Opening of "No-Food" pubs pushed out again

Jackman25

KiKi III wrote: »

Fair enough, here’s what’s happening in Spain: https://www.google.ie/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/coronavirus-new-cases-force-160-000-back-into-localised-lockdown-in-spain-12029108

Where does it say that the localized lockdown was due to pubs?

sydthebeat

BPKS wrote: »

You missed my point.

What is the difference between people spending 4 hours together in the same company in a pub or 2 hours in a pub and another 2 hours in the same house after?

Cos that's whats going on now.

there is a very distinct lack of awareness in this post.
how can you not see the glaring difference?

its not about them infecting themselves, its about affecting others.

of course they come in contact with less people if they are drinking themselves at home.

KiKi III

sydthebeat wrote: »

if that small cluster leads to larger community transmission, then of course obviously.

at the moment small cluster infections leading to community transmission is lead to restrictions to THE WHOLE COUNTRY

of course it should be regionalised.

how they do that is up to the enforcers, but they were able to check for non essential travel a month ago... so they can do it again now, as its easier as the scale is less.

Much as it would inconvenience me personally, if there’s a spike I think there’s a strong case for locking down Dublin but not the rest of the country.

Hurrache

Jackman25 wrote: »

Where does it say that the localized lockdown was due to pubs?

Doesn't matter if it had anything to do with pubs or not.

KiKi III

Jackman25 wrote: »

Where does it say that the localized lockdown was due to pubs?

I didn’t say it had; my point was a rush to reopen might very well lead to further lockdowns, something that I’m assuming most of us would like to avoid.

suicide_circus

ablelocks wrote: »

but this is just asking for our hospitals to be overloaded again

again? when were the hospitals overloaded?

sydthebeat

KiKi III wrote: »

Much as it would inconvenience me personally, if there’s a spike I think there’s a strong case for locking down Dublin but not the rest of the country.

i think dublin people need to understand that to many country dwellers they are viewed in the same way as the yanks are viewed.

50% of cases in dublin, many examples of flouting lockdown examples when it was in place, the videos from stephens green and dame street and the anecdotes of that being replicated across the city. Anecdote about a covid infected guy going to a house party in killarney and causing a cluster.,

its no wonder that theres a view that areas should be regionalised and shut down if necessary to slow the spread.

PhilOssophy

Neowise wrote: »

How can charging €30 for a 6 pack of guinness, up from €12, be described as 'went up a few quid'.

Do you ever buy cans yourself or do you just want those who do to suffer with their wallets?

Sure do, I love a few cans. But a few, not a slab of them heading off to a house party with 50 other people and then scratching my head wondering why Covid-19 numbers are on the rise.

Jackman25

KiKi III wrote: »

I didn’t say it had; my point was a rush to reopen might very well lead to further lockdowns, something that I’m assuming most of us would like to avoid.

Localized region in Spain goes into lockdown due to increases in cases most likely caused by influx of number of people coming from abroad to pick fruit in unfavorable conditions.
Still struggling to see the link to keeping pubs in Ireland closed.

BPKS

sydthebeat wrote: »

there is a very distinct lack of awareness in this post.
how can you not see the glaring difference?

its not about them infecting themselves, its about affecting others.

of course they come in contact with less people if they are drinking themselves at home.

But in the pub/restaurant you are in your own table in an area 2m+ from other groups. Fair enough you share toilets and access/egress and increase your exposure that way - but doesn't the hand washing and not touching surfaces etc not offer you protection when using these facilities?

Anyway I'm not going to get into any more toing and froing in this thread.

Will probably take the afternoon off and give my mate a hand taking down the screens and partitions he put up last week ahead of re-opening (might get a few bob for them before he closes for good) and thank my lucky stars that all those public servants on 6 figure salaries definitively know whats best for us.

KiKi III

sydthebeat wrote: »

i think dublin people need to understand that to many country dwellers they are viewed in the same way as the yanks are viewed.

50% of cases in dublin, many examples of flouting lockdown examples when it was in place, the videos from stephens green and dame street and the anecdotes of that being replicated across the city. Anecdote about a covid infected guy going to a house party in killarney and causing a cluster.,

its no wonder that theres a view that areas should be regionalised and shut down if necessary to slow the spread.

I don’t think people should blame Dubliners too much; it’s natural that where the highest population density is the highest spread of the disease will occur. I’m not sure there’s loads more rule-breaking here, it’s just that when it happens it has a greater impact.

