Opening of "No-Food" pubs pushed out again

joeguevara

rob316 wrote: »

It just proves its been made up as they go along. Open all the pubs the whole thing is farcical at this stage.

If you just disclose where you got your medical/science masters and years experience in studying viruses I'll pass your recommendation on. I am sure it will be brought straight to the top and it is definitely farcical that although you can get alcoholic beverages no problem, the fact that every single pub in the country isn't open so people who wouldn't darken the door of them previously feel satisfied that they know better than people who actually do this for a living.

weldoninhio

joeguevara wrote: »

If you just disclose where you got your medical/science masters and years experience in studying viruses I'll pass your recommendation on. I am sure it will be brought straight to the top and it is definitely farcical that although you can get alcoholic beverages no problem, the fact that every single pub in the country isn't open so people who wouldn't darken the door of them previously feel satisfied that they know better than people who actually do this for a living.

You do realise that NPHET has 0 virologists on it??? :rolleyes:

joeguevara

weldoninhio wrote: »

You do realise that NPHET has 0 virologists on it??? :rolleyes:

You do realise that I wasn't going to bring advice straight to the top? Do NPHET have any doctors on it and people who deal in the situation that we are in or are they monkeys banging out typewriters hoping to write Shakespeare?

rob316

The so called experts are changing their views like the wind. No one actually knows whats going on. I just want to see some small business owners reopen and salvage their livelihoods after been closed for half a year.

joeguevara

rob316 wrote: »

The so called experts are changing their views like the wind. No one actually knows whats going on. I just want to see some small business owners reopen and salvage their livelihoods after been closed for half a year.

Can you give some examples of where they changed their views like the wind. Now not examples of where they changed one view to another after new evidence became available to them that after studying it made them amend their view which was based on previously held up to date information, but actually where the expert for sh1ts and giggles said 'ill fcuck with people today and change my mind for the laugh'.

niallo27

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Has anyone here actually been to these pubs serving food since they were allowed open? It’s a pretty horrible experience.

I actually thought it was alright, we got a boot in the corner. 5 of us, drinks brought to the table, no music blaring, we had a good chat and a laugh. Why did you find it horrible.

drunkmonkey

Over 70's voting strong...I need a pint.

freak scence

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Over 70's voting strong...I need a pint.

lol all the fools on the journal are praying for a spike so they can stay at home and do shag all

Atlantic Dawn

Could the reopening of the pubs be age limited to remove the vulnerable initially so nobody over 60?

un5byh7sqpd2x0

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Could the reopening of the pubs be age limited to remove the vulnerable initially so nobody over 60?

Why sure? It’s the young people that are the majority of carriers now

drunkmonkey

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Could the reopening of the pubs be age limited to remove the vulnerable initially so nobody over 60?

I'd go the way and make it over 30"s, need the wisdom of the auld lads at the bar to pass on their stories.

joeguevara

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Could the reopening of the pubs be age limited to remove the vulnerable initially so nobody over 60?

Where do you draw the line by bringing in arbitrary discrimination based on protected equality grounds. What you are suggesting would be similar to 'And non-Caucasians have a higher likelihood of catching it too so no non-whites.' I want to make it clear that I am in no way suggesting that you were suggesting that.

PowerToWait

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Could the reopening of the pubs be age limited to remove the vulnerable initially so nobody over 60?

Would this prevent the transmission of the super transmissible virus, COVID19, in the community? The reason these establishments were closed in the first place and the reason they remain closed.

Macy0161

joeguevara wrote: »

Where do you draw the line by bringing in arbitrary discrimination based on protected equality grounds. What you are suggesting would be similar to 'And non-Caucasians have a higher likelihood of catching it too so no non-whites.' I want to make it clear that I am in no way suggesting that you were suggesting that.

It's already been done, with cocooning and is going on all the time with the shops prioritising older customers?

I'd also go over 40 or over 50. After all, this demand that the pubs must reopen is all about the small rural pub, and the mental health of the auld fellas who sit over a couple of pints, isn't it?

joeguevara

I wonder how it would work though, asking a 70 year old for their ID and a bouncer going 'not to day love, you've had too many years, but your pretty 69 year old is more than welcome to walk straight in'.

