Opening of "No-Food" pubs pushed out again

Irish Steve wrote: »

The question was asked why a meal prepared off site was different to a meal prepared on site, and these were some of the reasons why.

The comment about green paint or the letters in the name was a slightly tongue in cheek comment about the criteria that was used to determine how to select which pubs could be opened. The €9 rule wasn't new, it was in place, and an easy way to provide a supposedly simple way to limit the numbers open, but it's caused a firestorm from people that just won't accept the Covid issue as being real.


The attitudes of a significant number of posters in this thread is a pointer to the reasons why there was a reluctance by NPHET to recommend any hospitality being open over Christmas, and from what I've seen over the last few days, I will be very surprised if there is not another return to significant restrictions shortly after Christmas, possibly even more severe than we've just come out of. That won't be good, but there may not be an alternative at the moment.

We will be under 100 14 day average in January if not before. There will be no more need for a lockdown until February earliest at the onset of the third wave which hopefully will be tempered by the vaccine. In fact I'll go further and say there's a good chance we'll be the first country to green list by the end of December.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

Well your argument from a previous posts was “food doesn’t repel Covid” which isn’t really debating the point but more you trying to bolster your argument by insinuating the opposing view has no logic. Which doesn’t reflect well on you or your ability to argue coherently.

And I’m certainly not claiming to be the authority on the opposing view by any stretch. I’m not an expert in epidemiology pretty much (I’d venture a guess) like you aren’t. But NPHET are so maybe their views are worth considering even if you disagree with them.

weldoninhio wrote: »

Effective as a stomach lining to stop you from getting pissed. Which is allegedly why the €9 meal is needed.

I think its more to do with the fact that they don't want to reopen pubs but want to allow restaurants to open and if they don't let gastro pubs open they will have a mess on their hands. But this time they want the loop hole closed that pub pubs were using to open and my best guess, as someone who works in one of those pubs and knows some others (obviously on a very small local scale) who work in similar, was that those pubs in general weren't enforcing the rules re: time or even ordering food. Which is I suppose more likely in a local style establishment where customers tend to come in for longer, tend to be "regulars" and don't want to order food. There was also evidence of it even in this thread during the last lifting of restrictions. Plenty of posters boasting about never been asked to order food or to finish up.

weldoninhio wrote: »

Effective as a stomach lining to stop you from getting pissed. Which is allegedly why the €9 meal is needed.

That's not what the meal is about.

If your follow up is to ask what the meal is for, my suggestion is to go back a few months when this conversation was had for the first, second, third and fourth times.

Gervais08 wrote: »

All that will do is regurgitate what you want to believe it’s for.

There's no "believe" about it. The reasons for the regulations have been discussed at length on this thread already. Going back over it again is futile

SB71 wrote: »

Can people please not keep referring to pubs as "wet pubs" whoever came up with that word along with the equally as cringe "staycation" deserves to be ridiculed, awful.

the person who came up with the term "wet pub" is probably long dead, its a very old term, just use google.

That goes for the ignorant people who think meal laws are something new. Still waiting for anybody to give answers about why they think the meal laws in relation to children in pubs are in place.

Children aged 15 and over, who are accompanied by their parent or guardian, can stay on the premises after 9:00 (10:00 pm from May to September) if they are attending a private function where a substantial meal is being served

I won't hold my breath, they don't want to show themselves up as the laughable ignorant procreating vaginal idiots they know they are. (have to be careful as I know there are some sadly pathetic poor petals who get awful upset)

rubadub wrote: »

the person who came up with the term "wet pub" is probably long dead, its a very old term, just use google.

That goes for the ignorant people who think meal laws are something new. Still waiting for anybody to give answers about why they think the meal laws in relation to children in pubs are in place.


I won't hold my breath, they don't want to show themselves up as the laughable ignorant procreating vaginal idiots they know they are. (have to be careful as I know there are some sadly pathetic poor petals who get awful upset)

I don't think it's used in the same way.

A 'wet bar' was somewhere that used to wash their glasses to serve to others because it had soapwater or a running tap.

That could make it more annoying for many reasons,

Suckit wrote: »

I don't think it's used in the same way.

it was, as I said, try using google, there is a date fuction to only find hits before a certain date, very useful.

Irish Steve wrote: »

If that happens, I will be delighted to see it, as it will mean that normal life can start to resume, and we'll ALL be able to participate in events and the like that have been impossible for nearly 12 months.

That said, looking at some of the attitudes that are being put forward by some of the keyboard warriors in this thread, I'd be concerned at how much damage will be done by the 12 pubs of Christmas gang, who seem determined to do as much damage as possible to social separation during the Christmas period.

I can only hope that they're all mouth and no trousers, or, even better, the pubs that they choose for their sessions will recognise them for the types that they are, and show them the door before they can cause problems.

Now you're just outright lying through your teeth. Nobody on here suggested they would be doing 12 pubs of Christmas or anything like it.

You have a really strange attitude towards alcohol and people who drink. Supporting the pubs does not mean people are preparing for some huge run of sessions.

Tbh I don't see myself going to a pub this side of Christmas but I'm happy for anyone to have a bit of joy. If that joy means a few quiet pints with welcome company then fair play to them.

If a boozer, or any business for that matter, has put the necessary precautions in place they should be allowed to ****ing get on with it.

ginoginelli wrote: »

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.

Ha!
This whole "it's only alcos who want pubs open" bit is so boring and overdone at this point it verges on bad trolling. Use your brain for ten seconds to try to work out why.

John O.Groats wrote: »

Sadly you will be hoping in vain. These types are determined to flout the rules and will do so by hook or by crook. There will be a large spike in cases early in the new year.

There certainly will, and no doubt it'll still be getting blamed on pubs after they'd benn closed for 10 months.

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.

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/

You've an interesting idea of coping with truth, considering your background research seems to consist of desperately searching for something that appears to support your point and ignoring all the evidence that doesn't.
That study, as quoted in the article, doesn't in any way prove that pubs were a significant contributor. It takes a result; it makes one assumption about what might have caused that result; and it then goes "oh the numbers match, our assumption must be true". It's classic correlation vs causation. In this case, it's clearly one design to produce a particular result, ignoring other factor. Although even that graph notes that "this coincided with universities opening along with specific sporting events", but then decides anyway it's solely the pubs.

If that's the extent of the "evidence" the government that pretty shocking. All the more so since if that's the standard of evidence they're using schools would have to be shut immediately until a vaccine: 10 days after schools started opening, 14-day average for cases had jumped 20%. 3 weeks after they opened, up 50%. Early November, there was a sudden huge dip in cases for 6 days, shortly after the the mid-term break.

Meanwhile, in terms of actual evidence, there remains none that pubs are any worse than restaurants when subjected to the same restrictions. No other country has kept their pubs closed. A German court overturned a late-night pub ban because there was no evidence of pubs being worse. There's apparently even a HIQA report saying exactly the same thing - but oddly the govt are ignoring that in favour of some amazingly shoddy EY data "science".

If you want to do some actual research, download the publicly available figures and have a look at them yourself. Or keep lying to yourself and just cherrypick the laughable "evidence" that supports what you've already decided you want to believe.