Opening of "No-Food" pubs pushed out again

hetuzozaho

road_high wrote: »

Why? Where’s the peer reviewEd data to support it in our public situations?

There's a whole thread for crazy mask talk. We are trying to enjoy our creamy pints here.

irelandrover

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Masks are the new religion.

We were told originally they don't work. In fact they told us that they could be worse. Sweden are saying don't wear the masks. The Dutch are saying we don't have a clue, so we're not recommending them.

Here, if you even raise the question of the mask you are sectioned off to being a 5G conspiracy theorist. Jennifer Maguire (who is an appalling person BTW) nearly got cancelled for even proposing a debate.

This is ****ing nuts.

The Dutch made them mandatory in situations where social distancing cant be maintained, such as public transport.

hetuzozaho

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Masks are the new religion.

We were told originally they don't work. In fact they told us that they could be worse. Sweden are saying don't wear the masks. The Dutch are saying we don't have a clue, so we're not recommending them.

Here, if you even raise the question of the mask you are sectioned off to being a 5G conspiracy theorist. Jennifer Maguire (who is an appalling person BTW) nearly got cancelled for even proposing a debate.

This is ****ing nuts.

Hyperbole is the new religion :pac:
Go have a pint and calm down dude.

You'd think the pub thread would be full of sounder people!

"WoNT soMEone PLEASe tHinK of JEnnifer Maguire" haha

John O.Groats

road_high wrote: »

Yes indeed the bias is mind blowing.

What is mind blowing is your complete denial of the fact that Covid-19 is a serious illness and your pathetic moronic attempts to slag off the people with functioning brain cells that are observing the guidelines including the wearing of masks.

John O.Groats

weldoninhio wrote: »

Slag a mask, get a yellow. Encourage violence, nothing said. Just about sums boards up these days.

If you`re not happy with things you know where the exit door is.

IAMAMORON

John O.Groats wrote: »

If you`re not happy with things you know where the exit door is.

I don't ( know where the door is ) , any ideas?

John O.Groats

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I don't ( know where the door is ) , any ideas?

Yes. Go back to the pub.

Nermal

Vieira82 wrote: »

Here:

files.fast.ai/papers/masks_lit_review.pdf

here:

thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext

and here:

royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/set-c/set-c-facemasks.pdf?la=en-GB&hash=A22A87CB28F7D6AD9BD93BBCBFC2BB24

Can't post links but a simple google search on those items above will give you those three studies, one by The Lancet, another by Oxford University and another by the University of California San Francisco.

But I doubt you'll even bother looking the articles let alone read a paragraph on any of those links and launch on an ad hominem argument automatically...

Well I bothered.

Your first link is not a study, it's a literature review and a simulation.

Your second I have addressed before. It's a meta-review of studies that were almost entirely conducted in healthcare settings or small dormitories, not in the general population.

Your third actually explicitly states in the conclusion: "evidence was weak due to few conclusive RCT (randomised controlled trial) results in community settings".

Don't get me wrong, it's very likely that mask wearing will slow transmission in the general population. But by how much? How many lives will we save?

If you're the type of poster that responds in platitudes like 'if it saves one life, then we should do it' - then leave the discussion to people who are willing to discuss things like adults.

hetuzozaho

Nermal wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, it's very likely that mask wearing will slow transmission in the general population. But by how much? How many lives will we save?

Masks it is then, you've convinced me anyway!

listermint

road_high wrote: »

All that is lovely fussy warm glowing inside stuff but what I asked for is peer reviewed data to support mask wearing (Note; outside of the obvious medical situations). All I get back once more amounts to speculation and what amounts to “sure why wouldn’t ya wear one”?
It’s amazing how they’ve become the latest life saving tool/placebo in the past 2 months but through April May there wasn’t a hint of them being made compulsory and virtually no one was wearing them or gave a toss about them - yet cases fell away

Apart from the obvious medical situations.


