Opening of "No-Food" pubs pushed out again

stargazer 68 · 29-11-2020 08:29PM

Thats me wrote: »

New recommendations: https://assets.gov.ie/99265/1c5ba10e-465d-4494-b7fb-f4c50bbb96fc.pdf

But not a requirement as stated above.

stephenjmcd · 29-11-2020 08:29PM

Thats me wrote: »

New recommendations: https://assets.gov.ie/99265/1c5ba10e-465d-4494-b7fb-f4c50bbb96fc.pdf

Yup I know.

A recommendation is not a requirement and not covered in the legislation.

Up to each person if they want to wear a mask outdoors.

Anyway full thread on masks

vafankillar · 29-11-2020 08:34PM

Thats me wrote: »

New recommendations: https://assets.gov.ie/99265/1c5ba10e-465d-4494-b7fb-f4c50bbb96fc.pdf

it's clear that part of the governments plan has been to recommend / advise suff in the hopes people will assume it's obligatory lol.

I love how you even said recommendation yourself

DeanAustin · 29-11-2020 08:46PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Terribly sorry if I hurt your delicate feelings. Who are you exactly? NPHET have been extraordinarily patronising and dismissive of traditional publicans who bent over backwards at great expense to be accommodating. All to no avail, staring down a bleak December losing valuable business. Many of whom won't reopen in 2021. Due in no small part to an utterly deluded and irrational train of thought that an arbitrary €9 food charge is the knife edge between Covid spiralling out of control. Now I don't have to justify my actions on this thread to you, if you're unable to accept that then there's nothing else I can do for you. Sorry for your pedantic troubles.

Touchy. I’m someone on a message board expressing an opinion. Which is fairly normal. You’re trying to put your argument across as the only sensible one by undermining the opposing view with wilful ignorance.

The €9 is not the knife edge. No one thinks food repels Covid. The government and NPHET believe that if people are eating a decent meal with food, they are less likely to get hammered and lower their inhibitions which would lead, inevitably, to close contact. The €9 comes from some decades old legislation that defines a decent meal I believe.

You can argue that such a move is not effective. Fair enough. But there is clear logic there. From personal experience, I think it has an impact. It’s not the whole answer or a game changer but, to quote Tesco, every little helps.

Thats me · 29-11-2020 08:51PM

vafankillar wrote: »

it's clear that part of the governments plan has been to recommend / advise suff in the hopes people will assume it's obligatory lol.

I love how you even said recommendation yourself

This is NPHET recommendations, what will be enforced by government we will see tomorrow.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000 · 29-11-2020 08:52PM

Thats me wrote: »

This is NPHET recommendations, what will be enforced by government we will see tomorrow.

They can f off if they think they can push masks on people outdoors.

stephenjmcd · 29-11-2020 09:08PM

Thats me wrote: »

This is NPHET recommendations, what will be enforced by government we will see tomorrow.

It was covered in the press conference on Friday night. The question was asked is it mandatory, the answer was no.

Theres nothing to see about tomorrow, its already been covered off when cabinet signed off on everything on Friday.

Anyway this isn't the mask thread

MrStuffins · 29-11-2020 09:10PM

Hunky Monster wrote: »

They can f off if they think they can push masks on people outdoors.

I'd imagine that, because they know that cases are going to go up over Christmas and the New Year, they're going to try to offset some of those by trying to reduce the number of infections that happen outside.

They also know that people will be out shopping and foot-fall will be big do outside masks will help keep infections in that situation as a minimum.

Zebra3 · 29-11-2020 09:39PM

DeanAustin wrote: »

Touchy. I’m someone on a message board expressing an opinion. Which is fairly normal. You’re trying to put your argument across as the only sensible one by undermining the opposing view with wilful ignorance.

The €9 is not the knife edge. No one thinks food repels Covid. The government and NPHET believe that if people are eating a decent meal with food, they are less likely to get hammered and lower their inhibitions which would lead, inevitably, to close contact. The €9 comes from some decades old legislation that defines a decent meal I believe.

You can argue that such a move is not effective. Fair enough. But there is clear logic there. From personal experience, I think it has an impact. It’s not the whole answer or a game changer but, to quote Tesco, every little helps.

Getting hammered in a pub within and an hour and 45 minutes?