Anyway as it has already been stated, the average age of people being infected now is 30-40 who could then transmit it to a 70 year old in the supermarket. Higher chance of doing that if they don't wear a mask.

mountgomery burns

joeguevara wrote: »

I think I posted a few weeks back that was in Buck Mulligans in Dun Laoghaire to have a chat with the manager and was shocked when he told me that because all of their tables are 2m or more apart that they don't need to adhere to the time limit. The problem most pubs have with this is that they don't have the space to ensure the 2m and it does limit more the amount of people that can be accommodated and spend money.

Yeah it's true as per HSPC website, the allowance is that only 1 metre social distancing is required provided there is a time limit and all other "risk mitigation" factors are met. Page 3 on their guidance for restaraunts.

gmisk

I was in pmacs at the weekend.
Zero issues, no packing people in.
Place was pretty much as usual bar no board games, and table service which is great tbh.
Would go back no issues.

freak scence

freak scence wrote: »

lol all the teachers on the journal are praying for a spike so they can stay at home and do shag all

FYP.

ShooterSF

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Could the reopening of the pubs be age limited to remove the vulnerable initially so nobody over 60?

I know it's a silly suggestion but heck they are the only industry I know that are allowed to legally discriminate on age and no I don't mean 18 year olds.
The law was changed to allow pubs to discriminate on age so that people had to be over X years old to drink there as long as they enforced it. One of the most disgusting laws out there. No harm in letting them add must be under X years old I guess.
Sorry had to rant about that rule. And no I'm in my 30s before you think I'm a sour 19 year old!

freak scence

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Could the reopening of the pubs be age limited to remove the vulnerable initially so nobody over 60?

that's over 70% of the the owners will not be able to work in their own pub , if anything it should be over 30s only

Idbatterim

Lads could we please start addressing the experts by their proper title? """"""" experts """""""

bladespin

Idbatterim wrote: »

Lads could we please start addressing the experts by their proper title? """"""" experts """""""

Do we have any? Lots of highly qualified people with very varied opinions, really think there are genuinely few (if any) Covid experts anywhere.

Also, seems to be a lot of’experts’ pimping themselves to the media with sensational headlines and little to back it up, not surprised so many are starting ignore advice.

showpony1

joeguevara wrote: »

The reason is this. If you have food in front of you and have to eat that, you cant have as many alcoholic drinks as if you didn't in the timeframe, as it takes time to eat a substantial meal. Because of that, you won't get as inebriated and start to do things that you wouldn't do (i.e. go talk to people, instigate more contact,) also, much less likely to pick up your plate of a roast dinner or a lasagne and bring it over to the fella you haven't seen in 20 years but you would probably would if you only had a pint glass.

I'm pretty sure the reason was restaurants not pubs were allowed open and if those pubs that happen to serve food wanted to open they had to actually serve food too not only pints.

Nobody is allowed take anything and just go over to another table in these pubs at the moment.

So the above about slowing down the speed of drinking may be your opinion but that's not the "reason" for it.

Xtrail14

Idbatterim wrote: »

Lads could we please start addressing the experts by their proper title? """"""" experts """""""

Ok boards cop.

joeguevara

showpony1 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the reason was restaurants not pubs were allowed open and if those pubs that happen to serve food wanted to open they had to actually serve food too not only pints.

Nobody is allowed take anything and just go over to another table in these pubs at the moment.

So the above about slowing down the speed of drinking may be your opinion but that's not the "reason" for it.

So you have gone from 'im pretty sure the reason' to knowing what I stated is 'not the reason'. It is the reason. It is the reason why pubs that serve food are open and pubs that don't aren't. It is also the reason why pubs without restaurant certificates but serve food now are allowed to open.

showpony1

joeguevara wrote: »

So you have gone from 'im pretty sure the reason' to knowing what I stated is 'not the reason'. It is the reason. It is the reason why pubs that serve food are open and pubs that don't aren't. It is also the reason why pubs without restaurant certificates but serve food now are allowed to open.

yes as if they want to open as restaurant they have operate as restaurant - not some sort of thing where the reason for the food is an obstacle to to the punter getting as many pints in as possible and delay them which is what you are saying.

rubadub

joeguevara wrote: »

So you have gone from 'im pretty sure the reason' to knowing what I stated is 'not the reason'. It is the reason. It is the reason why pubs that serve food are open and pubs that don't aren't. It is also the reason why pubs without restaurant certificates but serve food now are allowed to open.