Your words please.


What medical situations, and why would a medical professional wear them in those situations.

State clearly what you mean. Because your being very fluffy tuffy two and fro and asking for peer reviewed studies when I'd imagine you don't even know what the term means. Like a walking talking Facebook group.

So please state clearly i asked you two simple questions.

Vieira82

Nermal wrote: »

Well I bothered.

Your first link is not a study, it's a literature review and a simulation.

Your second I have addressed before. It's a meta-review of studies that were almost entirely conducted in healthcare settings or small dormitories, not in the general population.

Your third actually explicitly states in the conclusion: "evidence was weak due to few conclusive RCT (randomised controlled trial) results in community settings".

Don't get me wrong, it's very likely that mask wearing will slow transmission in the general population. But by how much? How many lives will we save?

If you're the type of poster that responds in platitudes like 'if it saves one life, then we should do it' - then leave the discussion to people who are willing to discuss things like adults.

From that Literature Review and Simulation article you obviously did not read:

"When considering the relevance of these studies of ingress,
it’s important to note that they are likely to substantially underestimate effectiveness of masks for source control. When
someone is breathing, speaking, or coughing, only a tiny
amount of what is coming out of their mouths is already in
aerosol form. Nearly all of what is being emitted is droplets.
Many of these droplets will then evaporate and turn into
aerosolized particles that are 3 to 5-fold smaller. The point
of wearing a mask as source control is largely to stop this process from occurring, since big droplets dehydrate to smaller
aerosol particles that can float for longer in air (26).
Anfinrud et al (6) used laser light-scattering to sensitively
detect droplet emission while speaking. Their analysis showed
that virtually no droplets were "expelled" with a homemade
mask consisting of a washcloth attached with two rubber
bands around the head, while significant levels were expelled
without a mask. The authors stated that "wearing any kind
of cloth mouth cover in public by every person, as well as
strict adherence to distancing and handwashing, could significantly decrease the transmission rate and thereby contain the
pandemic until a vaccine becomes available."
An important focus of analysis for public mask wearing
is droplet source control. This refers to the effectiveness of
blocking droplets from an infectious person, particularly during speech, when droplets are expelled at a lower pressure and
are not small enough to squeeze through the weave of a cotton
mask. Many recommended cloth mask designs also include a
layer of paper towel or coffee filter, which could increase filter
effectiveness for PPE, but does not appear to be necessary for
blocking droplet emission (6, 27, 28).
In summary, there is laboratory-based evidence that household masks have some filtration capacity in the relevant
droplet size range, as well some efficacy in blocking droplets
and particles from the wearer (26). That is, these masks help
people keep their droplets to themselves.

