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

MOR316 · 25-11-2020 12:52PM

hmmm wrote: »

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.

Question and correct me if I'm wrong as there were a lot of posters...

But, were you one of the posters blaming people having house parties for the rising numbers?

What Username Guidelines · 25-11-2020 12:54PM

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Correct, he pub is absolutely safer, when compared to a house party. You could say that house parties are safer than concerts, so ban concerts and allow house parties. But as per the guidelines, whether you agree with them or not, it's not just a choice between those pub and house party. It will happen that people have house parties, of course, but at the same time plenty of people fond of a pint or two can still abstain, drink at home, drink at a restaurant with a meal, etc.

I'm sure I'll get the "You're naive/delusional if you think people won't have house parties" reply, of course they will, but when discussing levels of safety in different environments, it's painfully obvious what the government are attempting to do, and believe it or not, it's not stamping all over our freedoms just for the fun of it.

rob316 · 25-11-2020 12:54PM

hmmm wrote: »

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.

Define a house party? It's christmas you can be certain people especially young will be gathering at friends and families houses.

hmmm · 25-11-2020 12:54PM

MOR316 wrote: »

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

A kitchen means it is much more likely to be a genuine restaurant. A chipper van or getting takeaways in from down the road is more likely to be an excuse to get around the regulations.

The vitners I think have approached this all wrong from the start. They should have pushed for compensation from the government to allow them shut down or run at hugely reduced capacity for the duration of the pandemic. Pushing to reopen is inevitably going to lead to a spike in cases which will probably lead to another shutdown. They think their enemy is the government, but the true enemy is the virus.

ACitizenErased · 25-11-2020 12:55PM

I personally believe that the lack of pubs opening is a direct result of the success w/ vaccines lately. I think they reckon things will be open sooner next year than people expect.

What Username Guidelines · 25-11-2020 12:56PM

MOR316 wrote: »

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

A pub with a kitchen and chef is closer to the definition of a restaurant than a pub with a chip van outside, and the line has to be drawn between pub and restaurant somewhere.

I don't even know if I agree with this or not tbh, but there is a level of logic behind it.

eagle eye · 25-11-2020 12:56PM

They shouldn't open any pubs, food or no food.

25-11-2020 12:57PM

hmmm wrote: »

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.

I’m not talking about ‘parties’. But we will be having a gathering at home if we can’t meet somewhere else. And the pub (obviously with limits on numbers, seating only way) would be safer for sure

seamus · 25-11-2020 12:57PM

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?

Let's go back to first principles here then.

What are we trying to do? Limit the spread of a virus.

What is the most effective way of doing that? Limiting our social contacts, in number, duration and proximity.

So when it comes to restaurants versus pubs, what's the implications here:

Restaurants;
You arrange with a set number of people to go out for a meal. (number)
Everyone generally remains in their seats the whole time (proximity)
When the meal is over, you typically leave the restaurant and your party each go their separate ways. (duration)

Pubs;
You arrange to go to the pub, but others might join you later, and you wonder if you'll meet anyone there (number++)
You generally pick a spot and remain there for a while, but are likely to change position, and especially if you see someone you know and as you drink more, you will move around the pub more. As you drink more, you will also ignore social distancing convetions more (proximity++)
Your visit "ends" when you get kicked out or you feel like going home.. (duration++)

These basic facts don't change just because the pub is handing out food.

In essence, the question is - "Are you going to this establishment primarily to drink, or primarily to eat?".

Nobody has ever claimed that eating protects you from the virus or that a chipper van is a greater risk.

It's the activity that is a greater risk.

If the purpose of the establishment is to drink, then it's a bigger risk, whether it serves food or not.

Is a pub with a kitchen safer than a pub with a chipper van? The answer is no, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. The latter is clearly a bodge to get around the restrictions, not an honest attempt to be a restaurant.

Plumbthedepths · 25-11-2020 12:58PM

eagle eye wrote: »

They shouldn't open any pubs, food or no food.

I doubt you will be asked for your input. From your posts the schools would still be closed from last March if you had your way.

25-11-2020 12:59PM

hmmm wrote: »

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.

I think a lot of people are having 'house parties', but have convinced themselves its not because it isn't 15 teenagers drinking cans listening to music.

