Hospitality Fights Back

the_holgate_roof said:
Who the hell is Sacha Lord when he’s at home?
Click to expand...
Night Time Economy adviser for Greater Manchester. Co-founder of the Parklife festival and a man who's already held the government to account in court once and 'won'. He's one of the reasons why when pubs and restaurants do reopen there will be no curfew and no substantial meal rule for starters.
 
Just wow! Completely inarticulate policy there. I'd love someone to explain to me how the virus transmits through alcoholic beverages but knows to stay clear of Fanta :unsure:

As for the Manx chart above, that's exactly what I'd expect to happen when things reopen here - the government's view is that is OK providing hospitalisations and deaths don't follow suit, which in theory should be the case.

It's clear that the February announcement was very much a line in the sand when it comes to the future - living with the virus rather than eradicating (largely because decisions made last year have rendered eradication futile).
 
the_holgate_roof said:
How many Glaswegians go in a pub for a coke or a coffee....😒
Click to expand...
It's exactly what happens when the leader of Scotland relies on a nutritionist for advice on how to lead a country through a pandemic.

It's also a chickenshit way to get out of giving financial support to businesses. If your allowed to open but you can only get 6 people on your makeshift outdoor seating area and can only serve soft drinks inside then it's your own fault if you decide it's not worth opening is that government's plan.
 
Randy said:
It's exactly what happens when the leader of Scotland relies on a nutritionist for advice on how to lead a country through a pandemic.

It's also a chickenshit way to get out of giving financial support to businesses. If your allowed to open but you can only get 6 people on your makeshift outdoor seating area and can only serve soft drinks inside then it's your own fault if you decide it's not worth opening is that government's plan.
Click to expand...
Its also a complete load of Bo''ocks.
 
Randy said:
It's exactly what happens when the leader of Scotland relies on a nutritionist for advice on how to lead a country through a pandemic.

It's also a chickenshit way to get out of giving financial support to businesses. If your allowed to open but you can only get 6 people on your makeshift outdoor seating area and can only serve soft drinks inside then it's your own fault if you decide it's not worth opening is that government's plan.
Click to expand...
Someone needs to tell her the difference between pubs and cafes.
 
This really annoys me. It is either safe to open up with safety measures or it's not. If it's not, then keep them closed and support the businesses.

The curfew I can maybe understand at a push, although it generally becomes a target to drink towards. Stopping alcohol sales pushes people into homes which are far less regulated/ controlled.
 
Devi Sridhar, the nutritionist in question, well and truly found out.

20210316_202433.jpg


Unpaid advisor? Aye and Barry Manilow is my dad.
I'm also interested to know which private, hidden hospitality companies are making lots of money from been shut down or hamstrung?
 
This is so frustrating and unfortunately has been clear to see throughout. In the absence of any concrete evidence, I wonder what the real driver of these decisions is. My top three would be as follows:

A concerted effort to run independents into the ground allowing for the major players (with greater liquidity and ability to absorb the economic shock) to sweep up the remains in the "new normal"

The evangelist right of the conservative party who presumably want a permanent ban?

A fervent belief that people can't be "trusted" when they've had a drink - this sets an incredibly dangerous precedent in my opinion.
 
changingman said:
I wonder what the real driver of these decisions is.
Click to expand...
Science and statistics

We know that the virus spreads from person to person most virulently in close contact indoors. So we limit social contact. The way in which we exit from lockdown is important and is going to be gradual. So it has to be done in steps. As you say transmission in pubs/restaurants may be less or greater than in "non essential shops", I haven't seen the figures I presume that the Government and advisors have? But, that is not the only factor there is the economic factor. So restrictions will be eased (and potentially reversed) in steps.

changingman said:
A fervent belief that people can't be "trusted" when they've had a drink
Click to expand...

changingman said:
The evangelist right of the conservative party who presumably want a permanent ban?
Click to expand...

Try to ease up on the paranoia.

It feels very strange for me to be defending the government but every other attempt to ease restrictions has been botched, let's help them get this one right.
 
changingman said:
This is so frustrating and unfortunately has been clear to see throughout. In the absence of any concrete evidence, I wonder what the real driver of these decisions is. My top three would be as follows:

A concerted effort to run independents into the ground allowing for the major players (with greater liquidity and ability to absorb the economic shock) to sweep up the remains in the "new normal"

The evangelist right of the conservative party who presumably want a permanent ban?

A fervent belief that people can't be "trusted" when they've had a drink - this sets an incredibly dangerous precedent in my opinion.
Click to expand...

You only have to look at Sturgeon's grand plan to see what's what. Nobody on here can explain that one. 😉
 
Last edited:
Muttley said:
Science and statistics

We know that the virus spreads from person to person most virulently in close contact indoors. So we limit social contact. The way in which we exit from lockdown is important and is going to be gradual. So it has to be done in steps. As you say transmission in pubs/restaurants may be less or greater than in "non essential shops", I haven't seen the figures I presume that the Government and advisors have? But, that is not the only factor there is the economic factor. So restrictions will be eased (and potentially reversed) in steps.





Try to ease up on the paranoia.

It feels very strange for me to be defending the government but every other attempt to ease restrictions has been botched, let's help them get this one right.
Click to expand...
Science and statistics that nobody has yet been capable of providing. A transparent approach would clear this whole thing up.

Take the Scottish example above, how can the risk profile (based on the way the virus spreads) be any different dependent on whether I'm drinking a coke or a lager? And if it so....prove it!

If the transmission rates differ between non-essential retail and hospitality this evidenced should be provided, if not then the decision making should be transparent.

The economic argument is a tricky one as you're essentially prioritising some jobs over others (again with no justification).

When arbitrary decisions are made without justification it's natural that questions will be asked and hypotheses proposed. Admittedly my trust in this government is probably lower than at any other previous point, but the only empirical evidence we have points to the deliberate mishandling of public funds to the benefit of those in power during this pandemic, so surely it's natural to extend scrutiny to every decision made?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top