4. Mask Efficacy Studies
Although no randomized controlled trials (RCT) on the use
of masks as source control for SARS-CoV-2 has been published, a number of studies have attempted to indirectly estimate the efficacy of masks. Overall, an evidence review (29)
finds "moderate certainty evidence shows that the use of handwashing plus masks probably reduces the spread of respiratory
viruses."
The most relevant paper (30), with important implications
for public mask wearing during the COVID-19 outbreak, is
one that compares the efficacy of surgical masks for source control for seasonal coronavirus, influenza, and rhinovirus. With
ten participants, the masks were effective at blocking coronavirus droplets of all sizes for every subject. However, masks
were far less effective at blocking rhinovirus droplets of any
size, or of blocking small influenza droplets. The results suggest that masks may have a significant role in source control
for the current coronavirus outbreak. The study did not use
COVID-19 patients, and it is not yet known whether seasonal
coronavirus behaves the same as SARS-CoV-2; however, they
are of the same genus, so similar behavior is likely.
Another relevant (but under-powered, with n=4) study
(31) found that a cotton mask blocked 96% (reported as 1.5
log units or about a 36-fold decrease) of viral load on average,
at eight inches away from a cough from a patient infected with
COVID-19. If this is replicated in larger studies it would be
an important result, because it has been shown (32) that "every 10-fold increase in viral load results in 26% more patient
deaths" from "acute infections caused by highly pathogenic
viruses".
A comparison of homemade and surgical masks for bacterial and viral aerosols (21) observed that "the median-fit
factor of the homemade masks was one-half that of the surgical masks. Both masks significantly reduced the number of
microorganisms expelled by volunteers, although the surgical
mask was 3 times more effective in blocking transmission than
the homemade mask." Research focused on aerosol exposure
has found all types of masks are at least somewhat effective
at protecting the wearer. Van der Sande et al (33) found that
"all types of masks reduced aerosol exposure, relatively stable
over time, unaffected by duration of wear or type of activity",
and concluded that "any type of general mask use is likely
to decrease viral exposure and infection risk on a population
level, despite imperfect fit and imperfect adherence". Overall
however, analysis of particle filtration is likely to underestimate the effectiveness of masks, since the fraction of particles
that are emitted as aerosol (vs. droplet) is quite small (26).
Analysis of seasonal coronavirus compared to rhinovirus (30)
suggests that filtration of COVID-19 may be much more effective, especially for source control.
The importance of using masks for health care workers
has been observed (34) in three Chinese hospitals where, in
each hospital, medical staff wearing masks (mainly in quarantine areas) had no COVID-19 infections, despite being around
COVID-19 patients far more often, whilst other medical staff
had 10 or more infections in each of the three hospitals.
Masks seem to be effective for source control in the controlled setting of an airplane. One case report (35) describes
a man who flew from China to Toronto and then tested positive for COVID-19. He was wearing a mask during the flight.
The 25 people closest to him on plane/flight attendants were
tested and all were negative. Nobody has been reported from
that flight as getting COVID-19. Another case study involving a masked influenza patient on an airplane (36) found that
"wearing a face mask was associated with a decreased risk for
influenza acquisition during this long-duration flight".
Guideline development for health worker personal protective equipment have focused on whether surgical masks or
N95 respirators should be recommended. Most of the research in this area focuses on influenza. At this point, it
is not known to what extent findings from influenza studies
apply to COVID-19 filtration. Wilkes et al (37) found that
"filtration performance of pleated hydrophobic membrane filters was demonstrated to be markedly greater than that of
electrostatic filters." However, even substantial differences in
materials and construction do not seem to impact the transmission of droplet-borne viruses in practice, such as a metaanalysis of N95 respirators compared to surgical masks (38)
that found "the use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratoryconfirmed influenza." Johnson et al (39) showed that "surgical
and N95 masks were equally effective in preventing the spread
of PCR-detectable influenza". Radonovich et al (40) found in
an outpatient setting that "use of N95 respirators, compared
with medical masks... resulted in no significant difference in
the rates of laboratory-confirmed influenza."
One of the most frequently mentioned papers evaluating
the benefits and harms of cloth masks have been by MacIntyre
et al (41). Findings have been misinterpreted, and therefore
justify detailed discussion here. The authors "caution against
