Face coverings to become mandatory in shops in England (includes poll)

[Richard Scott]

Sorry, I can't quote your post, but how do you know you don't have it? Did you have a test today?

Yes

 

[corfield]

It is not necessary to cough or sneeze to emit adequate droplets to spread respiratory infections. Most colds I seem to get when I've been sat near someone who simply has a streaming nose.

Sorry that makes no sense.

There has to be a physical vector - cough, sneeze or touch. You simply cannot catch a cold by sitting near somone with a runny nose - most likely there has been a shared touch, or you have picked it up already.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes

Fair enough. Obviously, though, as I said, the chance you have it will increase over time as you have more interactions with others, and would only be reset by taking another test.

Having been tested on Friday I can be effectively certain I didn't have it on Saturday morning when I got my result, as I was isolating as instructed pending the result. However, as the weekend has gone on, I have had more opportunities to interact with people and so catch it, so the risk increases.

Sorry that makes no sense.

There has to be a physical vector - cough, sneeze or touch. You simply cannot catch a cold by sitting near somone with a runny nose - most likely there has been a shared touch, or you have picked it up already.

When you breathe and speak you emit droplets and vapour which contains virions. That's your vector.

 

[trebor79]

Sorry, I can't quote your post, but how do you know you don't have it? Did you have a test today?

Yes

 

[corfield]

Fair enough. Obviously, though, as I said, the chance you have it will increase over time as you have more interactions with others, and would only be reset by taking another test.



When you breathe and speak you emit droplets and vapour which contains virions. That's your vector.

This is tiny, absolutely tiny. They’d have to be very close and spitting when they talk.

What do you see mask wearers doing when they engage with people? Lower their mask to aid intelligibility.

This mask thing is nonsense and fortunately the Govt seem to be going backwards on it - I suspected they just suggested it to test the feedback.

 

[trebor79]

This mask thing is nonsense and fortunately the Govt seem to be going backwards on it - I suspected they just suggested it to test the feedback.

It is nonsense, and I hope you're right. I posted a news article earlier where senior politicians stated it was aimed to encourage people to go out and spend money. No mention of reducing infection. Hopefully they've noticed that these measures would cause masses of people to stop shopping and encourage relatively few to come out of their bunkers.
Also completely at odds with reopening puns, pools and gyms.

 

[AM9]

Except for the businesses and their staff of course. Which is the point of opening up.

Those who refuse to make that small concession of wearing a face covering, are more likely to be increasing the likelihood of infecting others in enclosed places. Those 'others' might include shop staff, most of whom would rather not contract a potentially serious infection - even in the cause of profits.

Very few people wear masks at present, I’m still not sure what it is supposed to stop. I simply can not remember when I or anyone else surprise sneezed or coughed on or even near someone. I suppose it depends on how you were brought up, but when you feel it coming on, removing yourself and oreventing a wide spray

how does a mask do that? do you really walk round coughing or sneezing at people?

Water droplets are contained in normal exhalations, irrespective of ones upbringing. With normal breathing they can be projected in excess of one and soemtimes two metres without sneezing or coughing. Fot those they can travel as far as eight or ten metres. In normal times, those water droplets aren't a problem (although they might sewem unpleasant to some). An asymptomatic COVID-19 carrier will look just the same as a normally healthy person, however their potentioal to infect others can be partially reduced by the simple barrier of a fabric face covering. Any one of us here could be infecting others unknowingly the next time that we visit an enclosed public place.

 

[trebor79]

Water droplets are contained in normal exhalations, irrespective of ones upbringing. With normal breathing they can be projected in excess of one and soemtimes two metres without sneezing or coughing. Fot those they can travel as far as eight or ten metres. In normal times, those water droplets aren't a problem (although they might sewem unpleasant to some). An asymptomatic COVID-19 carrier will look just the same as a normally healthy person, however their potentioal to infect others can be partially reduced by the simple barrier of a fabric face covering. Any one of us here could be infecting others unknowingly the next time that we visit an enclosed public place.