It's painful seeing you have to explain this. Wiping peoples ****ty holes for them.

Restaurants have had laws like this in place for 50+ years, this is specifically in law to stop restaurants being able to act like pubs. Restaurants get permission to open in areas where a pub would not have a hope in hell of getting planning permission, of course people can get drunk in restaurants, but I was saying before I would much rather hear the news that a fancy restaurant was opening next door to my house than a pub, the restaurant crowd being less likely to be pissing and puking in my garden. I gave links to discussion of meals reducing drunkeness in pubs as discussed in the Dail years ago. The other law is relating to children in pubs, they are allowed stay after a certain time if meals are being served.

It is well recognised that food in your stomach will lead to a lower blood alcohol level, that is why many of the "eating is cheating" pisshead brigade are getting so pissed off about it.

And before people go reading things that are not there, I AM a pisshead and do not like eating while drinking. But I sure as fcuk am not going to pretend to be a fcuking moron who cannot see the reason for these rules. Not sure what these idiots think they are achieving by doing so. Even the stupider dogs on the street know why it's in law.

joeguevara

showpony1 wrote: »

yes as if they want to open as restaurant they have operate as restaurant - not some sort of thing where the reason for the food is an obstacle to to the punter getting as many pints in as possible and delay them which is what you are saying.

Ok Showpony, I am going to break it down. Pubs don't want to operate as restaurants. They want to operate as pubs. Initially they weren't allowed to open but were given permission to open as long as they served food. An exemption for pubs who didn't have the appropriate planning permission and certificate to serve food was also provided to pubs who didn't have them. The reason that this was all done was it was felt that a substantial meal and a specific time limit would mean that people wouldn't get as inebriated where it could mean that social distancing may become less of a priority. Did you ever wonder why there is no time limit in other establishments like a supermarket or a museum and a requirement to serve a substantial meal? Did you think that pubs woke up one day and said, fcuck this pub lark I want to be a restaurant?

murpho999

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Oh no I didn't have my €9 covid meal.

Honestly what difference does it make if I have a few pints with a meal or a few without. Same contacts, table service, tables very well spaced out, people not moving from their table unless going to the bathroom.

So whats the problem, we didn't have a few chicken wings?

I cannot understand why people do not understand the ruling about food. It's very simple.

Pubs were not allowed to open in July but restaurants were and they could serve alcohol with the food.

Publicans kicked up and said it was unfair as many pubs served food.

Therefore they said that "pubs" could open if they served food and operated as a restaurant.
The €9 meal is an arbitrary figure picked to differentiate a meal from a packet of crisps or a bowl of chicken wings. (Why does everybody just associate pub food as chicken wings or pizza?).
A time is allowed for the meal to be eaten.

It's not that they're saying a meal prevents Covid or is healthier, it's just that technically there's no pubs open now just restaurants.

I enjoy a pub but no real interest in going with restrictions such as distancing , table service etc. I go to relax and enjoy myself and not worry about viruses so I'd imagine I'll most likely avoid pubs , even if opened fully, until things become more normal.

People boasting about their feed of pints etc is a bit strange and sad in my opinion.

crisco10

murpho999 wrote: »

I cannot understand why people do not understand the ruling about food. It's very simple.

Pubs were not allowed to open in July but restaurants were and they could serve alcohol with the food.

Publicans kicked up and said it was unfair as many pubs served food.

Therefore they said that "pubs" could open if they served food and operated as a restaurant.
The €9 meal is an arbitrary figure picked to differentiate a meal from a packet of crisps or a bowl of chicken wings. (Why does everybody just associate pub food as chicken wings or pizza?).
A time is allowed for the meal to be eaten.

It's not that they're saying a meal prevents Covid or is healthier, it's just that technically there's no pubs open now just restaurants.

This. a million times this.