It is worth remembering that the current unsustainably complex set of rules and regulations over pubs and food arose from a well-intentioned response to lobbying on behalf of hospitality businesses hit hard by the pandemic.1/8

Restaurants and pubs were closed, and then it was suggested restaurants would reopen but pubs would not. Rules have general application, and social behaviour in general is different – and safer – in restaurants than pubs. You don’t need peer reviewed research to prove this. 2/8

However many publicans pointed out that some pubs were like restaurants and could act as such. So the Government responded, coming up with a general rule to to distinguish between pubs which acted as restaurants and those which acted as pubs. Hence the €9 meal. 3/8

Then came the whataboutery. Any general rule can be made to seem arbitrary. You can vote at 18, but not at age 17 and 364 days. You can have a drink if your toasted sandwich cost €9 but not €8.50. You can make both of these facts seem ridiculous. Rules are like that. 4/8

Some say the rules are ridiculous and all pubs should open. It may be that opening all pubs will not add to the spread of the disease or to the death rate. Or that if it does have such an effect, this is a price worth paying. Let those who want to make this argument do so. 5/8

However the jeering at the hospitality rules may be having a broader effect, undermining public belief in the idea that the Government is pursuing a generally wise course, introducing generally sensible rules in the national interest and each of our individual interest. 6/8

Not everything has been explained well. This can happen when things are changing quickly. The unclear requirement that “a record” be kept of meals ordered does suggest the intention may be to have a detailed record of what was eaten. I doubt it. This should be clarified fast. 7/8

But in general, as we seek to control the pandemic through agreed behaviours, and change advice and rules as time passes and new information and evidence emerges, we should not see every mis-step as a “fiasco”, and every rule as fodder for the whataboutery narrative. 8/8