To play devils advocate for a moment, so what?
If I know I'm ill then obviously it's incumbent upon me not to infect someone else if possible.
If o don't know I'm ill then really it's not my problem, is it? People who don't want to get ill need to take their own precautions.

Someone stepped out onto the road in front of me today and nearly got run over. It wouldn't have been my fault if she had been run over. By your measure, I should drive everywhere at 10mph just in case someone makes a mistake and steps out in front of me.

 

[corfield]

Those who refuse to make that small concession of wearing a face covering, are more likely to be increasing the likelihood of infecting others in enclosed places. Those 'others' might include shop staff, most of whom would rather not contract a potentially serious infection - even in the cause of profits.

Define “more likely”. Any numbers or just “it could happen”. As someone for whom risk analysis is fundamental to my profession, we have collectively lost the plot with all this.

Note hardly any shop staff wear masks nor gloves nor have sanitiser to hand. Since they’ve been in one spot for much, much longer than me, they are in fact far more likely to infect me than I them in my very transient passing. I’m happy with them.

So probably not as concerned as you are projecting.

 

[corfield]

It is nonsense, and I hope you're right. I posted a news article earlier where senior politicians stated it was aimed to encourage people to go out and spend money. No mention of reducing infection. Hopefully they've noticed that these measures would cause masses of people to stop shopping and encourage relatively few to come out of their bunkers.
Also completely at odds with reopening puns, pools and gyms.

On the plus side if youve come to like the lower congestion and so on, having the pubs and pools to yourself could be nice - i’d wear a mask for that benefit

Assuming one is insulated from the economic damage directly.

 

[bramling]

Those who refuse to make that small concession of wearing a face covering, are more likely to be increasing the likelihood of infecting others in enclosed places. Those 'others' might include shop staff, most of whom would rather not contract a potentially serious infection - even in the cause of profits.

Yet, interestingly, observations suggest many - perhaps even most - shop staff are choosing not to wear masks, just like many railway staff.

Don't get me wrong I absolutely don't want to be going round infecting anyone, nor becoming infected myself, if it's avoidable, however I am strongly of the belief this is not the way to achieve that. Clearly the UK's scientists seem to share that view or else we would have had it mandated much earlier.

 

[Bantamzen]

Those who refuse to make that small concession of wearing a face covering, are more likely to be increasing the likelihood of infecting others in enclosed places. Those 'others' might include shop staff, most of whom would rather not contract a potentially serious infection - even in the cause of profits.

May I assume then that you have worn masks in enclosed spaces all your life? Because this virus is not the first that can spread via our respiratory systems, nor is it the first that could prove fatal to a few others & cause illness for many more.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To play devils advocate for a moment, so what?
If I know I'm ill then obviously it's incumbent upon me not to infect someone else if possible.
If o don't know I'm ill then really it's not my problem, is it? People who don't want to get ill need to take their own precautions.

The problem is that there is no reliable precaution against getting ill from COVID19 other than wearing a medical grade respirator (of which there is a shortage) or staying at home (and we all need the economy to restart). So that statement does not apply to COVID.

It also wouldn't apply to other serious diseases. If you thought you'd been exposed to something really serious, it would be right to isolate and be tested.

Someone stepped out onto the road in front of me today and nearly got run over. It wouldn't have been my fault if she had been run over. By your measure, I should drive everywhere at 10mph just in case someone makes a mistake and steps out in front of me.

You should absolutely moderate your driving based on the likelihood of someone stepping out in front of you. 10mph may not be necessary, but it's quite possible that you would need to drive well below the speed limit because the conditions dictate it[1]. You're the one driving the 2 ton killing machine, you use it responsibly. And I say that as a driver myself.

"Insurance blame" is not the same as moral responsibility.

[1] Example: in my little residential street the limit is 30mph, but yesterday a couple of kids were playing out on a skateboard and a scooter, going down the hill into the road. Knowing that this was going on (but not being able to see all the time precisely where they were), it was not appropriate to go any more than walking pace until onto the main road.