the use of cloth masks" for healthcare professionals compared
to the use of surgical masks and regular procedures, based on
an analysis of transmission in hospitals in Hanoi. We emphasize the setting of the study - health workers using masks to
protect themselves against infection. The study compared a
"surgical mask" group which received 2 new masks per day, to
a "cloth mask" group that received 5 masks for the entire 4
week period and were required to wear the masks all day, to
a "control group" which used masks in compliance with existing hospital protocols, which the authors describe as a "very
high level of mask use". It is important to note that the authors did not have a "no mask" control group because it was
deemed "unethical to ask participants to not wear a mask."
The study does not inform policy pertaining to public mask
wearing as compared to the absence of masks in a community
setting, since there is not a "no mask" group. The results of
the study show that the group with a regular supply of new
surgical masks each day had significantly lower infection of
rhinovirus than the group that wore a limited supply of cloth
masks. This paper lends support to the use of clean, surgical
masks by medical staff in hospital settings to avoid rhinovirus
infection by the wearer, and is consistent with other studies
that show cloth masks provide poor filtration for rhinovirus
(30). Its implementation does not inform the effect of using
cloth masks versus not using masks in a community setting for
source control of SARS-CoV-2, which is of the same genus as
seasonal coronavirus, which has been found to be effectively
filtered by cloth masks in a source control setting (30).
A. Studies of Impact on Community Transmission. When
evaluating the available evidence for the impact of masks on
community transmission, it is critical to clarify the setting of
the research study (health care facility or community), the resHoward et al. PNAS | April 10, 2020 | vol. XXX | no. XX | 3
piratory illness being evaluated and what reference standard
was used (no mask or surgical mask). There are no RCTs
that have been done to evaluate the impact of masks on community transmission during a coronavirus pandemic. While
there is some evidence from influenza outbreaks, the current
global pandemic poses a unique challenge. A review (42) of
67 studies including randomized controlled trials and observational studies found that simple and lowcost interventions
would be useful for reducing transmission of epidemic respiratory viruses. The review recommended that "the following
effective interventions should be implemented, preferably in a
combined fashion, to reduce transmission of viral respiratory
disease: 1. frequent handwashing with or without adjunct
antiseptics; 2. barrier measures such as gloves, gowns, and
masks with filtration apparatus; and 3. suspicion diagnosis
with the isolation of likely cases". However, it cautioned that
routine longterm implementation of some measures assessed
might be difficult without the threat of an epidemic.
Seuess et al conducted an RCT (43)that suggests household transmission of influenza can be reduced by the use
of non-pharmaceutical interventions, namely the use of face
masks and intensified hand hygiene, when implemented early
and used diligently. Concerns about acceptability and tolerability of the interventions should not be a reason against their
recommendation (43). Cowling et al (44) investigated hand
hygiene and face masks in an RCT that seemed to prevent
household transmission of influenza virus when implemented
within 36 hours of index patient symptom onset. These findings suggest that non-pharmaceutical interventions are important for mitigation of pandemic and inter-pandemic influenza.
RCT findings by Aiello et al (45) "suggest that face masks
and hand hygiene may reduce respiratory illnesses in shared
living settings and mitigate the impact of the influenza A
(H1N1) pandemic". A randomized intervention trial (46)
found that "face masks and hand hygiene combined may reduce the rate of ILI [influenza-like illness] and confirmed influenza in community settings. These non-pharmaceutical
measures should be recommended in crowded settings at the
start of an influenza pandemic." The authors noted that their
study "demonstrated a significant association between the
combined use of face masks and hand hygiene and a substantially reduced incidence of ILI during a seasonal influenza
outbreak. If masks and hand hygiene have similar impacts on
primary incidence of infection with other seasonal and pandemic strains, particularly in crowded, community settings,
then transmission of viruses between persons may be significantly decreased by these interventions."
An observational study in Hong Kong on SARS (47) found
"frequent mask use in public venues, frequent hand washing,
and disinfecting the living quarters were significant protective
factors (OR 0.36 to 0.58)". An important observation was
that "members of the case group [infected with SARS] were
less likely than members of the control group [not infected] to
have frequently worn a face mask in public venues (27.9% vs.
58.7%)"

