Hospitality Fights Back
- Thread starter Randy
- Start date
Randy
Well-known member
Did you read the full twitter thread?
It's ok if you are fine with a dodgy government. I'm not.
BoroMart
Well-known member
I'm not but I totally get why having people sat inside in pubs and restaurants is more dangerous than walking through a shop with a mask on, and that is more dangerous than sitting outside in a pub beer garden. I also get why you have a desire to not believe it.
What motive do you believe the government has for not opening up the inside of pubs and restaurants?
Randy
Well-known member
Sorry, doesn't wash with me (as well as hundreds of thousands of other landlords, chefs, waiters, bar staff, DJ's, hotel concierges, supply chain workers etc) but that discussion has been done to death and like the judge said, it's academic now.
12 more days and it's just as safe indoors, in a pub, stood up with a mask on or sat down without one as it is in a packed Primark with no social distancing or legally enforced track and trace measures.
You give the government too much credit, like any of them have a concrete clue what they are doing. All they do is pluck random ideas out of the air tossed up there by behavioural scientists.
BoroMart
Well-known member
of course it doesn't wash with you, you've got skin in the game.Sorry, doesn't wash with me (as well as hundreds of thousands of other landlords, chefs, waiters, bar staff, DJ's, hotel concierges, supply chain workers etc) but that discussion has been done to death and like the judge said, it's academic now.
12 more days and it's just as safe indoors, in a pub, stood up with a mask on or sat down without one as it is in a packed Primark with no social distancing or legally enforced track and trace measures.
You give the government too much credit, like any of them have a concrete clue what they are doing. All they do is pluck random ideas out of the air tossed up there by behavioural scientists.
Like I said what possible motive do even this shower of a government have to stop people sitting in pubs while allowing them outside?
Laughing
Well-known member
First and foremost read my previous post for the goverments agenda on this BM. Secondly you get how having people sat indoors without masks is more dangerous than walking through a shop with a mask on? That is absoloute nonsense, the science proves it and the statistics prove it.
Sorry BoroMart you are talking nonsense. EOTHO, Substantial meal, show me some evidence? There is not one shred of evidence that hospitality has increased infection rates beyond any other sector.
Please stop being led by the nose.
Corcaigh_the_Cat
Well-known member
Once the shops opened so should have hospitality, with measures in place such as screens to separate tables. Many places did this originally to stop the spread, others complying should have been given licence to open, no need for a meal, that was simply nonsense.
We're just about through it now, the 'beer gardens' are being well frequented and hospitality will recover. We're hosting our first match at Billy Town on the 19th, can't wait to get through the turnstile and have a beer.
Randy
Well-known member
Ssshhhh! The usual suspects will batter you with their brexit infused pitchforks.
I'll be taking in the Billy Vs West Auckland game rota permitting.
Randy
Well-known member
"It's easier to fool people than to convince them they've been fooled"
BoroMart
Well-known member
have you got proper evidence to show this? We've been told all along that indoors is more dangerous than outdoors and that no mask is more dangerous than with a mask. If you've got contrary evidence then I'm happy to see it.
Corcaigh_the_Cat
Well-known member
We've been told lots by both sides not backed up by evidence, and certainly not science, but two things seem pretty obvious to me. Firstly you're safer from catching the virus outside due to airflow and secondly, you're safer from spreading any virus or infection by wearing a mask, we've known that for a long, long time and it's how the medical profession protect patients from themselves and their staff. It's also pretty straight forward that the longer you spend in the company of an infected person you're more liable to catch it, hence the differentiation between essential shopping and non essential/hospitality.
Hospitality has improved in the few weeks since re-opening, I hope some of the changes are kept, particularly the table service and settling the bill at the end of the session, along with the cleaning.
BoroMart
Well-known member
exactly, that aligns with what I said earlier, outdoor hospitality is safer than indoor shopping, indoor shopping with masks is safer than indoor hospitality because you can't realistically eat/drink with a mask on. It's common sense and aligns with our history of knowledge of airborne virus
Laughing
Well-known member
BM, this post says it all. Not wishing to be antagonistic but you start with we've been told. You are right we have been told and supplied with not onejot of evidence.
So on masks. They will offer limited protection if you are standing next to someone for a short period and they cough or sneeze. The masks reduces, temporarily, the virul load ni the air.
If you are indoors for a significant amount of time, masks do not help at all. Because the virus is airborne, the air becomes saturated with the virus and masks are completely inneffective.
There is plenty of evidence of this and it is generally accepted. The mask advice was given by the WHO when the virus was assumed to be carried in droplets and was dropping on to the floor or other surfaces. In this scenario masks help avoid the spread. This isn;t the case with covid, it's airborne.
You are right that an infected person indoors will quickly saturate the air with viral load. That will happen in a pub, in a shop, in a shopping mall, in fact anywhere. I don't disagree with this, but why are pubs, cafe's and restaruants being disproportionately blamed and punished?
