Opening of "No-Food" pubs pushed out again

Gervais08

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

weldoninhio wrote: »

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

Yes

weldoninhio

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Gervais08

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.

I actually know someone who works in the same place as one of the “experts” and apparently the figure they wanted to say “could” be reached in 2020 was 250,000 just in the 26 counties!

Brexit’s “Project Fear” was a blueprint seemingly!!!!

CinemaGuy45

John O.Groats wrote: »

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.

I hate the insanity of this whole situation.
I miss going for a swim I miss going for a meal I miss browsing around a shop.

I miss not be able to go on holiday.

Irish Steve

weldoninhio wrote: »

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

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.

hynesie08

Gervais08 wrote: »

I actually know someone who works in the same place as one of the “experts” and apparently the figure they wanted to say “could” be reached in 2020 was 250,000 just in the 26 counties!

Brexit’s “Project Fear” was a blueprint seemingly!!!!

www.twitter.com/_DHOTYA

Thats me

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

I miss going for a swim I miss going for a meal I miss browsing around a shop.

I miss not be able to go on holiday.

This is only you and nobody around missing anything..

Birdie Num Num

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.

I know of two definite clusters from two pubs. One in Dublin from March 13th. One in another county after inter club match celebrations. Can’t imagine they stand alone.

CinemaGuy45

Thats me wrote: »

This is only you and nobody around missing anything..

What makes you say that?

I am not a lockdown zealot.

Oscar Bravo

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.

again,so much ****e in one post. Pubs wont miss you anyway.id say 5 pints max for you, chatting about how you got the rescue 116 crash thread so wrong

PommieBast

weldoninhio wrote: »

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

It isn't. The rules are intended to minimise the number of establishments that can open, rather than maximise safety of those that do.

MrStuffins

weldoninhio wrote: »

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

Effective as what?

Tazz T

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.

Irish Steve

Tazz T wrote: »

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.

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.

weldoninhio

MrStuffins wrote: »

Effective as what?

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

John O.Groats

Tazz T wrote: »

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.

Can I have some of what you`re smoking? No chance whatsoever of any of this panning out.

DeanAustin

[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.

John O.Groats

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.

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.

ShooterSF

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.

Gervais08

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.

Screenshots taken by a few I’d say ready to make you eat those stupid words - one of “those types” ?? Ffs.

MrStuffins

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

MrStuffins wrote: »

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.

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

MrStuffins

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

weldoninhio

MrStuffins wrote: »

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.

Weren’t you boasting about circumventing the meal rule last time? €9 for nachos and a pint?

Gervais08

weldoninhio wrote: »

Weren’t you boasting about circumventing the meal rule last time? €9 for nachos and a pint?

I believe the technical term is “hoist by one’s own petard”.

MrStuffins

weldoninhio wrote: »

Weren’t you boasting about circumventing the meal rule last time? €9 for nachos and a pint?

€9 for a meal, with a free pint, is not circumventing the rules.

According to you.....

weldoninhio wrote: »

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

The nachos did the trick. Rules obeyed

Again, I suggest you go back a few months if wish to go over ground that's already been trampled over.

rubadub

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)

MrStuffins

weldoninhio wrote: »

Just as I suspected. Hypocrite. Covid is still very much a daily topic, no matter how much you want your hypocrisy buried in the past.

If free pints are wrong, baby, lock me up and throw away the key!

Tell ya what, the €9 nachos were only ok but the pint I got with it was extraordinary!

The only thing more delicious was the value. A free pint, especially one as delicious as that one, is one of the most beautiful things known to man! Can't wait for my next one!

Suckit

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,

Gervais08

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)

Google Translate couldn’t help with that!!

rubadub

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.

rubadub

Gervais08 wrote: »

Google Translate couldn’t help with that!!

aww bless your ignorance, maybe look up the phrase "read between the lines".

Gervais08

rubadub wrote: »

aww bless, maybe look up the phrase "read between the lines".

Yeah still couldn’t fathom that drivel reading with ten magnifying glasses.

rubadub

Gervais08 wrote: »

Yeah still couldn’t fathom that drivel reading with ten magnifying glasses.

maybe get a small child to explain it to you, but I imagine you would rather continue feigning ignorance like so many others. Laughable pathetic cop out crap, fooling absolutely nobody with your lies...

The White Wolf

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.

Effects

SB71 wrote: »

Can people please not keep referring to pubs as "wet pubs".

What term would you rather everybody used instead?