Hospitality Fights Back

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.

The pubs I went into and actually stayed for a pint had decent measures in place, even then my club was hit with an outbreak when they were given the chance to hold a music night indoors It closed the place down and we lost a lot of revenue. The music, and most of the punters, had been in the beer garden with no problems for weeks before.

I'm not sure how, aside from those living alone and going nowhere else with no other human contact, could pin the blame for catching the disease on a supermarket.

I was working from home but one of the projects was kept in house, again the office was hit by Covid and they had to close.

I know both cases were personal experience for me but it points to the longer you're in a confined space the higher your chance of catching it. Something that many argue with and some have produced their own evidence for, but it flies in the face of logic. I'd love to see the full background behind any evidence to the contrary, not figures, anybody can throw them about, but what study went in to where the figures came from and what assumptions they made, also who is behind the study, where did the sponsorship for it come from and why.

I've worked in industry for most of my working life and there's a reason why you need a work permit for confined spaces, in the environment we're talking about homes, offices and pubs become the confined spaces, it's where we're must likely to transmit Covid. Supermarkets less so due to the fluidity of their customers and the size of the buildings plus the airflow. Homes and pubs generally don't have that, some offices do but they'd have to be of a decent sized floorspace.
 
The pubs I went into and actually stayed for a pint had decent measures in place, even then my club was hit with an outbreak when they were given the chance to hold a music night indoors It closed the place down and we lost a lot of revenue. The music, and most of the punters, had been in the beer garden with no problems for weeks before.

I'm not sure how, aside from those living alone and going nowhere else with no other human contact, could pin the blame for catching the disease on a supermarket.

I was working from home but one of the projects was kept in house, again the office was hit by Covid and they had to close.

I know both cases were personal experience for me but it points to the longer you're in a confined space the higher your chance of catching it. Something that many argue with and some have produced their own evidence for, but it flies in the face of logic. I'd love to see the full background behind any evidence to the contrary, not figures, anybody can throw them about, but what study went in to where the figures came from and what assumptions they made, also who is behind the study, where did the sponsorship for it come from and why.

I've worked in industry for most of my working life and there's a reason why you need a work permit for confined spaces, in the environment we're talking about homes, offices and pubs become the confined spaces, it's where we're must likely to transmit Covid. Supermarkets less so due to the fluidity of their customers and the size of the buildings plus the airflow. Homes and pubs generally don't have that, some offices do but they'd have to be of a decent sized floorspace.
My figures come directly from PHE weekly surviellance report from mid-summer through to autumn when pubs were last open for sitting inside. Currently the site only goes back to October, so you may have to dig for the numbers from july through september. I think by October the pubs were closed again.

You can apply as much common sense as you like, the numbers don't lie. They could be interpreted differently, so for example 5% of all outbreaks started in hospitality, by the time schools, offices, hospitals and care homes are taken out your left with nearly 7% of infections which are tagged as "other" which would include retail, but what else it contains I don't know, gyms, garages stuff like that, but they all come under retail. The second argument you could use is that retail has a much bigger footfall than pubs. Not sure if that is the case, but it wouldn't surprise me. So you could argue that shops, whilst contributing 7% of infections are that high because of the number of people who go in shops.

Slice it anyway you want, more people have become infected in shops than in bars.

I could argue with your logic too, for example, being in a shop for 1 hour is more dangerous than being in a bar for 3 hours because more people pass through the shop in an hour than in a bar for 3 hours. But, I don't need to argue with your common sense logic, because the numbers prove my point.

I take all your points CtC, but ultimately there is no evidence that sitting inside a pub is more dangerous than going to a shop, and plenty of evidence to suggest you are safer in a pub than a shop.
 
My figures come directly from PHE weekly surviellance report from mid-summer through to autumn when pubs were last open for sitting inside. Currently the site only goes back to October, so you may have to dig for the numbers from july through september. I think by October the pubs were closed again.
but there are far too many nuances to claim that any changes up or down are due to one variable.
 
