Face coverings mandatory in shops in Scotland

[route101]

The thing that really annoys me about this is that shop workers throughout the peak of the virus weren't wearing masks, and they're all fine. Virtually no staff have been wearing them, and now they have to - and the manager of my local ScotMid is furious about it. She's also not looking forward to the inevitable conflict it's going to cause when people refuse.

Apparently it's going to be reviewed on July 23rd, so I hope it's short-lived. As far as I can tell, reaction has been extremely negative, so I hope there's a U-turn coming. I was just looking forward to some sort of normality returning.

I wonder if the review includes masks on public transport? A mask in a shop is more bearable than on a bus or train perhaps

 

[Scrotnig]

Do you also object to Blue Badges?

A blue badge is for your car. It doesn't have to worn round your neck as if you were an exhibit in a zoo.

 

[route101]

It should of been done at lockdown in March , its a bit late in the game now.

 

[trebor79]

It would perhaps help if the NHS would require GPs to issue exemption letters on demand to those with a relevant diagnosis.

But do you have to have a diagnosis to be suffering from a condition?
I'd suggest not. I need to read the legislation, but it will be a big difference between it saying "diagnosed with" and "having condition X".

 

[MikeWM]

But do you have to have a diagnosis to be suffering from a condition?
I'd suggest not. I need to read the legislation, but it will be a big difference between it saying "diagnosed with" and "having condition X".

The England regs have an exception for anyone who 'cannot put on, wear, or remove a face covering, because of any physical or mental illness or impairment... or without severe distress'.

That doesn't mention diagnosis being required. Interesting also that 'severe distress' is listed separately from 'physical or mental illness' - draw your own conclusions on what is meant by that.

As I'm pretty sure I've mentioned elsewhere, I can wear a 'face covering' for a short period of time as long as it is sufficiently open at the bottom. But after a while it has a nasty effect on my breathing, so I can't do it for longer than say 10-15 minutes at a time. While I've never been formally diagnosed with asthma, I have a number of the symptoms, and am fairly convinced I do have it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But do you have to have a diagnosis to be suffering from a condition?
I'd suggest not. I need to read the legislation, but it will be a big difference between it saying "diagnosed with" and "having condition X".

I suspect the legal answer would be that you don't "have condition X" unless a medical professional has diagnosed you with it. At that stage you have "suspected condition X", which is not what it says.

 

[PaulMc7]

Regarding being asked about an invisible disability take it from someone who has one (me) it gets honestly so boring and degrading very very quickly. I have Aspergers Syndrome and people don't have a clue about what it is let alone how it actually affects you. It's off putting going out because I know it'll be draining explaining the same thing over and over again

 

[MikeWM]

Regarding being asked about an invisible disability take it from someone who has one (me) it gets honestly so boring and degrading very very quickly. I have Aspergers Syndrome and people don't have a clue about what it is let alone how it actually affects you. It's off putting going out because I know it'll be draining explaining the same thing over and over again

I'm sorry to hear that, and this is exactly my point. We should be making life as easy as possible for people like yourself; instead we're making like more difficult for even more people.

 

[PaulMc7]

I'm sorry to hear that, and this is exactly my point. We should be making life as easy as possible for people like yourself; instead we're making like more difficult for even more people.

I think the biggest problem is that people don't realise how many people have invisible disabilities and mental health problems. It's a far higher number than a lot seem to realise and coverings being made compulsory is only adding to that number

 

[PupCuff]

If you find them uncomfortable there are lots of options, try some different ones e.g. a Buff/snood (but double it over), masks shaped for your face, the traditional blue type, painter/decorator type (but NOT the one way valved type, they don't protect others) etc.

I get that it is something you're passionate about, and I'd never try and stop anyone having an opinion, but it's coming across as though you are trying to claim this is a fact - there is no requirement for a face covering to be "doubled over", nor for it to not be of a valved type, nor that it has to in any way shape or form protect others (or even that it has to protect yourself).

The law requires that where someone is able to, in the circumstances described in legislation, they wear a face covering, that is, anything which covers their mouth and nose.

This is getting like the silly situation where people say "I have a disability" then stubbornly refuse to state what it is, making it really difficult for people to make reasonable adjustments for them because it becomes a silly guessing game. If you want the exemption and are justified in it, you only have to say three words "I have asthma" etc. It's not hard and it's not infringing on your privacy. If you really didn't want to say what condition you had from the list you could get away with picking another one.