(...)

6. Discussion and Recommendations
Our review of the literature offers evidence in favor of
widespread mask use to reduce community transmission: nonmedical masks use materials that obstruct droplets of the necessary size; people are most infectious in the initial period
post-infection, where it is common to have few or no symptoms (10–16); non-medical masks have been effective in reducing transmission of influenza; non-medical masks have been
shown to be effective in small trials at blocking transmission
of coronavirus; and places and time periods where mask usage is required or widespread have shown substantially lower
community transmission.
The available evidence suggests that near-universal adoption of non-medical masks when out in public, in combination
with complementary public health measures could successfully
reduce effective-R to below 1.0, thereby stopping community
spread. Economic analysis suggests that the impact of mask
wearing could be thousands of US dollars saved per person
per mask (93)."

Like I expected, you did not bother to read one single word of it.

Adding to that there is the list of Refferences for this article which pertain to 96 scientific articles to which the article I shared compiles in you easy to understand article.

But for you the article is "simulation".

Kool! Go ahead!

Donn't use a mask, actually go and kiss everyone on your next pub crawl, go ahead also and lick the tables, glasses and the floors! Because why not? Darwin would be proud of you!

Amazing how some people on social media know more about masks and the Covid crisis than the scientific community.

hetuzozaho

6 wrote: »

Amazing how some people on social media know more about masks and the Covid crisis than the scientific community.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability.

bcklschaps

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Hyperbole is the new religion :pac:
Go have a pint and calm down dude.

You'd think the pub thread would be full of sounder people!

"WoNT soMEone PLEASe tHinK of JEnnifer Maguire" haha

+1000%.

Cool the jets lads.... Some stories about supping pints... be more appropriate. I'll start.


https://youtu.be/vKtUKDqVffs

weldoninhio

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Anyone arguing against masks is just plain wrong.

You’ll have the evidence to back that up?

weldoninhio

John O.Groats wrote: »

If you`re not happy with things you know where the exit door is.

There’s an exit door on an online forum? Where is it? I know there’s a login/logout not I’ve never seen a door.

weldoninhio

weldoninhio wrote: »

You’ll have the evidence to back that up?

Sometimes a small bit of cop on is all you need.

weldoninhio

weldoninhio wrote: »

You’ll have the evidence to back that up?

You are the one making outlandish claims, going against medial advice, going against all studies on the topic so its up to you to show some evidence.

Just to note - facebook hoax links which you get your info from don't count as evidence.

rubadub

PTH2009 wrote: »

Even more evident that there was no point too the food rule

You had several posts which clearly showed the food rule was working as intended. You were moaning about it being bad value as you do not get as drunk on a full stomach of food, and were seemingly less likely to be going out as often as it was expensive.

These food rules/laws like these are in place for decades, possibly 100+ years, definitely 50+. Eddie rockets used to enforce them when they served beer (not sure if they still do).

MrStuffins

May 2020 - "5G i causing COVID. How do I know? Check out this You Tube video and link from PatriotScienceHealthIngo.net.org as a reference! Also, David Icke spoke to a Whistleblower and told me about it via telecommunication."

September 2020 - "Masks form a barrier between your mouth and mine? Sorry but i'm going to need multiple peer-reviewed studies!"

Vieira82

weldoninhio wrote: »

You’ll have the evidence to back that up?

yes, scroll up. Or is it just a "simulation" too for you? xD

mountgomery burns

The fact is you're obliged to wear a mask for about 2-5 mins of your total stay in a pub.

To those in favour - Its pretty much negligible given people will be in a pub for hours to be wearing it for such a short time realistically and not worth getting this worked up about

To those opposed to them - it's 5 mins, for the sake of optics and aiding the pubs follow guidelines and stay open would you not just wear them?


Can we leave all other discussion of their efficacy to the mask thread?

Seamai

Heading to Sligo on Saturday, thought I better make a bar booking for after dinner that night as I'm not sure what the lie of the land is so I called a well known hostelry in the town centre and was told, "we're not taking bookings, you can just walk in" no problem or so I thought, so I asked if 10pm would be OK, "I'm afraid not, we will be stopping serving around 10ish as we need to get everyone out by 11.30" I had planned on booking dinner there for another night but given they guys overall unfriendly attitude I decided not to. I thought they'd be biting the hand off people. I'll take my money elsewhere so.

MrStuffins

It's like they think they'll have to sieve their pints through their masks or something.