107

 
law unto themselves, they've proven that. I bet they let the beer touch their lips for the photo then poured it down the drain
Yep. Absolutely no way she's necked a pint of Guinness. She strikes me as a pinot grigio fan or a half and half shandy drinker. Her hair is also stupid, why hasn't she dyed all of it?
 
Does the government have a vendetta against the pub industry. It would seem so. From the telegraph.






On a rare trip to London last week, I was struck by how the London Underground makes a mockery of the remaining coronavirus restrictions. Passenger numbers are down on pre-pandemic levels, but although people are less likely to be crammed face-to-armpit, they are still in very close proximity in a barely ventilated, confined space. I was also struck by the number of tourists getting off at Leicester Square and Piccadilly Circus, many of them no doubt on their way to spend a couple of hours in a windowless room watching a film or play.

Good on them. Most adults – 28 million of us – have now had two doses of a vaccine. Another 13 million have had one jab and millions more have acquired immunity through having Covid-19. Case numbers are rising again, but they have so far not resulted in a commensurate rise in hospitalisations or deaths. With the vast majority of vulnerable people fully immunised, any third wave should be a low mortality event. Covid-19 will remain a non-trivial health issue for months, probably years, but it should no longer be a civil liberties issue.

And yet around 25,000 licensed venues have still not reopened and cannot do so until the Government gets rid of the rule of six, mandatory table service and other social distancing rules. The problem is particularly stark in central London where pubs often have limited floor space and vertical outdoor drinking is the norm. Some of these pubs are running at a loss. Most remain closed. In some other cities, such as Leicester and Glasgow, local restrictions mean that pubs have barely been open since the pandemic began.

It is absurd that people can cram themselves onto the tube on their way to the cinema, but cannot stand outside a pub with a pint. The trade has been used as a scapegoat throughout the pandemic. At times it has felt as if politicians – or, more likely, their advisers in public health – have had a vendetta against pubs. Under lockdowns, they were the first to be closed and the last to reopen. In the few months that they have been allowed to trade, they’ve faced business-crippling rules, such as the requirement to serve outdoors or with a ‘substantial meal’. In Wales and parts of Scotland, there was a period when pubs could only open if they did not serve alcohol. In the most recent lockdown, pubs in England were not even allowed to sell beer to take away.

These are the kind of rules that I described last week as ‘economically important but epidemiologically trivial’. Their shattering economic impact can be seen in figures released by the Office for National Statistics today showing that only 24 per cent of pub owners have ‘high confidence’ that their business will survive the next three months. 19 per cent have ‘low confidence’. While 9 per cent of other businesses reported profits falling by more than half compared to normal in early May, the figure for pubs and bars was 33 per cent. While other businesses still have eight per cent of their workers on furlough, more than half of pub staff (55 per cent) remain furloughed.

The furlough scheme has protected the livelihoods of millions of employees in the short term, but it only really protects them if they have a job to go back to. The longer this goes on, the less likely that will be. It is therefore imperative that all social distancing rules are abolished on 21st June, as Boris Johnson originally suggested. Pubs have shouldered an excessive burden for fifteen months. In two weeks' time, everything must go.
 

This is what happens when public health officials who would be more than happy to see every establishment serving alcohol to be shut down push people to breaking point.
 

This is what happens when public health officials who would be more than happy to see every establishment serving alcohol to be shut down push people to breaking point.
I have every sympathy but this could be an empty gesture.
If it is "illegal" to open surely the insurance is invalid.
Nobody is going to take that sort of risk.
I despair of trying to get these doom mongers to get real.
 
I have every sympathy but this could be an empty gesture.
If it is "illegal" to open surely the insurance is invalid.
Nobody is going to take that sort of risk.
I despair of trying to get these doom mongers to get real.
I think nightclub owners are getting to the point now that they have nothing to lose. Lloyd Webber came out the other day and said he'll be opening his Cinderella theatre production come June 21st regardless.

Also from what I've read the law ceases to exist come June 21st and any further extension needs to be voted on in parliament so I imagine that ticks the insurance worry box.
 
Back
Top