It's not a 'silly situation', medical conditions are a matter of great privacy. In law I have at least one medical condition which is classed as a disability. Where necessary, I will state that I have a disability under the Equality Act and what reasonable adjustments I require. There would have to be some exceptional justification for someone asking about what that disability is (for instance, my line manager has full sight of my medical conditions), and I would find it hard to think of what could constitute such an exceptional justification if I were being harangued by someone on the door at Tesco or a member of rail staff. If a police officer had reason to believe I was lying about having a disability, he could report me for the offence, and such proof could be shown to the magistrate. If the shop staff at Tesco or the member of rail staff tried to stop me entering the shop, or boarding the train, I'd be filming the encounter and further contact with the organisation involved would be via my solicitor for direct discrimination on the grounds of a disability.

To take an example, I'm not HIV positive but I have friends who are. To suggest that they are expected to routinely disclose their HIV status to any random person who might stick their nose in and demand to know about their disability is, in my view, grossly wrong.

Haven't seen the legistaltion for Scotland but the England public transport one certainly does have that as an exemption.

It is different in Scotland, perhaps unsurprisingly. In England, the law says that if wearing a face covering causes severe distress then you are exempt, in Scotland, the law says that to be exempt you have to have another reasonable excuse from the list, and for that reasonable excuse to result in severe distress if you were to wear a mask.

 

[Journeyman]

I'm sorry to hear that, and this is exactly my point. We should be making life as easy as possible for people like yourself; instead we're making like more difficult for even more people.

Absolutely, and you can guarantee that there will be loads of self-appointed enforcers going around making life difficult for people not wearing masks.

The population of Scotland is five and a half million. Yesterday there was one death and twelve new cases. Honestly, there's no justification for this at all.

 

[mmh]

It would perhaps help if the NHS would require GPs to issue exemption letters on demand to those with a relevant diagnosis.

I'd prefer if GPs and the NHS got back to the mundane work of treating sick people before concerning themselves with writing pointless letters.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I get that it is something you're passionate about, and I'd never try and stop anyone having an opinion, but it's coming across as though you are trying to claim this is a fact - there is no requirement for a face covering to be "doubled over", nor for it to not be of a valved type, nor that it has to in any way shape or form protect others (or even that it has to protect yourself).

The law requires that where someone is able to, in the circumstances described in legislation, they wear a face covering, that is, anything which covers their mouth and nose.

If you want this whole thing to go on longer, by all means tick a box.

Anyone who has any consideration for others will also consider the spirit of the law, i.e. "How do I minimise the risk I pose to others, because that's the right thing for me to do, and is more important morally than my personal convenience?"

 

[DB]

I suspect the legal answer would be that you don't "have condition X" unless a medical professional has diagnosed you with it. At that stage you have "suspected condition X", which is not what it says.

No, that wouldn't be a legal answer. If they had required a formal diagnosis, they would have needed to say so in the rules.

 

[DB]

Regarding being asked about an invisible disability take it from someone who has one (me) it gets honestly so boring and degrading very very quickly. I have Aspergers Syndrome and people don't have a clue about what it is let alone how it actually affects you. It's off putting going out because I know it'll be draining explaining the same thing over and over again

Exactly! This is the point which many seem determined to ignore.

 

[bramling]

I'd prefer if GPs and the NHS got back to the mundane work of treating sick people before concerning themselves with writing pointless letters.

Absolutely.

The current situation with excess deaths is extremely concerning. I’m certainly aware of several deaths in my work circles which have come out of the blue, and none of them are apparently from C19.

It seems certain the eye has been taken off the ball in some areas in order to prioritise resources to C19. In time this will almost certainly come to be regarded as another error.

This is *far* more important than masks IMO.

 

[Journeyman]

If you want this whole thing to go on longer, by all means tick a box.

Anyone who has any consideration for others will also consider the spirit of the law, i.e. "How do I minimise the risk I pose to others, because that's the right thing for me to do, and is more important morally than my personal convenience?"

You keep banging on about "consideration for others", yet you show none for people who are genuinely negatively impacted by this legislation. I guess you've never had to tell a complete stranger on a power trip your medical history. I never have either, but I have enough empathy to understand I'd find it an utterly humiliating thing to do, especially if it's something society considers shameful. Plenty of us are also concerned about legislation which is, by the normal standards of this country, brutally draconian.

 

[45107]

Absolutely, and you can guarantee that there will be loads of self-appointed enforcers going around making life difficult for people not wearing masks.

The population of Scotland is five and a half million. Yesterday there was one death and twelve new cases. Honestly, there's no justification for this at all.

So how many people need to die and be diagnosed before it becomes justified ?

 

[Journeyman]

So how many people need to die and be diagnosed before it becomes justified ?

Well, it didn't appear to be justified when deaths per day were in the hundreds, so why now? Also, deaths in Scotland have been back at seasonal norms for some time now.

 

[PupCuff]

If you want this whole thing to go on longer, by all means tick a box.

Anyone who has any consideration for others will also consider the spirit of the law, i.e. "How do I minimise the risk I pose to others, because that's the right thing for me to do, and is more important morally than my personal convenience?"

It can go on for as long as it pleases. I didn't ask for coronavirus to be a thing but I didn't ask for something like HIV to be a thing either and we have learned to treat and live with that over the last 40 years.

Your selflessness is laudable and I fully respect that you choose to do that - but for many people (most?), myself included, will minimise the risk to themselves first, not others. My mask will protect me, Karen's mask which is some ill fitting tissue paper attached to some string that she demanded off the manager will protect nobody.

It shall be no comfort to people at my funeral if I try to wear an unsuitable mask (eg without an exhalation valve or whatever it might be) which goes on to cause issue with my medical conditions and kills me that, 'well, at least he perhaps might not have spread coronavirus if he'd have actually had it'.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My mask will protect me

The thing is, it won't. Face coverings do little to protect you from catching it. They do more to prevent you spreading it. The reason for this is that droplets from your mouth are larger when near you than when they've dispersed away from you.

 

[PupCuff]

The thing is, it won't. Face coverings do little to protect you from catching it. They do more to prevent you spreading it. The reason for this is that droplets from your mouth are larger when near you than when they've dispersed away from you.

It will, it is a respirator rated to the applicable standards for filtration and I have ensured that it fits my face in an approved manner.

 

[MattA7]

Perhaps they should print Official Medical Exemption certificates of those who are unable to wear a mask on medical grounds like the ones for seatbelt exemption

 

[PupCuff]

Perhaps they should print Official Medical Exemption certificates of those who are unable to wear a mask on medical grounds like the ones for seatbelt exemption

I would support that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps they should print Official Medical Exemption certificates of those who are unable to wear a mask on medical grounds like the ones for seatbelt exemption

Sounds good. Then those needing an exemption can be sure of it, and those making excuses can like it or lump it.

 

[trebor79]

Perhaps they should print Official Medical Exemption certificates of those who are unable to wear a mask on medical grounds like the ones for seatbelt exemption

Sounds good. Then those needing an exemption can be sure of it, and those making excuses can like it or lump it.

I really hope there is no need for any such thing. With continued reduction in infection rates hopefully the mask nonsense will be dispensed with.
Putting in place official exemptions will just help to cement these sort of unpleasant actions as permanent rather than temporary.

 

[FQ]

Perhaps they should print Official Medical Exemption certificates of those who are unable to wear a mask on medical grounds like the ones for seatbelt exemption

Sounds like a ridiculous waste of time, money and resource to me - there's going to be significantly more people who have an exemption for this (short term) thing than there will be for seatbelts

 

[45107]

Well, it didn't appear to be justified when deaths per day were in the hundreds, so why now? Also, deaths in Scotland have been back at seasonal norms for some time now.

I agree with the ‘why now’. It should have been done much earlier.
By introducing it now when rate of infection is low it will hopefully minimise further cases. (I am aware that I hold a minority view on this forum that masks do provide some form of protection). Had it been done at the start, some of the excess deaths may have been avoided, both from Covid 19 and other causes.

Maybe with the ‘world beating’ track and trace that we were promised from the 1st June this will further reduce cases. Meanwhile in the real world.......

Take a look at the US where infections have shot up after lock down has been relaxed. The Governor of the hotbed of ‘Locktivism’’, Texas has now mandated that masks should be compulsory pretty much everywhere in the state
Link - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53273281

Texas Governor Greg Abbott has ordered face coverings to be worn in public as coronavirus cases rocket in the state.
The directive applies to counties with 20 or more Covid-19 cases, which covers most of Texas' 254 counties.
Texas hit a record of more than 8,000 virus cases in a day on Wednesday, up from about 2,400 two weeks ago.
Americans are about to mark the Fourth of July weekend, with some beaches coast to coast shut and fireworks displays cancelled.
There have now been 2.7 million recorded infections nationwide and more than 128,000 deaths since the pandemic began.
What did the Texas governor say?
"Wearing a face covering will help us to keep Texas open for business," Mr Abbott said, announcing the order.
After an initial warning, those who refuse will face a fine up to $250.
"Let me be clear: no-one can ever be put in jail for violating this safe practice," the governor said.


Warning that some hospital intensive care units were almost full, he added: "We are now at a point where the virus is spreading so fast there is little margin for error."
The order includes a series of "common sense" exemptions, including children who are 10 years old or younger, those who have a medical condition that prevents them from wearing a mask, people who are eating or drinking and those who are exercising outdoors.
Texas is now one of 21 states that require mask wearing in public, according to Masks4All, a volunteer advocacy group.
But the move by Mr Abbott was described as "far too little, far too late" by the Texas Democratic Party.
How did we get here?
Texas led the charge in US states loosening lockdown measures that were meant to curb the spread of the coronavirus.
Mr Abbott allowed his initial stay-at-home order to expire on 30 April, with almost all businesses operating to at least 50% capacity by early June.
But as the virus surged, Mr Abbott began to walk back his state's reopening last week, ordering all bars shut and cutting restaurant capacity from 75-50%.
Mr Abbott had initially resisted a state-wide order on masks, going so far as to ban local governments from requiring facial coverings.
What Texans think
Rachel Moon, 23, a sales rep in Houston
When we reopened, my friends all went to the Houston bars, and they have all tested positive now.
I'm a Republican, but I don't think Trump should be enforcing rules if he isn't following them.
Genesis Valbuena, 26, project manager, Austin
The reopening should have been done less quickly.
I think initially the decision by local and state government, who closed down everything quickly, was made out of fear instead of data.

What's the national picture?
Infection rates are rising in 40 of the 50 states, reports the Associated Press, and not all the increases can be explained by expanded testing.
Recent reopenings fuelled job creation at a record pace of 4.8 million in June, according to the US Department of Labour, but employment remains 14.7 million jobs below pre-pandemic levels.
Also on Thursday:

• For the first time, Florida reported over 10,000 new daily cases - more than any European country at the height of their outbreaks, according to Reuters news agency
• Alabama Governor Kay Ivey extended that state's public health emergency for another 90 days - making it set to expire on 9 September.
• Chicago city officials announced that travellers to the Illinois city from 15 of the worst-hit states will have to quarantine for two weeks upon arrival or face possible fines

Looks like the ‘lock-o-phobes’ are now realising that masks serve a purpose.

 

[PupCuff]

Sounds like a ridiculous waste of time, money and resource to me - there's going to be significantly more people who have an exemption for this (short term) thing than there will be for seatbelts

We managed to come up with some form of official coronavirus 'self isolation' sick note not requiring a doctor's visit which works (worked?) and that isn't too different from this suggestion. Have an online registration via 111 Online or that you can access over the phone and then you get issued with an appropriate certificate. It could probably use broadly the same backend system.

 

[trebor79]

I agree with the ‘why now’. It should have been done much earlier.
By introducing it now when rate of infection is low it will hopefully minimise further cases. (I am aware that I hold a minority view on this forum that masks do provide some form of protection). Had it been done at the start, some of the excess deaths may have been avoided, both from Covid 19 and other causes.

Maybe with the ‘world beating’ track and trace that we were promised from the 1st June this will further reduce cases. Meanwhile in the real world.......

Take a look at the US where infections have shot up after lock down has been relaxed. The Governor of the hotbed of ‘Locktivism’’, Texas has now mandated that masks should be compulsory pretty much everywhere in the state
Link - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53273281



Looks like the ‘lock-o-phobes’ are now realising that masks serve a purpose.

But they don't serve a purpose. My local Tesco none of the staff wear masks. About 2% of customers wear a mask. Those staff are working in close proximity to each other and thousand sof customers every day. I see the same staff week after week, they aren't all falling ill. I don't see how everyone wearing masks would change that?
What's happening in America is a combination of things. Trump downplaying the crisis, criticising states that locked down, mass non-compliance with lockdowns, opening up too early, whilst the virus was still very prevalent, total lack of test and trace for far too long. Also demographics, living conditions and poor access to healthcare will be playing a part.