Having 3 mates over for dinner is as much of a house party in this context. People are absolutely doing stuff like that

25-11-2020 01:00PM

seamus wrote: »

Let's go back to first principles here then.

What are we trying to do? Limit the spread of a virus.

What is the most effective way of doing that? Limiting our social contacts, in number, duration and proximity.

So when it comes to restaurants versus pubs, what's the implications here:

Restaurants;
You arrange with a set number of people to go out for a meal. (number)
Everyone generally remains in their seats the whole time (proximity)
When the meal is over, you typically leave the restaurant and your party each go their separate ways. (duration)

Pubs;
You arrange to go to the pub, but others might join you later, and you wonder if you'll meet anyone there (number++)
You generally pick a spot and remain there for a while, but are likely to change position, and especially if you see someone you know and as you drink more, you will move around the pub more. As you drink more, you will also ignore social distancing convetions more (proximity++)
Your visit "ends" when you get kicked out or you feel like going home.. (duration++)

These basic facts don't change just because the pub is handing out food.

In essence, the question is - "Are you going to this establishment primarily to drink, or primarily to eat?".

Nobody has ever claimed that eating protects you from the virus or that a chipper van is a greater risk.

It's the activity that is a greater risk.

If the purpose of the establishment is to drink, then it's a bigger risk, whether it serves food or not.

You have completely ignored that people are saying to have capacity limits, mandatory seating and time limits, which remove all of the differences you've outlined for 'pubs'.

podgeandrodge · 25-11-2020 01:00PM

hmmm wrote: »

A kitchen means it is much more likely to be a genuine restaurant. A chipper van or getting takeaways in from down the road is more likely to be an excuse to get around the regulations.

The vitners I think have approached this all wrong from the start. They should have pushed for compensation from the government to allow them shut down or run at hugely reduced capacity for the duration of the pandemic. Pushing to reopen is inevitably going to lead to a spike in cases which will probably lead to another shutdown. They think their enemy is the government, but the true enemy is the virus.

It doesn't matter. Rack of lamb with a bottle of wine is no different to pizza or burger from the chip van with a few pints. The 9 euro was to prevent haphazard regular drinking as it was a disincentive. That disincentive applies regardless of the type of food.

I really don't know how anyone on here can talk about 'gastropubs' being any safer than a pub using the next door pizza shop. In my local, they used the Chinese next door and it operated safely and within guidelines just as much as a pub with its own kitchen.

This is unnecessarily separating some properly run establishments from other properly run establishments.

Eod100 · 25-11-2020 01:01PM

ACitizenErased wrote: »

I personally believe that the lack of pubs opening is a direct result of the success w/ vaccines lately. I think they reckon things will be open sooner next year than people expect.

Possibly but could be unrelated. Wouldnt be first time there's restrictions on food and non food pubs, albeit they're tightening up rules now on them

KrustyUCC · 25-11-2020 01:02PM

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

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.

Its creating more divide when there was no need for this BS of a chef and a kitchen

You are leaving many many towns with no social outlet. No thinking as to the consequences there

Funny in my own town the safest pub would have been one without a kitchen or a chef as it was the best run

Thats also one that has been opened for a month since March and spent considerable money upgrading safety standards

There will be no medium to long term for people who are been driven out of business by this government

As the effect on the spread of the virus you're forcing people away from regulated environments to unregulated environments

A pub and a take away meal versus a house party?

I'd guess the first one is safer but the government doesn't think so obviously

otnomart · 25-11-2020 01:04PM

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Wonder how the ski season will go this year..

Doubt there will be any school trips from here anyway. But what about the adults?

Must be terrible not being able to go on the piste. Lol sorry

This proposal makes totally sense: Italy seeking EU rules for Christmas skiing to limit COVID-19 risk
"wants a deal with cross-border countries to keep cable cars and ski lifts closed until at least Jan. 10."

However: "Austria, whose biggest cluster of the first wave of the pandemic was at the ski resort of Ischgl, where thousands were infected, was lukewarm about the proposals."

Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-italy-ski/italy-seeking-eu-rules-for-christmas-skiing-to-limit-covid-19-risk-idUSKBN28416Y

seamus · 25-11-2020 01:05PM

AdamD wrote: »

You have completely ignored that people are saying to have capacity limits, mandatory seating and time limits, which remove all of the differences you've outlined for 'pubs'.

