But Some Are More Equal Than Others



Regulations published in the early hours of this morning forbidding entrance to restaurants and pubs to the unvaxxed.

Businesses that do reopen will qualify for 30 pieces of silver a three-week double payment of the Covid Restrictions Support Scheme.

Good times.

Contact tracing change to indoor dining regulations – RAI (RTÉ)


Sponsored Link

114 thoughts on “But Some Are More Equal Than Others

  1. seanydelight

    Is Legal Coffee Drinker about these days? Their opinion on this being actually in line with the constitution or broader EU equally regs would be interesting.

    1. The Dude

      + 1

      They can stick their ID cards up their jacksie as far as I’m concerned.

      No to a surveillance state.

      1. goldenbrown

        ah Dude
        embrace the surveillance
        you gotta stop being individualistic, selfish
        your metadata is critical to the success of the collective
        you will learn to love your government
        they’re just keeping us safe, y’know?

        1. paddy apathy

          Yeah, right on. Just give it to Facebucket and Googliemonster without a whimper.

    2. Lush

      We are in the same boat here in France.
      You have to be vaccinated, have a negative test result (72 hours old max) or have proof of having had the virus in the last six months.
      Takes effect from 1st August and applies to both indoor AND outdoor dining/bars/cafés.

      1. MR.Bezos

        The negative test is the bit that makes it non-discriminatory.
        You cant argue against sick people being kept out of a place – that much is fine.

        But on vaccination status alone, especially given we know vaccinated people can and do transmit covid also (albeit lower risk of same).

        But of course in Ireland we steal ideas from elsewhere, and make them worse.

          1. Oro

            Such a waste of resources tho non? I mean just for a visit to the pub. How much does each PCR cost the HSE to perform? Or are people paying for these out of pocket like you have to do for a flight?

        1. george

          It is not discriminatory because choosing not to get vaccinated is not grounds for discrimination.

          You could just as equally argue that you choose not to be tested and so requiring a test is discriminatory.

          1. SOQ

            Some people cannot get vaccinated? Breastfeeding mothers for example, or certain people with mental health issues.

          2. millie bobby brownie

            I got vaccinated while breastfeeding. I checked before having it. My GP and the Rotunda hospital confirmed it was safe to do so.

          3. SOQ

            People who are prone to chronic depression and anxiety for example, as the potential of injury may increase their stress levels- particularly as the long term side effects are unknown.

          4. Daisy Chainsaw

            Any science to back that up?

            Just saying, as a vaccinated chronic depression sufferer.

          5. Cian

            People who are prone to chronic depression and anxiety for example, as the potential of injury of Covid/Long Covid may increase their stress levels- particularly as the long term side effects are unknown.

            Looks like arguement that could work either way? no?

          6. SOQ

            Well I did read of several people who were advised not to get it for that reason. There is a risk after all and the level of injury is way higher than most vaccines already.

            As for breast feeding women, there is evidence that the spike protein can pass though breast milk. Anyone woman who is pregnant should not be taking it of course- they are only testing that now.

          7. Daisy Chainsaw

            Any links to where you read that people with chronic depresison can’t get vaccinated which is what you originally stated.

          8. millie bobby brownie

            As for breast feeding women, there is evidence that the spike protein can pass though breast milk. Anyone woman who is pregnant should not be taking it of course- they are only testing that now.

            Do you have a source for that SOQ? Because I’m pretty sure the maternity hospitals are advocating otherwise. They won’t even let you take a solpadine in hospital after having a c section in case it passes through to the baby via breastfeeding. So if there were any danger that the hospitals were aware of, you’d probably find them warning pregnant and breastfeeding women away from the vaccine.

          9. Cian

            No trace of vaccines’ mRNA seen in breast milk

            No traces of mRNA vaccines end up in mothers’ breast milk, a small study suggests. The COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech (PFE.N) and Moderna (MRNA.O) deliver a synthetic version of messenger RNA molecules, designed to instruct cells to build replicas of the coronavirus spike protein. The immune system then learns to recognize the spike and produce antibodies to attack it, while the messenger RNA quickly breaks down into inert pieces. While these beneficial antibodies may pass from mothers to infants via breast milk, the milk does not contain the mRNA itself, researchers found in their analyses of 13 breast milk samples from seven vaccinated women.