I won't produce evidence for how ineffective masks are, you are free to do your own research and this has been done to death on the old masks thread. To start you off, here is a report on multiple mask studies with flu, obviously no tests have been done with covid for obvious reasons.https://www.cochrane.org/CD006207/ARI_do-physical-measures-such-hand-washing-or-wearing-masks-stop-or-slow-down-spread-respiratory-viruses#:~:text=There%20is%20moderate%20certainty%20evidence,6%20trials%3B%203005%20participants).
BoroMart
Well-known member
we've been told historically, there is a body of evidence over many years over the efficacy of masks, it's why they wear them in surgery and in dentists.
We know the basics of how airborne virus spread, it's not a new concept.
BoroMart
Well-known member
which is why shops are expected to have ventilation, and you are expected to move in and out of shops not stand in them for 2 hours, like you would in hospitality. So you are confirming what I said.
Now of course our shops don't have proper ventilation and filtered AC to keep them as safe as possible, the option to open up non-essential shops was a pragmatic decision. Wearing a mask going in and out a shop for 10 mins will provide a degree of protection, as long as you aren't wearing as a chin strap. But the nature of a shop where you are in and out quickly compared to 2 hour meal and drinks indoors is very different.
Laughing
Well-known member
So why are shopping malls open? The one in Luton is heaving on a saturday, all enclosed and people stay in for hours.
There is no body of evidence that masks are effective in stopping an airborne virus. None at all. If you are irradiated in hospital you are placed in a clean room and any doctors wear full, airtight, suites, not a mask and gown, because they know that masks are inneffective in stopping airborne virus'
The WHO adviced wearing masks for 2 reasons. Firstly they assumed the virus was carried in droplets and not airborne and secondly because, well, what harm could it do.
There is no evidence that hospitality has created more outbreaks than anywhere else, and in fact the evidence shows you are less likely to catch covid in a pub than in a shop or school or office. And this evidence stacks up very nicely when you consider that track and trace was mandatory in pubs and still is. Not so in shops. The glasses in a pub are boiled after every use and are touched by a couple of people, a nick nack in TK-Maxx is handled by christ alone knows how many people and never sanitised. Pubs have regular inspections for hygene, shops do not. Social distancing is generally enforced in pubs, not so in shops. It comes as absoloutely no surprise that a shop is more dangerous than a pub, not at all.
The government are playing games and can't support the game with a single piece of scientific evidence that directly links pubs with covid outbreaks.
Just for clarity, the WHO have not declared this virus airborne, nor has our government outside of aerosol generated procedures. This does beg the question why anywhere is shut if there are adequate screens/ protections in place.
Has the government report been published anywhere? Would be useful to see their reasoning/ evidence.
I feel that enclosed places, where people meet, and spend significant time together are generally more likely to cause transmission. The pub/ restaurants are as close as you can get to replicating home transmission but with more people closer together. Shops, are generally much more open and people transition through them rather than spend 30-60 minutes static in them.
Has the government report been published anywhere? Would be useful to see their reasoning/ evidence.
I feel that enclosed places, where people meet, and spend significant time together are generally more likely to cause transmission. The pub/ restaurants are as close as you can get to replicating home transmission but with more people closer together. Shops, are generally much more open and people transition through them rather than spend 30-60 minutes static in them.
Laughing
Well-known member
The WHO have not you are correct, however most scientists don't agree with the WHO who still claim that the main transmission path is by someone breathing or coughing on you. They are also still claiming that surface transmission is a vector, which again, most scientists don;t believe because they cannot create viable cultures from surface virus'
Anywhoo here is an excert from late last year where the Lancet reports on the latest findings.
Initially it was thought that airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was unlikely, but growing evidence has highlighted that infective microdroplets are small enough to remain suspended in the air and expose individuals at distances beyond 2 m from an infected person. This knowledge is also corroborated by investigation of spread of cases between people who were not in direct or indirect contact, suggesting that airborne transmission was the most likely route. In July, over 200 scientists published a statement calling for international bodies to recognise the potential for airborne spread of COVID-19 as they were concerned that people would not be fully protected by adhering to the current recommendations.
The full article can be found here : https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30514-2/fulltext
Corcaigh_the_Cat
Well-known member
Of course the government are playing games, we know that, you can get tickets for a packed Crucible for the snooker but can't watch a non league cup final at Wembley or a non league match up here. It doesn't make sense.
There's also a lot of game playing on the 'open up now' side too. Too much denying to get any reasonable size support. Anti mask, anti vaccination etc. Yes there's 'evidence' for every case which is countered by evidence, each side only showing the evidence that supports their argument.
Laughing
Well-known member
What you say is very true, particularly cherry picking evidence to support your viewpoint. I have no axe to grind in the debate and looked at available evidence.
Evidence strongly points to pubs being safer than shops. Last summer through to autumn pubs were responsible for only 5% of reported outbreaks. And this in an environment where t&t was enforced which it is not in shops. Even assuming an agenda it is difficult to argue with maths.