They're of minimal relevance because they don't change the fundamental issue. People won't go to the pub for 90 minutes, have a few quiet drinks at their table and go home. After they get kicked out, they'll go somewhere else. They'll see their mates at another pub. Be less likely to take care, stay in their seat, stay with their group of mates, limit their time spent.

People will go to a restaurant for 90 minutes, enjoy a meal, and go home.

That's why it's a less risky activity. This is what the €9 thing was supposed to accomplish. But people were more than happy to buy €9 of food at one pub, then go to another and spend another €9 two hours later.

Cona · 25-11-2020 01:12PM

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

A restaurant is safer than a pub. It's not that difficult if you apply a little critical thinking.

There's no evidence to support that widespread statement. I could list multiple circumstances where a pub is much MUCH safer than a restaurant (Country pub vs City restaurant). And of course vice versa.

Critical thinking? Yes I am well able to apply critical thinking to circumstances. The problem here that infuriates me is that the Government (and you amongst many) don't use critical thinking. Instead its like a conversation between a group of children who will just state the obvious and come up with the most simplistic solution to a problem. Whilst I agree lock downs work as a temp measure, we need a strong minded, innovative government in place to open the country up.

Complicated but rigorous measures could be proposed to allow the country to open up in a safe method but sadly we lack any type of leaders in this country. MM and others are only too happy to have NPHET in place as a scapegoat should everything go to pot. NPHET of course are wise to this strategy from the government so have always abided by the most strictest of measures.

MOR316 · 25-11-2020 01:14PM

seamus wrote: »

Let's go back to first principles here then.

What are we trying to do? Limit the spread of a virus.

What is the most effective way of doing that? Limiting our social contacts, in number, duration and proximity.

So when it comes to restaurants versus pubs, what's the implications here:

Restaurants;
You arrange with a set number of people to go out for a meal. (number)
Everyone generally remains in their seats the whole time (proximity)
When the meal is over, you typically leave the restaurant and your party each go their separate ways. (duration)

Pubs;
You arrange to go to the pub, but others might join you later, and you wonder if you'll meet anyone there (number++)
You generally pick a spot and remain there for a while, but are likely to change position, and especially if you see someone you know and as you drink more, you will move around the pub more. As you drink more, you will also ignore social distancing convetions more (proximity++)
Your visit "ends" when you get kicked out or you feel like going home.. (duration++)

These basic facts don't change just because the pub is handing out food.

In essence, the question is - "Are you going to this establishment primarily to drink, or primarily to eat?".

Nobody has ever claimed that eating protects you from the virus or that a chipper van is a greater risk.

It's the activity that is a greater risk.

If the purpose of the establishment is to drink, then it's a bigger risk, whether it serves food or not.

Is a pub with a kitchen safer than a pub with a chipper van? The answer is no, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. The latter is clearly a bodge to get around the restrictions, not an honest attempt to be a restaurant.

The highlighted part shows you have zero clue!

None of those things happened in any of the bars I was in between June and September and I was in a lot of popular places!

Up and down the country, from family, friends and work colleagues, The bars took the name of the person making the booking and the number of people with that person. If the person who made the booking wasn't there, no one from that booking was allowed in. If there were more people with the party than the number booked, the excess number weren't allowed in.

As for walk ins, you were made wait until there was room for you. They didn't just chuck you in. It was controlled

What is less risky about going for a pizza and chips and drinks with 3 friends, as opposed to going for a pint and a bag of chips from up the road with your 3 friends?

You're making big long winded posts, stating all these things with nothing to back them up and yet, you patronisingly and sarcastically reply at times, to people who don't share your point of view and pull you up on things.

What Username Guidelines · 25-11-2020 01:17PM

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Its creating more divide when there was no need for this BS of a chef and a kitchen

You are leaving many many towns with no social outlet. No thinking as to the consequences there

Funny in my own town the safest pub would have been one without a kitchen or a chef as it was the best run

Thats also one that has been opened for a month since March and spent considerable money upgrading safety standards

There will be no medium to long term for people who are been driven out of business by this government

As the effect on the spread of the virus you're forcing people away from regulated environments to unregulated environments

A pub and a take away meal versus a house party?