      2. Janet, dreams of an alternate universe

        apparently the french government are expecting at least 8 booster shots pre person

    3. Slave to the Rhythm

      It really wouldn’t -we explained all that here last week, pubs are also referred to ‘licensed’ premises you know!

      but still, butterflies, kittens

  2. Paulus

    I don’t see “all that and those”?

    And I see they’ve tied in the ban on live performance.

  3. Tony

    ‘forbidding entrance to restaurants and pubs to the unvaxxed’ is good but hows about ‘Nazipreventing the Holyrights of Righteous Purepatriots’

  4. freewheeling

    The latest NPHET inspired piece of social destruction.
    Wouldn’t want to be a restauranteur at the moment. Would be questioning if its worth staying in the business much longer with all this hassle.

    1. SOQ

      Restaurants are actually easier to operate than pubs because people will stay in the same location and with the same people. Pubs on the other hand, are going to be a nightmare. People who are renting bars must be wondering if it is worth it at all.

      1. Cian

        If you read the legislation, they are saying that people must be seated in the bar too.

        (a) number of people allowed…does not exceed the seating available.
        (b) beverages […] are consumed[….]only while seated in the premises.

        1. GiggidyGoo

          Will they bring the seats with them to the toilets? Must they be seated while having a piddle, on those seats?

          1. Slave to the Rhythm

            Do you know Giggidy that you get all those styes in your eye because you wee on the side of the road (selling the strawbs, and queens)?

      2. Joe

        No issue at all here in Germany you can only eat food and drink your beer at the tables.
        Bars are full and must be making a fortune I assume
        At least half the population is fully vaccinated
        To sit inside you must present a current negative Corona test or proof of vaccination or recovery from a Covid 19 infection and I have not seen any covidiots anywhere giving grief to barkeeps etc about presenting one for checking

  5. Nigel

    I don’t have any sympathy with the anti-vaccine commenters here, but there’s no denying that the fact this becoming a necessary compromise is emblematic of the how the mediocrity of modern dystopian tendencies have an unstoppable logic all their own. if people would look past the conspiracy theories and the short-term focus on individualism to the importance of preparing for clearly-flagged natural and man-made crises and making societal changes both to reduce our contribution to those crises and better equip us to endure them, then the muddling half-measures that derive from public interest versus private interests and the predatory opportunists that profit from them (and therefore have a stake in prolonging and multiplying them) would not be necessary.

    1. MR.Bezos

      Thats a good point – but for the betterment of the human race sort of angle, we would be better only vaccinating those at risk from covid. The mass vaccination against an RNA virus will not work as they mutate too often (compared to the stable DNA viruses, smallpox for example).

      RNA viruses are too unstable to reliably vaccinate against because there will forever be new strains. And mass vaccination puts increasingly more evolutionary pressure on a vaccine-evasive mutation to become the dominant strain worldwide. If I were a betting person, I’d go all in on research for treatment of the disease rather than vaccination – that is an approach with a better long-term future.

      Currently the outlook is annual or biennial booster shots for the foreseeable

      1. Nigel

        It depends what you mean by ‘risk.’ Covid is highly contagious – everyone is at risk of catching it and therefore spreading it, so that even the relatively small percentage of people in some groups at risk of serious effects are in greater risk of catching it, as are those in higher risk categories. Covid has been a textbook example of how a small percentage of risk can become a very large actual number of serious ilnesses and deaths when the contagion spreads through entire populations. The strategy for dealing with this is pretty straightforward, if socially disruptive and logistically daunting, but even though most countries were poorly prepared, the knowledge and experience are there, and refusing to implement them would have been criminally negligent on a staggering scale – and God knows Trump and Johnson both tried.

        (How many people now complaining about discrmination also advocated for the isolation of higher-risk groups while the rest of society remained open? At this stage of the pandemic response the unvaccinated ARE the higher-risk group.)

        1. Cian

          How many people now complaining about discrimination also advocated for the isolation of higher-risk groups while the rest of society remained open

          Was this the “protect the vulnerable” (i.e. lock up yer granny)

          1. MR.Bezos

            I believe that was a government position – us frontline workers must keep at it, and keep your grandparents locked up. Sanitise all their deliveries etc, dont set foot inside their home.

          2. GiggidyGoo

            One period was where there were no vaccines. The current period is when we have them. Please refrain from the Divert/Distract/Duck/Dive approach.

          3. Nigel

            If you’re agreeing in principle that it’s proper that a particular section of the population should to be restricted for the good of public health, then you really should think things through and apply that principle properly. Of course the group to be restricted during a period of no-vaccine is different from that of a period with vaccine. Except that the group during a period with-vaccine is small and actively getting smaller, and the restrictions are far more limited than during a period of no-vaccine.

        2. MR.Bezos

          The idea of risk pertains to outcomes, not simply catching the virus.
          As the stats bear out – risk of negative outcomes is incredibly miniscule for the young and healthy – only from 50+ does it start to become risky to the general (no underlying conds) population.

          These are the people we want and need to protect – but through mass vaccinations we will actually be doing them a disservice long term, as it makes it far more likely that vaccine evasive variants will arise.

          1. Nigel

            To put it another way, the idea of risk pertains to catching the virus, not just to negative outcomes. The greater the chances of a large percentage catching the virus, the greater the chances of negative outcomes, even among those among low-risk groups.

            Since the alternative to vaccinating is not vaccinating and either sequestering high-risk groups indefinitely or allowing the virus to cull them, either process which would lead to more and more variants, ttaking he risk of a vaccine-resistant variant seems like the more humane and ethical approach, especially since vaccine boosters could protect from such variants should any arise, and herd immunity will provide greater protections from variants anyway.

          2. MR.Bezos

            The natural evolutionary path for any virus is for more infectivity, less mortality.
            Only by aiming to vaccinate the whole world will be instead put pressure on for a vaccine resistant strain to become dominant (as others wouldnt spread as much)

            Its this approach which has doomed the elderly really – because the protection they get from vaccines will be short lived.

            Regards herd immunity – there is no herd immunity from RNA viruses. They mutate too quickly. No herd immunity from the less virulent but ever-present influenza, covid is the same. This was standard immunology right up to 2020, after which it has been ignored in a panicked attempt to get back to normal the quickest.

          3. Nigel

            That’s hardly a foregone conclusion, and there are a lot of very smart scientists working on those problems, but I’m struggling with the ethics of letting at-risk groups die in the short-term because there might be another threat to them in the medium to long term.

          4. MR.Bezos

            ” but I’m struggling with the ethics of letting at-risk groups die in the short-term because there might be another threat to them in the medium to long term.”

            But the proposal isnt to let them die, but to vaccinate those actually at risk, and no more than that. Young healthy people dont need a vaccine, and the less vaccines we administer in total – the less the chance of vaccine resistant strains coming dominant.

            Its like mass use of antibiotics – if you prescribe them everywhere even when the person would beat the infection themselves, you promote the growth of antibiotic resistant bacteria instead.
            Covid vaccines, like antibiotics, should be used sparingly and only for those who need the protection – widespread use is a crazy tactics, given that wiping out the virus is not possible (nor is it a named goal!)

          5. Nigel

            If you vaccinate one particular group that you deem at-risk, but refrain from vaccinating the rets of the population who are actually just as much at risk of catching it but at low risk from suffering severe illness, you are creating conditions far more likely to breed deadly variants. It’s a complete waste of time, money and effort.

    2. Slave to the Rhythm

      Jay US SAVE US! If it’s not the COVIDIOT brigade bringing us down with all their doomeranza, it’s the climate change crowd with their ‘end times’ crí-de-couer and bean sí’s wail…

      but still, butterflies, kittens

          1. Lilly

            Febreze ads really annoy me. Roll up your sleeves and clean. Open the windows and let fresh air in No need for toxic “fresheners”.

  6. Micko


    Section 3 C(i) – They actually us the phrase “box ticked”

    At least they’re aware it’s a box ticking exercise ;)

  7. Cian

    A few thoughts:
    1. this legislation expires on 1st September (in 5 weeks).
    2. we have fully vaccinated 2.4 million adults to date. Another 600K on 1st jab; (5.5million jabs total)
    3. There are still 900,000 unvaccinated adults
    4. We are vaccinating at a rate of 350,000+ per week (now that there is sufficient supply)

    In the 5 weeks until 1st September, at 350K jabs/week we could have
    85+% of adults fully vaccinated with the other 15% on their first vaccine.
    By 15th September all adults fully vaccinated.

    In reality there are a a small minority that won’t take the vaccine for whatever reason. By 1st September we could have over 90% of the population fully vaccinated. At which stage we no longer need certs.

    1. MR.Bezos

      “Mission creep” is an observed and real thing with government regulations.

      Once you bring in something like this, its very hard to truly get rid of it. There will be calls to extend past September (the 5% who dont get vaxxed might be blamed), and the certs will expand to cover more stuff.

      In future if you dont get your booster shot you wont be allowed in either – and sure if we’re doing it for covid, why not influenza or monkey pox too

          1. Nigel

            Yeah, now it’s still ilegal not to wear seat-belts, to make water-pipes out of lead, to put asbestos in buiding materials, to smoke in public establishments, all slippery slopes where individual freedoms were constrained for the so-called public good, and made permanent.

            The government and the public and the hospitality industry all can’t wait to drop this like a hot burning lump of poo, It’ll take bad figures in cases and hospitalisations to make an extension happen.

      1. george

        It is not hard to get rid of it. You literally have to do nothing to get rid of it. Various Covid-19 requirement have already been gotten rid of, such as the requirement to purchase a meal.

    2. f_lawless


      ‘Ireland will receive at least 4.8 million vaccines each year in 2022 and 2023 under a deal struck between Pfizer and the EU.

      “Scientific advice indicates that variants will continue to evolve over the coming months and that vaccine immunity is not indefinite,” a Government spokesperson said.’

      What are the bets Cian will be the very person on here in the coming months arguing why the domestic vaccine passport system must remain because how else can we ensure everyone has had their latest booster shot?

      1. Nigel

        Yeah, Cian’s already on the record arguing people with with yellow fever, typhoid fever, bubonic plague or ebola ahould not be allowed to travel internationally or go into public eating establishments. Probably. He probably even thinks if you catch a dose of the flu you should stay at home from work. Creeping fascism, that is.

        1. MR.Bezos

          Cian’s position is more akin to you not being allowed travel without a vaccine for yellow fever, bubonic plague etc – even if a negative test could show you dont have it.

          1. Nigel

            There are countries where those diseases are still viable that you cannot travel to or from without appropriate shots and vaccinations and health certificates, if available. I can’t imagine a single argument why international travel shouldn’t require the traveler be vaccinated against a new globally endemic highly contagious disease. Countries don’t want travelers arriving on their territories and then getting sick, with anything, let alone with a contagious airborne virus, it makes expensive complications for everyone. I don’t know what accomodations could be made for the immunocompromised, but I expect they are obliged to self-restrict anyway.

          2. Nigel

            Even travelling to other EU countries – yes, you are entitled to free health treatment during temporary stays – but you have to get the EU health card first. Bureuacracy, record-keeping, identifications, applications, restrictions and conditions – all pains in the neck until you turn up at an emergency room in Berlin or Paris with a broken leg or food poisoning. Or a bad pain in your neck.

          3. Nigel

            But would you refuse to get one for any reasons based on principles of individualism, entitlement, freedom, intrusive state surveilance, or discrimnation – non EU citizens can’t get them and are therefore discriminated against?

          4. Daisy Chainsaw

            Vaccine passports that have been in existence since the 1930s? Those vaccine passports?

  8. Redundant Proofreaders Society

    Some of us ‘indoor-dined’ every day of our lives when growing up. It’s called HOME.

  9. Cui Bono?

    3 week double payments for businesses who discriminate.

    All for a virus with a very low IFR. This is Mass Hysteria of the 21st century.