Was in the pub on Fri and again on Sat. Was great having someone bring your round to the table every time. No queuing at the bar and hoping to get served before having to make two trips because I'm buying 5 drinks.

Wore the mask going to the jacks and that was that. The Sat was one of the best pub experiences I've ever had actually.

MOH

rubadub wrote: »

You had several posts which clearly showed the food rule was working as intended. You were moaning about it being bad value as you do not get as drunk on a full stomach of food, and were seemingly less likely to be going out as often as it was expensive.

These food rules/laws like these are in place for decades, possibly 100+ years, definitely 50+. Eddie rockets used to enforce them when they served beer (not sure if they still do).

But we've had a rule in place for 3 months, while numbers were low, that prevented pubs from opening unless they did food.
Yet now, with numbers rising, they've suddenly decided it's OK to open pubs without any food rule, under exactly the same restrictions that were proposed 3 months ago.

Surely that demonstrates that the food rule was pointless?

Additionally, the decision to keep pubs closed was supposedly based on international evidence, despite the fact that (I'm open to correction) no other country has kept all their pubs closed this long.

Even worse, we've now found that there's no effort being made to determine where clusters are actually originating, because we apparently don't have the time/resources to find out where the first person in a cluster might have contracted Covid. Which is information you'd think would be vital to have any chance of restricting the spread, and would save a fortune in the medium to long term.

It'll be interesting when they suddenly decide in 4 or 5 weeks to scapegoat the pubs for numbers continuing to rise at the current rate, how they'll be able to explain that they've suddenly developed the ability to determine that pubs are to blame. (I'm also curious how they've been able to say definitively so far that children, schools, and international travel are definitely not causing clusters).

Ten of Swords

Mod - Thread is going rapidly off topic here. Stick to discussing the pubs in this thread please

You can discuss masks here
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058111744

Seamai

MrStuffins wrote: »

It's like they think they'll have to sieve their pints through their masks or something.

Was in the pub on Fri and again on Sat. Was great having someone bring your round to the table every time. No queuing at the bar and hoping to get served before having to make two trips because I'm buying 5 trips.

Wore the mask going to the jacks and that was that. The Sat was one of the best pub experiences I've ever had actually.

Not having to queue at the bar would be a big plus for me.

freak scence

Seamai wrote: »

Heading to Sligo on Saturday, thought I better make a bar booking for after dinner that night as I'm not sure what the lie of the land is so I called a well known hostelry in the town centre and was told, "we're not taking bookings, you can just walk in" no problem or so I thought, so I asked if 10pm would be OK, "I'm afraid not, we will be stopping serving around 10ish as we need to get everyone out by 11.30" I had planned on booking dinner there for another night but given they guys overall unfriendly attitude I decided not to. I thought they'd be biting the hand off people. I'll take my money elsewhere so.

nothing wrong with that loads of people not showing up for bookings so alot of places only taking walkins and 10pm is the cut off time so don't see your problem

hynesie08

Seamai wrote: »

Heading to Sligo on Saturday, thought I better make a bar booking for after dinner that night as I'm not sure what the lie of the land is so I called a well known hostelry in the town centre and was told, "we're not taking bookings, you can just walk in" no problem or so I thought, so I asked if 10pm would be OK, "I'm afraid not, we will be stopping serving around 10ish as we need to get everyone out by 11.30" I had planned on booking dinner there for another night but given they guys overall unfriendly attitude I decided not to. I thought they'd be biting the hand off people. I'll take my money elsewhere so.

You're not the hero of that story.

Anywhere needing to stop serving at 10 to have people out an hour and a half later probably deserves to be out of business. Maybe it's their first week owning a pub or something.

Coillte_Bhoy

Stopping serving at 10 to be cleared by 11.30??

hynesie08

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Anywhere needing to stop serving at 10 to have people out an hour and a half later probably deserves to be out of business. Maybe it's their first week owning a pub or something.

Or government guidelines are a maximum stay of 1h45, and they decided to have last entry 1h45 before last orders.

hynesie08

hynesie08 wrote: »

Or government guidelines are a maximum stay of 1h45, and they decided to have last entry 1h45 before last orders.

That would be 21:45 then. What about someone who only wants to stay an hour? They'd be out half an hour before closing.

hynesie08

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

That would be 21:45 then. What about someone who only wants to stay an hour? They'd be out half an hour before closing.

That's the issue isn't it, what if they told him to rock up at 10 and all their tables were full? Do you tell them to leave? Do you kick someone out to make room? There is no set formula to work off so places are just trying to figure it out as they go along.

hynesie08

hynesie08 wrote: »

That's the issue isn't it, what if they told him to rock up at 10 and all their tables were full? Do you tell them to leave? Do you kick someone out to make room? There is no set formula to work off so places are just trying to figure it out as they go along.

If the tables are all full then of course you tell them to go away. Better then telling them to go even if you have a free table because you need an hour and a half to clear the place.

Seamai

freak scence wrote: »

nothing wrong with that loads of people not showing up for bookings so alot of places only taking walkins and 10pm is the cut off time so don't see your problem

An hour and a half drinking up time in a bar where everyone is sitting at tables and less crowded than usual, come off it. Since I posted that I booked a place three or four doors due the street, only take bookings and were only too happy to accommodate me.

Seamai

hynesie08 wrote: »

You're not the hero of that story.

Never claimed to be but at least I'm not a smart ass.

Open the Pubs

Seen one of the goons on RTE news talking about another national lockdown, pubs only open a day ffs

Make the most of it folks, hard to know how long they'll be open this time.

Seamai

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Anywhere needing to stop serving at 10 to have people out an hour and a half later probably deserves to be out of business. Maybe it's their first week owning a pub or something.

It's a long established bar, and by all accounts in the same hands for years. The place that was only too happy to fit me in on the other hand is only opened a few months, at least under these owners.

MrStuffins

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Anywhere needing to stop serving at 10 to have people out an hour and a half later probably deserves to be out of business. Maybe it's their first week owning a pub or something.

Just for reference, both places I was in at the weekend told us well in advance "last orders at 11 and you have to be put the door at 11:30".

Both places allowed us to keep the tables after our bookings and for the rest of the night since the tables were at least distanced by 2m, so there was no time requirement.

Dickie10

im going to just stick to quiet pubs these next few weekends , places with 4 or 5 in them suit me grand

weldoninhio

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Sometimes a small bit of cop on is all you need.

So, nothing. Fair enough.

Was in my local last Friday night. Was sitting at the bar from 7 to 11.30,we didnt order any food,didnt put any pressure on people to order. They had a glass partition at the bar protecting the bar staff and wooden partitons about 6ft apart on the customer side of the bar. Tables were well separated too. Place was well organised. The local garda sargent was happy with the set up

Thelonious Monk

Im in a pub now very close to leinster house, its pretty spaced out but i just counted and there's 22 people here excluding staff. Glad to be having a beer though.

freak scence

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Im in a pub now very close to leinster house, its pretty spaced out but i just counted and there's 22 people here excluding staff. Glad to be having a beer though.

sitting outside ?

Thelonious Monk

freak scence wrote: »

sitting outside ?

Like a conservatory. TV's Anne Doyle is inside drinking though!

freak scence

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Like a conservatory. TV's Anne Doyle is inside drinking though!

is she not dead ?

El_Duderino 09

freak scence wrote: »

is she not dead ?

Probably thinking of Marian Finucane

freak scence

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Probably thinking of Marian Finucane

probably not

dockysher

What's the story with city pubs now? I presume most you have still book a table but are they enforcing any time limits. Say they have table booked for another group in 2/3 hours time etc?
Heading out in galway at weekend Saturday and Sunday and so wondering the craic.