No, I simply asked what measures you think they should introduce?
If we want to focus solely on the risk and scientific advice, then we should keep pubs closed for a lot longer.
Will you go for a pint when restrictions are lifted?
- Thread starter Bronco Lane
- Start date
No, I simply asked what measures you think they should introduce?
If we want to focus solely on the risk and scientific advice, then we should keep pubs closed for a lot longer.
So you could spend an hour perusing the menu whilst having a few aperitifs
Simon Harris has asked we keep our social circle small. So instead of meeting 4 groups of different people in the space of a month, meet one group four times. Keep the contract tracing circle small.
Meanwhile, we’re getting the opposite message regarding visiting pubs.
Instead of six hours in one pub, spend 90mins each in four pubs.
Meanwhile, we’re getting the opposite message regarding visiting pubs.
Instead of six hours in one pub, spend 90mins each in four pubs.
It's not an opposite measure.
The restrictions in the pubs are so that your contacts there don't meet the definiton of a 'close contact' .
How????
1. Buying a meal? No.
2. 1m Social distance? No.
3. Spending 90 minutes per pub. No
What I’m getting at though, and haven’t made clear, is that if a group of people go drinking for six hours, and one of the has the virus (pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic), if he/she remained in one pub for six hours, the number of people he/she infects is limited to one venue.
But because of the 90min time limit, that group will go to four pubs, and the occupants of four venues may get infected instead.
At present, the relevant hashtag is #StayLocal
But when it comes to pubs, instead of #StayInYourLocal the message is #GoOnAPubCrawl.
Look at what happened in Soeul. They opened the pubs and clubs and one guy got off with a few different fellas in a few different clubs, spreading the virus.
But because of the 90min time limit, that group will go to four pubs, and the occupants of four venues may get infected instead.
At present, the relevant hashtag is #StayLocal
But when it comes to pubs, instead of #StayInYourLocal the message is #GoOnAPubCrawl.
Look at what happened in Soeul. They opened the pubs and clubs and one guy got off with a few different fellas in a few different clubs, spreading the virus.
The 1m social distance is 70% effective at protecting you from an infected person in the pub.
The 90 minutes I assume is so that if there is someone with the virus into the pub exhaling into the air, that your viral exposure is kept within a certain limit.
It's an equation of distance * time * level of exposure.
In the pub all night but at a 2 metres distance would also meet their criteria for safe contact.
I'm not an expert, so I'm trying to outline the rationale for the restrictions as I see it.
But I'm not sure what your alternative angle is here.
Are you advocating it should be 2 metres social distancing but without a time limit?
Keep the pubs shut until the next phase when they can re-open more as pubs and not as a restaurant?
Not have any restrictions?
The point of the restrictions is to discourage you from drinking for 6 hours in multiple venues by including the substantial meal angle - they are opening as restaurants not as saloons.
The 1 metre social distance is 70% effective at protecting you from an infected person, and the 90 minutes would also help reduce how much you breathe in, unless someone is sneezing and coughing.
Not sure how relevant that is to a discussion of 90 minutes or 1 metre or 2 metres though!
But that doesn't make any sense. Restrictions are fine but they need to make sense otherwise people won't respect them. The definition of a close contact is
Anyone who has spent more than 15 minutes, face-to-face, within two meters of a person with coronavirus in any setting, for example, anyone living in the same household, or someone who has shared a closed space with a confirmed case for more than two hours.
So where is the 90 minutes coming from? That is just plucked out of the air.
Same with social distance. How does a 9 euro meal and 90 minutes justify reducing social distance to 1m when other places of business like shops are still expected to operate with 2m when people are inside for a lot less than 90m.
What does having a meal over a certain amount do for that as well. Again how does the 9 euro amount fit in with kids meals? Does a pub selling cheap food like toasted sandwiches and baskets of chips carry more risk that gastro-pubs?
I am sure if pubs and restaurants are allowed 1m social distancing that retail outlets and transport will be asking the same as you... probably it will all be rolled out together.