Talk about out of touch.

Gervais08 · 29-11-2020 09:43PM

Zebra3 wrote: »

Getting hammered in a pub within and an hour and 45 minutes?

Talk about out of touch.

Be nice if that was the case, be a much cheaper night out!!

ginoginelli · 29-11-2020 09:58PM

Just a few months now until the vaccine rollout , its incredulous to think that many people are going to flock to these high trasmission hotspots when they open. Of course you will get a few dummies but it will mainly be alchos who just can't help themselves. All we can do is hope they dont infect too many others.

DeanAustin · 29-11-2020 10:04PM

Zebra3 wrote: »

Getting hammered in a pub within and an hour and 45 minutes?

Talk about out of touch.

From my experience last time, the meal bit was enforced much more than the 1 hour 45 mins limit. I didn’t hear of one person being thrown out of a pub or asked to leave but I know many who stayed long beyond the 1 hour 45 mins.

29-11-2020 10:12PM

DeanAustin wrote: »

You’re trying to put your argument across as the only sensible one by undermining the opposing view with wilful ignorance.

Oh dear. Who appointed you as a concrete authority on the opposing view? "Wilful ignorance" is only your own projection. You're not very good at this I'm afraid.

Irish Steve · 29-11-2020 10:18PM

opinionated3 wrote: »

Give it a rest. Your as depressing as holohan at this stage.

Oh dear. You clearly can't cope with the truth of where things are.

Not in the least surprised, and the people thanking you don't surprise me either.

RTE has just carried an interesting item on the news about the external research that has been done on the cases caused by different establishments, and it's no surprise that the wet pubs are/were a significant contributor.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/1129/1181216-covid-wet-pubs/

And no, I don't care that you don't like the message, I am entitled to my view as much as you are. That is the principle of Boards, and if you don't like it, there is a simple solution, it's called ignore, and the beauty of that option is that only you know who's on your ignore list.

Have to admit, I'd not be complaining if I was getting the same money as Holohan.

Gervais08 · 29-11-2020 10:19PM

Irish Steve wrote: »

Oh dear. You clearly can't cope with the truth of where things are.

Not in the least surprised, and the people thanking you don't surprise me either.

RTE has just carried an interesting item on the news about the external research that has been done on the cases caused by different establishments, and it's no surprise that the wet pubs are/were a significant contributor.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/1129/1181216-covid-wet-pubs/

And no, I don't care that you don't like the message, I am entitled to my view as much as you are. That is the principle of Boards, and if you don't like it, there is a simple solution, it's called ignore, and the beauty of that option is that only you know who's on your ignore list.

Have to admit, I'd not be complaining if I was getting the same money as Holohan.

You are entitled to your view and to express it yes.

But you are not entitled to declare it the truth and that assume you are right.

Irish Steve · 29-11-2020 10:29PM

Gervais08 wrote: »

You are entitled to your view and to express it yes.

But you are not entitled to declare it the truth and that assume you are right.

There's been more than enough precedent for that over the last few months, going right to the top of the USA administration, and look where that got him.

If I was alone in the views I am proposing, I would be worried, but I am pretty confident that while I might be in a minority in this thread, there is a very good number of people across plenty of countries that would be expressing very similar views to mine.

I'm not assuming I am right, I have done the background research to make sure that there is at least some validity to the position I am taking.

Gervais08 · 29-11-2020 10:41PM

Irish Steve wrote: »

There's been more than enough precedent for that over the last few months, going right to the top of the USA administration, and look where that got him.

If I was alone in the views I am proposing, I would be worried, but I am pretty confident that while I might be in a minority in this thread, there is a very good number of people across plenty of countries that would be expressing very similar views to mine.

I'm not assuming I am right, I have done the background research to make sure that there is at least some validity to the position I am taking.

Yeah Google does not equal research.

Thats me · 29-11-2020 10:47PM

stephenjmcd wrote: »

It was covered in the press conference on Friday night. The question was asked is it mandatory, the answer was no.

So what? Even today it it is not mandatory and pubs are not open yet. Will see tomorrow what will become mandatory and what will be open.

stephenjmcd · 29-11-2020 10:49PM

Thats me wrote: »

So what? Even today it it is not mandatory and pubs are not open yet. Will see tomorrow what will become mandatory and what will be open.

