In Tier 2 Pubs Can Only Open If Serving Meals

[dave50]

There will be a lot of very long lunches with people eating very slow.

[Deskdiary]

"Well your wasting your breath. Thats the way it is . Rightly in my opinion. The peopel you elected from whatever party all agree, and the scientific and behavoural scientist advisers agree. But in England if your tier 2 and 1 the pubs will open again in December. Northen Ireland are shutting them again a heard"

Would these be the same scientific advisors who have repeatedly, and with boring regularity, got it completely and totally wrong? Do you mean those scientific advisors?

What we should be doing is roundly ignoring them because all they are doing is giving worse case scenarios, NONE of which have happened.

[steg]

//What we should be doing is roundly ignoring them because all they are doing is giving worse case scenarios, NONE of which have happened. //

Aye let’s ignore them, then we will probably reach the ‘worse case scenarios’
The reason we haven’t reached them is because of the precautions that have been in place so far

[emmie]

our local serves up rubbish and expensive food, does this mean i can't go there for a pint only

[burlyshirley]

Amazing to think that a few months ago Boris was encouraging us to go to pubs with half price offers.

[emmie]

as i said our local is an ok pub but a lousy restaurant

[HansUrbancka]

Last week I heard on Radio 4 someone endeavouring to explain the regulations about pubs having to serve substantial meals if they were to open. He said a packet of Crisps or Peanuts would Not be classified as 'Substantial' as would a Pasty and Chips.

Hans.

[steg]

I think if I took my girl for a ‘substantial meal’ and only got her a single Cornish pasty, or a side of chips, she would be @ least a tad disappointed

[Old_Geezer]

Wasn't it Rishi encouraging us to go eat ?

If there's a forkful still on my plate, I've not yet finished ;-)

Although in reality I steer away for all places while they insist on telling me what i have to wear in public. I can eat and drink at home and hibernate until the idiocy has stopped.

[emmie]

it was Rishi encouraging us to eat out.

[New Judge]

//The reason we haven’t reached them [the worst case scenarios] is because of the precautions that have been in place so far//

That doesn’t stack up.

On 31st October the infamous “4,000 deaths a day” scenario was painted for us. It also suggested that, without more stringent measures, up to 74,000 new infections could be expected daily. It said that by the end of November those figures would be reached and we could expect 1,000 deaths a day by the middle of that month. So let's examine what actually happened:

Deaths: It is widely accepted that any restrictions take at least three weeks to influence the death figures and two weeks to influence the infection figures. The latest lockdown began on 5th November. So it would not have been introduced soon enough to have an impact on the forecast deterioration in deaths between 5th and 15th November (when 1,000 daily deaths were predicted). The seven day average daily death figure on 5th November was 309. On 15th it was 411, not 1,000.

Infections: The new lockdown would not be expected to influence the new infection figures until 19th November. The seven day average daily new infection figure on 5th November was 22,594. That figure should have soared away because up to 74,000 daily infections were predicted by the end of the month. The earliest date the lockdown could have had an effect on infections was 19th November. The average daily figure then had already peaked at just 25,331 on 16th and by 19th it was down to 23,294 - just 700 higher than at the start of the lockdown and considerably unadjacent the number needed if the 74,000 daily figure was to be realised by the end of the month.

It simply doesn’t hold water to say that the “worst case scenarios” would have been realised without action. The action taken on November 5th could not have influenced the figures by the middle of the month but those figures did not even come close to the Domesday scenario. Once again they were a deliberate attempt to frighten the public, bounce the government into introducing unnecessary stringent measures which have caused further irreparable damage, and protect the backsides of those tasked with producing something sensible that can be relied upon.

//our local serves up rubbish and expensive food, does this mean i can't go there for a pint only//

Yes it does, emmie.