer tbh
    Despite what some people try to claim, most people are not throwing parties at home whether pubs are open or not. It's a false choice.

    It's unfortunate for the vitners, it's not their fault, but alcohol/pubs and Covid mix too well. Restaurants don't seem to be much better but at least there's a bit more control in places where you are sitting down to eat.


  • Advertisement
  • #8041
    MOR316
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,249 ✭✭✭MOR316


    What Username Guidelines wrote: »
    A restaurant is safer than a pub. It's not that difficult if you apply a little critical thinking. It's not an absolute binary that restaurants are iron-clad safe and pubs are dangerous, there's a spectrum. There is a also a non-binary spectrum of definition of restaurant and pub. The measures are attempting to find a balance between the two.



    It's not going to solve every situation for every town in Ireland, but the measures should have an effect country-wide, at a larger scale, in terms of the incidence of spread. Some towns will have 3 pubs with kitchens and chefs, some won't. It's not easy, none of it is, and there is no perfect answer.

    We can look at things at a micro level and realise some things don't work. Or argue that if we do [something], certain people will be on PUP for longer. But on a macro level, and medium/long term, the benefits outweigh the positives. Is it fair? No particularly unfortunately.


    But, if a pub has a kitchen as opposed to a chipper van outside it, how is it safer? There's no logic behind this


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement