Tony Holohan declaring that eating a packet of peanuts with your pint does not make it a meal was the moment we hit peak 2020; the most surreal interlude yet in a year where even the quieter days have run the gamut from inconceivable to untenable.
Ever since the chief medical officer's declaration of two weeks ago, the question of what does make a meal has been preoccupying some of the brightest minds in Fáilte Ireland, which drew on the advice of the Health Service Executive (HSE), Health Protection Surveillance Centre (HPSC), the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI), the Health and Safety Authority (HSA) and the World Health Organisation (WHO).
We didn’t need further proof of our dysfunctional relationship with alcohol. But we got it anyway in a discussion that has been all about the leaps of logistics and linguistics required to allow pubs to reopen as restaurants on June 29th, and little about whether they should, or why there is the rush to reopen pubs instead of, say, schools or cancer screening services.
The combined wisdom of Fáilte Ireland and the assorted acronymed expert bodies culminates in a 20-page document on the guidelines for the reopening of pubs. A substantial meal is one that costs €9 – presumably if those €6 goujons don’t ward off Covid-19, the €9 prawn cocktail should. Staying in the pub for 105 minutes is okay; 106 minutes is trouble. Cocktail umbrellas are to be avoided. Straws need to be individually wrapped. Nozzles, tap optics or bottles must not be touched against the glass. Freshly washed glasses can’t be stacked on top of each other. Toilets should not be used simultaneously by multiple gatherings, the report cautions, conjuring up vistas of a group of lads after a feed of substantial meals begging the barman for their turn.
These guidelines are just to get us through the barren wasteland of the next three weeks, until pubs can reopen without all that faffing about with food. They are a funny read, as Prof Joe Barry, a public health expert, said on Morning Ireland on Friday, warning that it is "a little bit premature" for all of this. It wasn't clear if he meant funny-haha or funny-tearing-my-hair-out. It would be comedy gold if there wasn't so much at stake.
Calibration of risks
Nothing is ever 100 per cent safe. What we’ve been led to believe so far is that every decision about unlocking requires a careful calibration of risks. It means looking at the best available evidence for the risks of opening, and measuring it against the risks of staying closed, and then making a judgment about the pragmatic need for a return to reality. This is the reason dental surgeries have reopened, despite dentists being second on the CSO’s list of most at-risk professions, by virtue of their close contact to patients. The reality is that most people can’t go very long with a bad toothache. It’s the reason creches are being reopened on June 29th: the low risk to staff from children is offset by the reality that, for the economy to reopen, parents need to work.
The reality being weighed against this risk is that we really, really like to drink
Routine cancer screening services have not returned yet, and the view of government sources is that it will not be safe “for quite some time”. The Irish Times reported last month that those who need a clinical exam may be asked to isolate for 14 days beforehand. No one’s asking pub-goers to isolate for 14 days beforehand. They don’t even necessarily have to pre-book.
It’s not an either/or, of course. We could have pubs and routine cancer screening up and running together. But we won’t, because there’s no powerful lobby group demanding a return to screenings.
Inhibitions cast aside
Publicans have managed to turn the careful balance of risk and reward on its head. Pubs are a petri dish for coronavirus. They tick every box in the transmission toolkit. Indoor setting: check. Little flow through of air: check. High turnover of people: check. Close physical contact: check. People shouting at one another over the din: check. Food being shared: check. Masks not practical: check. Inhibitions cast aside: check.
The reality being weighed against this risk is that we really, really like to drink. Pubs barged up the queue not because of any public good imperative, but because they have large and muscular lobby groups behind them. They're reopening here before they reopen in the UK, where even Dominic Raab – not known for his overly dovelike approach – says they are "fraught with all sorts of particular risks".
The international evidence suggests he’s right. In Jacksonville Beach in Florida this month, 16 people got sick after a night out in Lynch’s Irish Pub. Everyone in a group of friends tested positive. It was their first night out since lockdown, one of the revellers said. “Murphy’s Law,” she added.
In South Korea, one 29-year-old man who visited three nightclubs on a night out three days before he tested positive, spread it to 50 others. How long before there are headlines like that about Ireland?
Publicans are as keen to get back to business as any other small business owner, and no one can blame them for that. Many have invested in their businesses with a view to reopening as safely as possible. As a society and an economy, we can’t stay in lockdown forever. Even so, the mostly unchallenged rush to reopen pubs is a grim reflection on our priorities. The numbers may be going down here, but Covid-19 is far from in abeyance globally: last week saw two of the three highest tallies of new cases since the outbreak began.
Here’s a suggestion of my own, drawn up without the guidance of the HSE, HPSC, FSAI, HSA, WHO, VFI or LVF. If we’re so worried about reopening pubs that we need 20 pages of guidance on how to do it, maybe we should wait.