I’m from the country and live in (and love) Dublin, I see no need for divisions between the two.

But if one county has 48% of cases and another has 1%, it doesn’t make sense to treat them the same way. Lock down Dublin if there’s a serious spike there and let the rest of the country stay open.

Fattybojangles

KiKi III wrote: »

Never seen four lads pile into a cafe bathroom to do a line of coke off a toilet seat though.

Off the seat??? What sort of places are you going to??

almostover

BPKS wrote: »

But in the pub/restaurant you are in your own table in an area 2m+ from other groups. Fair enough you share toilets and access/egress and increase your exposure that way - but doesn't the hand washing and not touching surfaces etc not offer you protection when using these facilities?

Anyway I'm not going to get into any more toing and froing in this thread.

Will probably take the afternoon off and give my mate a hand taking down the screens and partitions he put up last week ahead of re-opening (might get a few bob for them before he closes for good) and thank my lucky stars that all those public servants on 6 figure salaries definitively know whats best for us.

He might have some salt for that chip on your shoulder while you're there!

PhilOssophy

I loved the suggestion above that only certain areas should be locked down "Just like in Australia".....except since they locked down Victoria, they are locking down an area 3 times the size of Ireland........

sydthebeat

BPKS wrote: »

But in the pub/restaurant you are in your own table in an area 2m+ from other groups. Fair enough you share toilets and access/egress and increase your exposure that way - but doesn't the hand washing and not touching surfaces etc not offer you protection when using these facilities?
.

if you cant see the difference between drinking on a pub for 105 minutes or 4 hours, and the increase in risks because of that, then theres no hope for you.

people do not behave the same, nor have the same awareness of their behaviour 4 hours after starting drinking alcohol than they do before they start.

but hey, god help those lads parched for a pint....

Neowise

KiKi III wrote: »

I didn’t say it had; my point was a rush to reopen might very well lead to further lockdowns, something that I’m assuming most of us would like to avoid.

The further lockdown you quote is a localized lockdown.
Of a country of 47 million, the further lockdown only affects 160,000 people, not the other 46.8 million.


I think localized lockdowns should be done here, and let the unaffected regions relax restriction more.


If the locality gets cases, then they get locked down, not the whole country because one locality has a cluster.

sydthebeat

KiKi III wrote: »

I don’t think people should blame Dubliners too much; it’s natural that where the highest population density is the highest spread of the disease will occur. I’m not sure there’s loads more rule-breaking here, it’s just that when it happens it has a greater impact.

I’m from the country and live in (and love) Dublin, I see no need for divisions between the two.

But if one county has 48% of cases and another has 1%, it doesn’t make sense to treat them the same way. Lock down Dublin if there’s a serious spike there and let the rest of the country stay open.

i agree completely, and its not "blame" that is being appropriated... its risk analysis.

unfortunately as far as covid is concerned, there simply IS a divide.

Im from Laois where there have been no new cases in the last 2 weeks.
Business here would love to open up fully, and if there was a restriction from areas of high incidence they could.

Jackman25

Hurrache wrote: »

Doesn't matter if it had anything to do with pubs or not.

Perhaps you can explain the relevance of a localized lockdown in Spain likely due to imported fruit pickers in unfavourable conditions then?

KiKi III

Neowise wrote: »

The further lockdown you quote is a localized lockdown.
Of a country of 47 million, the further lockdown only affects 160,000 people, not the other 46.8 million.


I think localized lockdowns should be done here, and let the unaffected regions relax restriction more.


If the locality gets cases, then they get locked down, not the whole country because one locality has a cluster.

Yup, that’s what I think we should do here too in case of a spike. Localized lockdowns that allow areas where case numbers are low to get back to normal.

Hurrache

Jackman25 wrote: »

Perhaps you can explain the relevance of a localized lockdown in Spain likely due to imported fruit pickers in unfavourable conditions then?

The lockdown was required because of a rise in the number of cases, doesn't matter how the cases arose, the response is ultimately the same.

ixoy

sydthebeat wrote: »

if that small cluster leads to larger community transmission, then of course obviously.

But the point is, should it be at a county level? It's an arbitrary division and you could have parts of Kildare closer to an affected Dublin region than some parts of Dublin. We could aim for something a bit more targeted I'd hope (much in the way that in some circumstances, they did it certain parts of Beijing, not all of it, or certain tower blocks in Germany).

thegetawaycar

Jackman25 wrote: »

Localized region in Spain goes into lockdown due to increases in cases most likely caused by influx of number of people coming from abroad to pick fruit in unfavorable conditions.
Still struggling to see the link to keeping pubs in Ireland closed.

