• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Face coverings mandatory in shops in Scotland

Status
Not open for further replies.

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
5,944
. 66m people in the UK wearing face-coverings to stop how many cases?

Potentially thousands, tens of thousands or more.

There are still plenty of infected people in the UK.

There's very little reason to believe that coronavirus isn't as infectious as it was before the lockdown.

Maybe lots more people have had it than we think and we are approaching herd immunity. But probably not and we certainly don't know it's the case.

So unless we continue measures to reduce transmission, the risk is that we will get exponential growth again. Not good.

So the low number of cases at present doesn't itself justify not taking precautions.

If over the next few weeks infections carry on dropping that will be great, and no doubt we can start relaxing further.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
9,200
I will cover my face where I have to, because I'm not an obnoxious dick and I don't want to put shop staff - who don't want to wear masks either - in a difficult position. I won't, however, do it anywhere it isn't compulsory.

I'll choose to deal with this by shopping as infrequently as possible. And it's not "sensible" or "kind" because it achieves nothing, and is very unpopular.

I'd prefer to follow the medical advice rather than the opinion of a random person on the internet. We can trade research papers that say it is/ isn't effective. Personally I'm of the view that - on balance - it protects others.
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
21,175
Location
0035
Personally, I would like to see them made mandatory in all public indoor settings for a period of time with the medical exceptions and also except while eating and drinking, during that period nothing else about how the virus is managed should change. One month should be enough. That way we would know, in exchange for a minor inconvenience, if they make a considerable difference.
How would we be able to tell? What if someone had suggested back that we wear them for the entire month of June? Would the reduction in numbers we are currently seeing dictate that they have been a success?
 

MattA7

Member
Joined
27 Jan 2019
Messages
473
I wonder what supermarket staff will do when someone buys a age restricted product such as alcohol or cigarettes it will make “challenge 25” more difficult
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
5,944
How would we be able to tell? What if someone had suggested back that we wear them for the entire month of June? Would the reduction in numbers we are currently seeing dictate that they have been a success?

Everything else aside, I don't think we can go for a month without changing anything else about how we handle things.

For a start it would mean no change to social distancing on transport...
 

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
Down here in England I did my weekly shop for elderly neighbours today. Perhaps 10-20% wearing masks in the supermarket. No hassles, no upsets. People just getting on with it. Was thanked by one of the staff last week for helping to protect them by wearing a mask. That'll do me.

Do find the reaction by some that this is some form of enslavement and denial of basic rights somewhat over the top.

But in England it remains a choice. You can choose whether or not to wear one, and you won't be fined or refused access to a shop if you don't. I have absolutely no problem with people wearing masks if they want to, even though I completely disagree with it, because it's utterly pointless and achieves nothing at this point in the game. If you want to, fine, knock yourself out. Kid yourself all you like that there's a point to it, and you're being all heroic. No skin off my nose.

Making it compulsory completely changes the dynamic of it all. It's day one, and already social media is full of aggressive idiots using foul language and abuse to shame people they've seen without masks. There's no attempt to understand or empathise with the fact that loads of people have valid medical exemptions. It's creating the impression that the Big Bad World is far more dangerous than it really is, which is ultimately very damaging to the attitudes people have to risk. It affects people's social interactions, many people find it threatening and scary, it affects the ability of the deaf to communicate, and it's actually going to make a lot of people stay at home more. It's going to potentially damage a lot of businesses.

It's also entirely unreasonable for governments to stick their noses in like this, and Nicola Sturgeon's reasons to me sound like a massive pile of s***. All she's concerned about is next year's Scottish Parliament elections, and looking heroic to her core vote. The SNP is a remarkably tight ship and absolutely no-one is allowed to go off-message, and that includes the very large number of people who are nationalist enough to always vote for her without question. This has been imposed with no debate, no consultation, no justification, no information on how success will be measured, how long it will go on for, what the goal of it is, what research it's based on...nothing. All we're getting is that we should be shamed into it, and those daring to raise questions around it are getting absolutely nothing but abuse.

If that doesn't worry you, I think you have far too much naive faith in authority.
 

talldave

Established Member
Joined
24 Jan 2013
Messages
2,681
If over the next few weeks infections carry on dropping that will be great, and no doubt we can start relaxing further.
But it doesn't get any less infectious and it's still got the rest of the population to get through. So why drag that out to be even slower? What does all this mask wearing achieve when infections have already dropped without mask wearing? It doesn't make sense.
 