The 1m distancing is a clear concept adopted in other countries for social distancing as it is 70% effective.
So I am not confused by why 1m might be ok in some settings considering the prevalence of cases.
It would be good if they provided more info on the 90 mins reasoning.
And tbh 90 mins is a bit tight for a restaurant dinner.
The reason for the 9e amount has already been explained. It is an existing legal definition in licensing laws. If you dont understand it you shouldnt have a licence.
The 1m distancing is a clear concept adopted in other countries for social distancing as it is 70% effective.
So I am not confused by why 1m might be ok in some settings considering the prevalence of cases.
It would be good if they provided more info on the 90 mins reasoning.
And tbh 90 mins is a bit tight for a restaurant dinner.
The reason for the 9e amount has already been explained. It is an existing legal definition in licensing laws. If you dont understand it you shouldnt have a licence.
That's not true most closed before they were ordered to. The "restriction date" is arbitrary its not a religious date handed down from on high
"thou shalt keep that day holy in praise of the most high CMO, thou shalt eat a modest meal but not toasted cheese, that is forbidden, thou shalt drink 2 cups of wine and leave the inn after 2 score and 9 have elapsed, thou shalt wash thy feet and thy hands to keep thyself pure. If thou follow my teachings I will keep thee free of the leprosy .All hail the almighty"
Last edited:
Look at the detailed modelling they did on the clusters in restaurants and offices where a single carrier infected multiple people around them. Time spent in an enclosed space with a carrier is very much a factor.
You still haven't suggested what you think would be reasonable, effective, and achievable measures?
The publicans are the ones calling for dispensation, allowing restaurant-like pubs serving meals to open early was their idea. It was all part of the VFI & LVI blueprint for reopening early that they've been pushing since late April. The alternative was to remain closed until August as per the original plan. As soon as that gained any traction, some publicans openly stated they would consider a packet of crisps a meal and they intended opening early.
Again, where did I deny that time doesn't matter. I want to know where the 90 minutes came from. Then it was changed to 105 minutes within hours of their draft. Their own definition of a close contact is 120 minutes. And if pubs can drop social distance to 1m if people spend less than 105 minutes, then why can't shops do it on the same date considering people are in shops for a lot less than 105 minutes? Why is the guidance on companies holding face to face meetings in meeting rooms not the same? So I hold a meeting in an office and I am a close contact after 2 hours even if I maintain social distance of 2m. I spend 105 minutes in a pub eating a 9 euro meal, 1m away from the people next to me and I am not a close contact according to the guidance.
It's a compromise from the original position of 0 minutes, while allowing reasonable time to consume a meal. But it's acknowledged that even the 90 minute limit comes with significant risk.
No, the official position on close contact is 15 minutes within 2m.
Shops are higher risk due to the greater throughput of people. The scientific advice is that pubs should be restricted to the 2m rule as well.
That's fine. No issue with the 1m social distance. But then look at the 2m distance in other sectors. We are getting to the stage where we seem to be making up the regulations on what will allow the economy to reopen while looking like we are doing something to make people feel safe and not based on science. If shops have to use 2m social distance, then why are pubs and restaurants or offices different. Reduce the distance to 1m for everyone. People are now reading all this and the more they see something that goes against what is happening in another business, the more they will just ignore the advice. You see it now with masks. Health and Government want people to wear masks in shops and public transport. Yet all people have heard is wishy washy advice for weeks. They see staff in shops and supermarkets not wearing masks. People have no problem with regulations and restrictions but they have to make sense. Otherwise it just comes across as nanny state interference.
Except that is not the full meaning
[broken link removed]
A close contact is: Anyone who has spent more than 15 minutes, face-to-face, within two meters of a person with coronavirus in any setting, for example, anyone living in the same household, or someone who has shared a closed space with a confirmed case for more than two hours
Yeah, so a closed space, like two people in an office or house, i.e., a lot more than 2m apart. I don't think you're suggesting pubs should be limited to a single group?
It would seem from your arguments that the only logical conclusion is to keep them closed.