Hi Jackman, you'll find the link here - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53299544 "Officials linked local outbreaks to bars in the area"

The opening of bars directly led to a spike in cases.

Spain is not necessarily the greatest place to compare to here, they are very dependent on the tourism income as an economy and they report quite little updates on Coronavirus at a national level from the areas that are tourist hotspots.

Masks are now mandatory out doors in most of the regions and wearing a mask all the time in 35+ degree heat is much less fun than what people here complain about.

sydthebeat

ixoy wrote: »

But the point is, should it be at a county level? It's an arbitrary division and you could have parts of Kildare closer to an affected Dublin region than some parts of Dublin. We could aim for something a bit more targeted I'd hope (much in the way that in some circumstances, they did it certain parts of Beijing, not all of it, or certain tower blocks in Germany).

your base point is incorrect

the covid test levels are measured on a county basis, so any quantifying is then not on arbitrary basis but a measured, systematic basis....
as far as i know this county based measurement is the smallest area measurement, though i am open for correction on that.

based on those measured results, any division should be enacted.

ixoy

sydthebeat wrote: »

as far as i know this county based measurement is the smallest area measurement, though i am open for correction on that.

But we have the figures down to the electoral district level, no?

Patrick2010

Bit cynical wrote: »

I can't see what is going to happen between now and 10th August that would allow pubs to open on that date if they are not deemed fit to open now.

Indeed, only 13 people in hospital in the whole of Ireland with Covid and St James hospital report no new cases with either staff or patients since June 3. Hard to see this situation getting any better before 10th August so if they don't reopen now they'll hardly reopen then.

Macy0161

Patrick2010 wrote: »

Hard to see this situation getting any better before 10th August so if they don't reopen now they'll hardly reopen then.

It does enforce the messaging though.

At the moment, they can point to the takeaway pints, pubs flouting the with food/ time limit, house parties. Don't follow "the rules" then restrictions aren't lifted or there's a risk of them coming back. Maybe behavioural change is the change they're looking for rather than purely the numbers (although the R number is somewhat reflective of the behaviours).

Bit cynical

One of the problems is that up to this point many people thought that getting the numbers (cases and deaths) down was the end goal. Once these had been brought down to very low levels then things could start getting back to normal (they thought).

However you could have zero cases and zero deaths for a month and still need restrictions if the reproduction rate is above unity since the reproduction rate is a combination of the properties of the virus itself, the environment and people's behaviour. It only takes a small number of cases to kick the whole thing off again.

Restrictions lower the R number but they don't keep the R number low once restrictions are lifted, regardless of the scarcity of the virus.

Bit cynical

Bit cynical wrote: »

One of the problems is that up to this point many people thought that getting the numbers (cases and deaths) down was the end goal. Once these had been brought down to very low levels then things could start getting back to normal (they thought).

However you could have zero cases and zero deaths for a month and still need restrictions if the reproduction rate is above unity since the reproduction rate is a combination of the properties of the virus itself, the environment and people's behaviour. It only takes a small number of cases to kick the whole thing off again.

Restrictions lower the R number but they don't keep the R number low once restrictions are lifted, regardless of the scarcity of the virus.

Reducing the cases to low levels buys you time to react appropriately, not react to every minor shift in the R number. The R number is a theoretical calculation based on some known facts and some assumptions, a useful tool to aid in making decisions, not the be all and end all.

Also, if you have zero cases and zero deaths for a month, you don't have an R number - just a divide by zero error

Jackman25

thegetawaycar wrote: »

Hi Jackman, you'll find the link here - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53299544 "Officials linked local outbreaks to bars in the area"

The opening of bars directly led to a spike in cases.

Spain is not necessarily the greatest place to compare to here, they are very dependent on the tourism income as an economy and they report quite little updates on Coronavirus at a national level from the areas that are tourist hotspots.

Masks are now mandatory out doors in most of the regions and wearing a mask all the time in 35+ degree heat is much less fun than what people here complain about.

No mention of bars in LLeida.

Bit cynical

A further problem is that the more successful you are at suppressing the virus in the early stages, the less immunity there is in the population. Since immunity is one of the factors reducing the reproduction number, more stringent restrictions are needed to be kept in place.