Richard Scott

Established Member
Associate Staff
International Transport
Railtours & Preservation
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
4,577
For what it's worth once again as someone largely ambivalent on the matter but leaning towards would rather not wear a mask but does anyway, the people screaming and banging about entering a new era of enslavement of the masses appear to be a tiny minority on online social media whereas the majority in the real world just seem to be quietly getting on with life donning a mask where sensible. I've seen very few folk of a pro mask disposition getting very excitable or indeed, saying much at all. The "hysteria", if it exists, is very one sided.
Actually, the majority aren't wearing masks unless they have to which suggests they're doing it because they have to. I don't want to be forced as not comfortable with masks. If it had quantified benefits which were proven I wouldn't be so against it but evidence is weak at best, seems even scientific community aren't in agreement so leads to the question of 'why?'.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,275
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
How would we be able to tell? What if someone had suggested back that we wear them for the entire month of June? Would the reduction in numbers we are currently seeing dictate that they have been a success?

The reduction is presently tailing off. If a requirement made the curve steeper, that would be evidence enough for now.
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
21,175
Location
0035
I have seen that people are selling mesh masks on the internet, just to be compliant with the laws and shop rules.
 

RomeoCharlie71

Established Member
Joined
18 Sep 2017
Messages
1,854
Location
Scotland
Actually, the majority aren't wearing masks unless they have to which suggests they're doing it because they have to. I don't want to be forced as not comfortable with masks. If it had quantified benefits which were proven I wouldn't be so against it but evidence is weak at best, seems even scientific community aren't in agreement so leads to the question of 'why?'.
It is precisely this point why I am opposed to wearing a face covering. Additionally, the fact that Government messaging suddenly changed when hospitals and care settings had enough PPE.
 

Enthusiast

Established Member
Joined
18 Mar 2019
Messages
1,226
I've got 2 face coverings (quite nicely decorated) from Oddballs. Amazon got nowt.
I think the point being made was that this measure will drive people away from shops and into the arms of Amazon and the like. Which it will. I'm certainly not going to roam around shops masked up especially when the chances of even encountering an infected person are around 1 in 2,000 - and that's before you consider the odds of that one person actually transmitting the virus as a result of passing other people in a shop.

Do find the reaction by some that this is some form of enslavement and denial of basic rights somewhat over the top.
It's not at all. As mentioned earlier it is now becoming a common attitude that every person is a potential fatal plague carrier who must restrict their presence anywhere outside their home to an absolute minimum.

The government crippled much of the economy with its universal lockdown. It is now proceeding to cripple what's left of it by introducing ridiculous rules and guidance which will make the businesses that are trying to recover unviable. They simply don't learn.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,275
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It is precisely this point why I am opposed to wearing a face covering. Additionally, the fact that Government messaging suddenly changed when hospitals and care settings had enough PPE.

Why's that bad? It was a priority for hospitals to have it. Now there's enough of it, why shouldn't others have it?

I have seen that people are selling mesh masks on the internet, just to be compliant with the laws and shop rules.

Wow. Those people might actually have blood on their hands.

As a private business a shop can of course turn such people away and I hope they do.
 

RomeoCharlie71

Established Member
Joined
18 Sep 2017
Messages
1,854
Location
Scotland
Why's that bad? It was a priority for hospitals to have it. Now there's enough of it, why shouldn't others have it?
As far as I know there has been little evidence since the start of the pandemic (i.e. in March) regarding the effectiveness of face coverings. Therefore, the messaging should have been the same in March and April (when community transmission was at its highest) as it is now. For example, if face coverings were mandatory at the start of March when the panic buying nonsense was ongoing and no measures in place to reduce numbers inside shops, I'd be a little more on-side with the Governments right now.

If evidence had emerged lately, that face coverings do have a much higher chance of reducing infection then I would understand the restrictions imposed.
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
5,944
But it doesn't get any less infectious and it's still got the rest of the population to get through. So why drag that out to be even slower? What does all this mask wearing achieve when infections have already dropped without mask wearing? It doesn't make sense.

Because it doesn't work like that.

We have various actions we can take that slow transmission. The current aim is to prevent infections from increasing (i.e. keep R<1).

I don't think there is very strong evidence on whether face coverings help, but the evidence seems to be tipping towards them being useful. Just because infections dropped without them doesn't mean that they don't help. Maybe they would have dropped faster if people had been using them.

Also as the country opens up and people have more interactions, any benefit from face coverings increases.

Maybe they are a good idea - maybe not. But it's not valid to argue they are pointless because we got infections down without them.

As for "it's still got the rest of the population to get through" - maybe true, but government policy at the moment seems to be based on the assumption/hope that we can prevent this from happening. Maybe not practical, but plenty of people in the fields of medicine and science think it's what we should be trying to do.
 

MattA7

Member
Joined
27 Jan 2019
Messages
473
I have seen that people are selling mesh masks on the internet, just to be compliant with the laws and shop rules.