  10. Des

    Had a group of friends over on Saturday for dinner & drinks & the overwhelming feeling was one of complete disregrard, not even trying to go through the kerfuffle of certs and ID and all the rest. Dinner at home,with friends,meal kits, takeaways will be the winners. I can’t be bottied to even think about going out for dinner ever again. Independent ran a poll earloer today on participation with dining in line with new certs etc and I was surprised to see how many dont want to go now or in the future. At 10am there was 28% of respondents who were looking forward to going out. Not definitive etc but interesting that it was so low.

    1. Redundant Proofreaders Society

      Many would rather socialise freely rather than jump through excessive hoops and privacy breaches for ‘permission’ to spend a lot of money on pre-prepared food, warm over-priced Santa Rita and draught beer.

      The Government, as always, didn’t consult. They are focused on staycationing families and the regular barflies. As a result, their legislation is an overshoot – and has only amplified societal division.

    2. Micko

      Yeah. totally.

      I’d rather be outdoors than do all this crap too. I had mates over for a BBQ on Friday and even those who have taken the vax are of the same feeling.

      ID at the door,
      details taken,
      no bar service,
      social distancing,
      wearing a mask whenever you have to stand up,
      no music,
      no dancing.

      The general consensus was – “No thanks, I’ll stick with house parties”

      1. Des

        I agree. All of us were vaccinated on Saturday night and nobody was even interested in dining out. Many people said they had not really missed lots of things that they thought they would and had enjoyed being anti social!! I could not enteratin having do do all that stuff just to sit down in a room to eat dinner.

        1. george

          “All that stuff” is apply for a cert, bring an ID, and tell someone your name and phone number. You sound very lazy.

          1. Des

            Ah George. I know you of old from being on here, am not rising to the bait, Have a great afternoon.

    3. Slave to the Rhythm

      Why would you want to go out and spend hard earned money on over priced mutton literally dressed up as lamb and served by the sort of surly oul fella or spotty college student geek that wouldn’t even get within an asses roar of a hospitality job in any other time? Come over to mine and I’ll make you a roast and we’ll smoke the ganja.

    1. Furore2021

      I mean, you lost me when you shared a link to an article on RTE. You thrive on Covid doom and gloom. It’s bizarre.

  11. Des

    And your point is Cian?
    This is narrated like it is a covid surge, its not.

    ‘The beds for Belfast trust patients are being made available at Belfast City Hospital due to capacity issues at the Royal Victoria and Mater hospitals’

    The capacity issues are because the healthcare system is buckling under the waiting lists caused by Covid NOT because there are hundreds of Covid patients screaming for ICU.

    1. george

      Hundreds of people? You don’t really know what you’re talking about. There are only 108 ICU beds in Northern Ireland. 27 of them have covid-19 patients in them. That’s a quarter of the total capacity taken up with one .

        1. SOQ

          The North’s NHS is part of the UK NHS, so counting beds separately is misleading. A lot of specialist surgeries for example are done England, so the same would apply to ICU availability.

          1. Des

            @SOQ No. The trusts are counted individually in the North and are then counted as a group with shared dashboards illustrating overall capacity and granular capacity so the detail above is for the North only and they don’t share ICU capacity with the UK.

  12. Blob

    so what? .. it makes sense to only open to vaccinated people. peoples safety trumps your flags and foot stomping.

    1. Des

      @Blob But vaccinated people can carry the virus, get infected again and transmit. So should we only have society for the vaccinated?

      1. Blob

        unvaxed people inside a pub, could get it and be harmful to them. unvaxxed won’t. yea they can still catch it and spread it elsewhere, but if they simply MUST open indoors, thats the safest way. The dumbest part of it is unvaxxed kids are ok once they’re with a vaxxed adult. nonsense.

          1. Nigel

            Except it’s not zero, and the risk of children catching and spreading covid is a heck of a lot lot higher.

          2. Nigel

            I know what you said, the distinction is meaningless in the context of community transmission.

        1. Des

          But most of the staff are unvaccinated, hanging out with the most infected cohort in Ireland outside of work and living with them too. They also have the most contact with a wider range of people during a shift in hospitality.
          Kids are all unvaccinated and readily transmit Covid.
          So maybe we should all stay at home?

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link