Not sure what on earth your on about, there's nothing coming in tomorrow.

It isn't the mask thread by the way. If you want to discuss pubs you've to wear a mask if your out of your seat in a pub or restaurant.

We know what's in place for the next few weeks, get on with it.

weldoninhio · 29-11-2020 11:21PM

PTH2009 wrote: »

All this scientific waffle is done on ausspetions and predictions

One video of a crowded area in Dublin and Cork is enough to shut the whole country down

The flu has been rampant in all areas for 100s of years

The flu has been rampant until this year. Has there been a single case of it so far in 2020??

Irish Steve · 29-11-2020 11:33PM

Gervais08 wrote: »

Yeah Google does not equal research.

Ahhh, that explains a lot. If you think that I rely on Google as my research tool, then you are very much confirming why I am probably right in the impression I have of your position.

Google has been very good at promoting fake news from many sources, especially those that generate advertising revenue for them, and it's been well used by some posters here to try to promote their blinkered view of the closure of the wet pubs.

MrStuffins · 29-11-2020 11:34PM

weldoninhio wrote: »

The flu has been rampant until this year. Has there been a single case of it so far in 2020??

Yes

weldoninhio · 29-11-2020 11:35PM

DeanAustin wrote: »

Touchy. I’m someone on a message board expressing an opinion. Which is fairly normal. You’re trying to put your argument across as the only sensible one by undermining the opposing view with wilful ignorance.

The €9 is not the knife edge. No one thinks food repels Covid. The government and NPHET believe that if people are eating a decent meal with food, they are less likely to get hammered and lower their inhibitions which would lead, inevitably, to close contact. The €9 comes from some decades old legislation that defines a decent meal I believe.

You can argue that such a move is not effective. Fair enough. But there is clear logic there. From personal experience, I think it has an impact. It’s not the whole answer or a game changer but, to quote Tesco, every little helps.

So why is a €9 meal prepared off premises not as effective as a €9 meal prepared on premises?

Irish Steve · 29-11-2020 11:52PM

weldoninhio wrote: »

So why is a €9 meal prepared off premises not as effective as a €9 meal prepared on premises?

Effective is probably the wrong word to use, but to coin a popular phrase, in no particular order:-

2 parties (the pub and the supplier) are both going to be looking for a wedge out of the total, so the value to the consumer will be lower.

There is a good chance that the staff in the pub will not have received the formal training that is required for staff handling food.

There is the possibility that food hygiene standards at the pub will be less than optimal. as they are not in the business of supplying and serving food, they are using it as a way to skate around restrictions put in place to reduce the numbers of people meeting and having contact with others.

There is no guarantee that the supplier has not bulk prepared food for the pub and is keeping it "warm" for quick serving, which flies in the face of good food hygiene.

There is a very grey area about which place will be responsible/liable in the event of something like a food poisoning incident, or an issue with food allergy.

As the pub has no desire or interest in serving food, they have no motivation to ensure that the rules are being obeyed by the customers.

Realistically, it would have been better to use a different selection criteria for deciding which sites to allow open and which to keep closed, but this existing requirement was chosen as a way to have a limit. Perhaps it would have been better to say pubs that are painted green can't open, or pubs with certain letters in their name must remain closed, but they've made their choice, to try and limit the numbers getting Covid in an environment that's almost tailor made for spreading the virus.

Gervais08 · 29-11-2020 11:54PM

Irish Steve wrote: »

Effective is probably the wrong word to use, but to coin a popular phrase, in no particular order:-

2 parties (the pub and the supplier) are both going to be looking for a wedge out of the total, so the value to the consumer will be lower.

There is a good chance that the staff in the pub will not have received the formal training that is required for staff handling food.

There is the possibility that food hygiene standards at the pub will be less than optimal. as they are not in the business of supplying and serving food, they are using it as a way to skate around restrictions put in place to reduce the numbers of people meeting and having contact with others.

There is no guarantee that the supplier has not bulk prepared food for the pub and is keeping it "warm" for quick serving, which flies in the face of good food hygiene.

There is a very grey area about which place will be responsible/liable in the event of something like a food poisoning incident, or an issue with food allergy.