That’s not good - my concern would be Sturgeon could use that as a excuse to make the laws stricter for example insisting on Proper BSI kitemarked masks or something absurd like that
 

Richard Scott

Established Member
Associate Staff
International Transport
Railtours & Preservation
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
4,577
Has anyone considered that people wearing facemasks are harder to identify so what happens when a crime occurs but CCTV is useless as can't identify culprit. All this facemasks thing is just a huge waste of resources, they'll at best end up in the bin and at worst end up adding to plastic pollution in the sea. They have limited use against this virus and, in my opinion, is just wasteful. The number bit carriers is do low and even if it were higher doubt they'd make much, if any, difference. At what point are people going to realise we cannot control this virus and have to learn to live with it, which means most of us have to get it? People can't cope with this reality. We may never have a vaccine, we may have one next year. If we don't is this hysteria going to carry on for years?
Lastly if masks do reduce transmission what happens when people's immune systems have little to deal with and fail to work properly, then we have more issues for NHS to deal with?
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
5,944
As far as I know there has been little evidence since the start of the pandemic (i.e. in March) regarding the effectiveness of face coverings. Therefore, the messaging should have been the same in March and April (when community transmission was at its highest) as it is now. For example, if face coverings were mandatory at the start of March when the panic buying nonsense was ongoing and no measures in place to reduce numbers inside shops, I'd be a little more on-side with the Governments right now.

If evidence had emerged lately, that face coverings do have a much higher chance of reducing infection then I would understand the restrictions imposed.

I don't think there's strong evidence but the consensus on this does seem to have tipped towards masks being useful.

It is precisely this point why I am opposed to wearing a face covering. Additionally, the fact that Government messaging suddenly changed when hospitals and care settings had enough PPE.

There were certainly comments a while back that one reason not to recomment face coverings is a fear of diverting PPE from hospitals etc.
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
5,944
Has anyone considered that people wearing facemasks are harder to identify so what happens when a crime occurs but CCTV is useless as can't identify culprit. All this facemasks thing is just a huge waste of resources, they'll at best end up in the bin and at worst end up adding to plastic pollution in the sea. They have limited use against this virus and, in my opinion, is just wasteful. The number bit carriers is do low and even if it were higher doubt they'd make much, if any, difference. At what point are people going to realise we cannot control this virus and have to learn to live with it, which means most of us have to get it? People can't cope with this reality. We may never have a vaccine, we may have one next year. If we don't is this hysteria going to carry on for years?

Since this is an opinion not a fact, people can perhaps be forgiven for not realising this.

We may indeed never have a vaccine - but I think it would be foolish to bet much money that we won't get something useful in, say, under a year. Likewise better treatments.

And as I've said above, the argument that not many people have coronavirus so it's a waste of time doesn't wash.

Similar logic would say not to bother with fire alarms in buildings because they cost money to install and maintain and a given building is very unlikely to burn down.
 

talldave

Established Member
Joined
24 Jan 2013
Messages
2,681
As for "it's still got the rest of the population to get through" - maybe true, but government policy at the moment seems to be based on the assumption/hope that we can prevent this from happening. Maybe not practical, but plenty of people in the fields of medicine and science think it's what we should be trying to do.
That's impossible.
 

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
Similar logic would say not to bother with fire alarms in buildings because they cost money to install and maintain and a given building is very unlikely to burn down.

That's not similar logic at all, because fire alarms demonstrably save lives, and don't have any negative effects on the lives of people using the building when it isn't burning down.

Widespread, long-term mask wearing has significant downsides that are very difficult to justify in the absence of any proof it achieves anything.
 

RomeoCharlie71

Established Member
Joined
18 Sep 2017
Messages
1,854
Location
Scotland
Similar logic would say not to bother with fire alarms in buildings because they cost money to install and maintain and a given building is very unlikely to burn down.
There is a much higher chance of dying in a fire compared to being infected with COVID-19.
 

adc82140

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2008
Messages
3,402
I think the point being made was that this measure will drive people away from shops and into the arms of Amazon and the like. Which it will. I'm certainly not going to roam around shops masked up especially when the chances of even encountering an infected person are around 1 in 2,000

It's now 1 in 3900. Then you have approximately a 1 in 8 chance of actually catching it. Then a 1 in 100 chance of being sick enough for hospital. Then a 1 in probably 50 chance of needing a ventilator.

Plus of that 1 in 3900, even at the most pessimistic estimate 20% will have symptoms and will be isolating at home.
 

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
It's now 1 in 3900. Then you have approximately a 1 in 8 chance of actually catching it. Then a 1 in 100 chance of being sick enough for hospital. Then a 1 in probably 50 chance of needing a ventilator.

Plus of that 1 in 3900, even at the most pessimistic estimate 20% will have symptoms and will be isolating at home.

Bloody hell - is it really as low as that? That's extraordinary. We're trashing everything for that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top