I'd guess the first one is safer but the government doesn't think so obviously

I don't disagree with much of this post, all valid points tbh. It's a **** situation and it's **** because it's incredibly frustrating to have to deal with a problem with no perfect solution. The fallout of this will be felt for a long time in many ways we can guess now, like mentioned in your post, and probably many more we won't even consider until they come up.

It would appear though that the government dont think either Pub+Takeaway or a house party is safe. Just like maybe a concert with 200 people is safer than one with 5,000, doesn't mean we can have small concerts. Frustrating.

But, the data in models, whether you agree with them or not, is that some shouldering bigger burdens now (job losses, business losses, etc) is less of a threat than overrun hospitals. So anyone who loses a job or business will be rightfully pissed off, and can argue that what they're feeling is worse than a mild case of covid, which is correct.

I personally feel that the government should be offering more supports for these people and businesses to get through this, as Hmmm suggests. At this point I'd like to think we're past the halfway point, so another couple of billion on the pile can't add that much to the pain we're already feeling.

eagle eye · 25-11-2020 01:25PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I doubt you will be asked for your input. From your posts the schools would still be closed from last March if you had your way.

Show me your definitive proof that they are safe.

seamus · 25-11-2020 01:27PM

MOR316 wrote: »

None of those things happened in any of the bars I was in between June and September and I was in a lot of popular places!

I was in two places, and it happened in both. My WhatsApp chats were filled with exploits of mates pub-hopping and buying ****ty pizzas so they could have five pints.

We can wave our anecdotes around all day if we like. Doesn't change the fundemantal point, that there is a significant risk difference between socialising for a meal and socialising for a drink.

Whatever you think of the €9 rule or the kitchen rule, there has to be a way to separate the two, and no line drawn is going to be perfect.

The actual best way to sort out this mess would be to ban all on-premises alcohol sales. But there are many reasons why this is politically and economically impractical. Many restaurants rely on alcohol to make up a significant chunk of their margin.

KrustyUCC · 25-11-2020 01:35PM

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

I don't disagree with much of this post, all valid points tbh. It's a **** situation and it's **** because it's incredibly frustrating to have to deal with a problem with no perfect solution. The fallout of this will be felt for a long time in many ways we can guess now, like mentioned in your post, and probably many more we won't even consider until they come up.

It would appear though that the government dont think either Pub+Takeaway or a house party is safe. Just like maybe a concert with 200 people is safer than one with 5,000, doesn't mean we can have small concerts. Frustrating.

But, the data in models, whether you agree with them or not, is that some shouldering bigger burdens now (job losses, business losses, etc) is less of a threat than overrun hospitals. So anyone who loses a job or business will be rightfully pissed off, and can argue that what they're feeling is worse than a mild case of covid, which is correct.

I personally feel that the government should be offering more supports for these people and businesses to get through this, as Hmmm suggests. At this point I'd like to think we're past the halfway point, so another couple of billion on the pile can't add that much to the pain we're already feeling.

Fair post

MOR316 · 25-11-2020 01:35PM

seamus wrote: »

I was in two places, and it happened in both. My WhatsApp chats were filled with exploits of mates pub-hopping and buying ****ty pizzas so they could have five pints.

We can wave our anecdotes around all day if we like. Doesn't change the fundemantal point, that there is a significant risk difference between socialising for a meal and socialising for a drink.

Whatever you think of the €9 rule or the kitchen rule, there has to be a way to separate the two, and no line drawn is going to be perfect.

But you have just contradicted yourself completely.

"Restaurants are controlled and less risky and you go home after"
So what's stopping your mates from going bar hopping from F&D to O'Donohoes, to Bruxelles etc for a "****ty" pizza?

Hate to break it to you, pal...This isn't Harry met Sally or a Disney film, this is Ireland! The "socialising" for a meal as you call it, is the support act for socialising with a few drinks

seamus · 25-11-2020 01:50PM

MOR316 wrote: »

But you have just contradicted yourself completely.

"Restaurants are controlled and less risky and you go home after"
So what's stopping your mates from going bar hopping from F&D to O'Donohoes, to Bruxelles etc for a "****ty" pizza?