As the pub has no desire or interest in serving food, they have no motivation to ensure that the rules are being obeyed by the customers.

Realistically, it would have been better to use a different selection criteria for deciding which sites to allow open and which to keep closed, but this existing requirement was chosen as a way to have a limit. Perhaps it would have been better to say pubs that are painted green can't open, or pubs with certain letters in their name must remain closed, but they've made their choice, to try and limit the numbers getting Covid in an environment that's almost tailor made for spreading the virus.

So much ****e in one post, it’s hard to know where to begin.

Thats me · 30-11-2020 12:02AM

stephenjmcd wrote: »

We know what's in place for the next few weeks, get on with it.

Sorry, i didn't notice you know wet pubs would provide delivery and take-away services only and fines for non-wearing masks are on the way and restrictions can be extended if situation will worsen.

weldoninhio · 30-11-2020 12:14AM

Irish Steve wrote: »

Effective is probably the wrong word to use, but to coin a popular phrase, in no particular order:-

2 parties (the pub and the supplier) are both going to be looking for a wedge out of the total, so the value to the consumer will be lower.

There is a good chance that the staff in the pub will not have received the formal training that is required for staff handling food.

There is the possibility that food hygiene standards at the pub will be less than optimal. as they are not in the business of supplying and serving food, they are using it as a way to skate around restrictions put in place to reduce the numbers of people meeting and having contact with others.

There is no guarantee that the supplier has not bulk prepared food for the pub and is keeping it "warm" for quick serving, which flies in the face of good food hygiene.

There is a very grey area about which place will be responsible/liable in the event of something like a food poisoning incident, or an issue with food allergy.

As the pub has no desire or interest in serving food, they have no motivation to ensure that the rules are being obeyed by the customers.

Realistically, it would have been better to use a different selection criteria for deciding which sites to allow open and which to keep closed, but this existing requirement was chosen as a way to have a limit. Perhaps it would have been better to say pubs that are painted green can't open, or pubs with certain letters in their name must remain closed, but they've made their choice, to try and limit the numbers getting Covid in an environment that's almost tailor made for spreading the virus.

So the rule is made up boll1x, with no basis in reality. Why the wall of text to say this??

stephenjmcd · 30-11-2020 12:15AM

Thats me wrote: »

Sorry, i didn't notice you know wet pubs would provide delivery and take-away services only and fines for non-wearing masks are on the way and restrictions can be extended if situation will worsen.

Honestly what are you rambling on about?

Wet pubs closed except for takeaway or delivery, yes we all know that.

Thats nothing new for fines. That legislation was signed in last week to provision on the spot fines, but Gardai aren't in a position to enforce yet as the find code needs to be generated in the courts system and imported into Garda systems.

Its punishable by law to not wear a mask on public transport and in shops up to last week with a fine of €2,500 but new legislation as in that link provides for smaller on the spot fines. To wear it outdoor is only a recommendation and it was asked on Friday night is it included in legislation and the answer was no and it won't be.

Again this thread is to do with pubs. If you want to ramble on about masks there's another thread for that. I've honestly no idea what point your even trying to make.

If your point relates to pubs and restaurants you have to wear a mask when out of your seat.

CinemaGuy45 · 30-11-2020 12:19AM

weldoninhio wrote: »

So the rule is made up boll1x, with no basis in reality. Why the wall of text to say this??

Hush and remember the rules.

We are locking down for two weeks to flatten the curve to make sure there are enough ventilators for us all this is a deadly virus that will kill up to 85'000 people.
Masks are not recommended wear gloves and sanitise your hands.

Oh Jesus I am sorry how April and May of me I meant wear masks gloves are not recommend and we must all obey or we are granny killers.

John O.Groats · 30-11-2020 12:38AM

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

Hush and remember the rules.

We are locking down for two weeks to flatten the curve to make sure there are enough ventilators for us all this is a deadly virus that will kill up to 85'000 people.
Masks are not recommended wear gloves and sanitise your hands.

Oh Jesus I am sorry how April and May of me I meant wear masks gloves are not recommend and we must all obey or we are granny killers.

Well as you made clear earlier today you don`t wear masks due to your condition so I don`t know why you are sarcastically posting this.

Opening of "No-Food" pubs pushed out again

Comments