I'm not contradicting myself, you're just missing the point. Social eating (restaurants) is less risk than social drinking (pubs). The intention in the rules is to allow the fomer while minimising the latter.
If someone wants to spend their day bar-hopping between expensive restaurants and spending €200 on a steak in each one, then there's nothing really stopping them.

But by only allowing restaurants to open, you are limiting the amount of bar-hopping and risky behaviours that will take place.

By allowing pubs to open, you are enabling more risky behaviours to take place.

They could be a lot more prescriptive about what is and isn't a restaurant, and e.g. making it so that you can only buy alcohol if you've also ordered at least two courses costing more than €20. But then you get into "unenforceable" territory. These are best-effort rules. Not perfect ones.

Treepole · 25-11-2020 01:52PM

seamus wrote: »

I'm not contradicting myself, you're just missing the point. Social eating (restaurants) is less risk than social drinking (pubs). The intention in the rules is to allow the fomer while minimising the latter.
If someone wants to spend their day bar-hopping between expensive restaurants and spending €200 on a steak in each one, then there's nothing really stopping them.

But by only allowing restaurants to open, you are limiting the amount of bar-hopping and risky behaviours that will take place.

By allowing pubs to open, you are enabling more risky behaviours to take place.

They could be a lot more prescriptive about what is and isn't a restaurant, and e.g. making it so that you can only buy alcohol if you've also ordered at least two courses costing more than €20. But then you get into "unenforceable" territory. These are best-effort rules. Not perfect ones.

People want to socialise at Christmas and will do it regardless.

Do you allow them to socialise in a controlled venue with rules or do you "force" them to socialise in uncontrolled venues with no rules.

niallo27 · 25-11-2020 01:53PM

seamus wrote: »

I was in two places, and it happened in both. My WhatsApp chats were filled with exploits of mates pub-hopping and buying ****ty pizzas so they could have five pints.

We can wave our anecdotes around all day if we like. Doesn't change the fundemantal point, that there is a significant risk difference between socialising for a meal and socialising for a drink.

Whatever you think of the €9 rule or the kitchen rule, there has to be a way to separate the two, and no line drawn is going to be perfect.

The actual best way to sort out this mess would be to ban all on-premises alcohol sales. But there are many reasons why this is politically and economically impractical. Many restaurants rely on alcohol to make up a significant chunk of their margin.

You ever think they could be bull****ting you and even if they weren't they still would have had to book every pub they wanted to enter and would have been restricted to their group. This was happening from late summer and we didn't see a surge in cases.

MOR316 · 25-11-2020 01:59PM

seamus wrote: »

But by only allowing restaurants to open, you are limiting the amount of bar-hopping and risky behaviours that will take place.

By allowing pubs to open, you are enabling more risky behaviours to take place.

I literally named 3 pubs, all within 100 metres of each other, that have kitchens...

There will be no limiting the amount of bar hopping, no matter what way you try and paint it!

That's just in the Grafton St area and not all of them that I could have mentioned... Shall we move onto to those pubs and bars that have kitchens in Temple Bar?

3 small towns I drink in, one town has 7 pubs that are about 20 metres apart, one has 10 pubs with 7 of them having kitchens, the other has 30 odd pubs, with 9 of them having kitchens...

It's not going to stop bar hopping! It's not less risky!

Some in this thread have accused others of not facing up to reality at times and you've been one of them. This is one of the times you need to.

MOR316 · 25-11-2020 02:01PM

niallo27 wrote: »

You ever think they could be bull****ting you and even if they weren't they still would have had to book every pub they wanted to enter and would have been restricted to their group. This was happening from late summer and we didn't see a surge in cases.

I got that during the summer... Y'know what happened?
They didn't go through with it. They sat at home with cans. All talk and no trousers

seamus · 25-11-2020 02:05PM

Treepole wrote: »

People want to socialise at Christmas and will do it regardless.

Do you allow them to socialise in a controlled venue with rules or do you "force" them to socialise in uncontrolled venues with no rules.

I agree, and I've said it previously that pubs open with controls will be better over Xmas than no pubs at all.

We'll have to see what they come up with in their plan; if they don't at least allow pubs open with outdoor seating then they're making a mistake IMO.

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

Comments