 

[AM9]

May I assume then that you have worn masks in enclosed spaces all your life? Because this virus is not the first that can spread via our respiratory systems, nor is it the first that could prove fatal to a few others & cause illness for many more.

No and that is irrelevant. If I knew that there was a distinct possibility of passing a serious disease to others, (including where I had been recently exposed to it but was not showing symptoms), I would take specific measures to reduce that chance. To date, that has usually been by keeping away from those that might suffer from my infecting them, e.g. German Measels (Rubella) in the case of pregnant women, Chicken Pox in the case of Shingles sufferers, Mumps in the case of men who hadn't had it and colds, generally taking the hygenic approach to sneezes, coughs and disposal of materials used. If approved immunisation is offered, I take it, not just for me because despite my advancing years, I fear for the safety of others' health more than my chances in the case of flu and similar epidemial events.
In the case of COVID-19, a 3 month plus absolute quarantine is impractical and there is no available immunisation, so the best that I can do as an individual is to minimise my chance of passing it on according to the latest scientific recommendations by the simple measure of wearing a face covering. I know that the wearing it in itself doesn't protect me much - it's the fact that most other people would do the same that helps all of us. I don't particularly like wearing a mask, especially when it it's hot, but that is a small sacrifice for those benefitting form a normal society. There will always be those who refuse to contribute to the safety of others, and some of them even try to justify it as their 'right', whatever that means.

 

[trebor79]

To play devils advocate for a moment, so what?
If I know I'm ill then obviously it's incumbent upon me not to infect someone else if possible.
If o don't know I'm ill then really it's not my problem, is it? People who don't want to get ill need to take their own precautions.

The problem is that there is no reliable precaution against getting ill from COVID19 other than wearing a medical grade respirator (of which there is a shortage) or staying at home (and we all need the economy to restart). So that statement does not apply to COVID.

But there's no reliable precaution from getting ill from anything other than by staying home or wearing medical grade PPE.
My own mother is in the group of 2.5m told to shield. She started to see friends in her garden around the same time that was allowed for the rest of us, and is now going to shops etc for essentials, and going for walks in the countryside with my father and their friends. She's sensible and can see there is almost zero prevalence in their area, so it's worth the tiny risk.
They are moving up here to be closer to grandkids. They have an appointment to see the vendors to sort some stuff out and were concerned about busy motorway services etc, so I said I'd fly them up in my (share of a) light aeroplane. That introduces risks of itself of course, primarily that we end up as a smoking hole in the ground, but I mitigated that by cancelling the first planned meeting last week because the weather was rubbish.

In my mother's own words, the shielding guidance was "ridiculous", and she never followed it to the letter. She was meant to use separate crockery and cutlery, sleep in a different bedroom to my father, not go outside at all. She didn't venture beyond the garden for 2 months but as the general situation has improved she has gone more towards normal activity. I think that's the right balance.

So people who are genuinely concerned need to take their own mitigations, rather than slavishly follow some catch-all guidance. Similarly, whilst face masks might be appropriate for some places with high transmission rates (eg Leicester at the moment), there is absolutely no justification for mandating their use in locations where the disease is barely present. In my local authority area there have been precisely 2 cases in the whole of July so far (19 in June), the 7 day rolling average case number is zero. Masks in shops, even if I believed they were effective in such settings, are going have absolutely zero impact.

Someone stepped out onto the road in front of me today and nearly got run over. It wouldn't have been my fault if she had been run over. By your measure, I should drive everywhere at 10mph just in case someone makes a mistake and steps out in front of me.

You should absolutely moderate your driving based on the likelihood of someone stepping out in front of you. 10mph may not be necessary, but it's quite possible that you would need to drive well below the speed limit because the conditions dictate it[1]. You're the one driving the 2 ton killing machine, you use it responsibly. And I say that as a driver myself.

[1] Example: in my little residential street the limit is 30mph, but yesterday a couple of kids were playing out on a skateboard and a scooter, going down the hill into the road. Knowing that this was going on (but not being able to see all the time precisely where they were), it was not appropriate to go any more than walking pace until onto the main road.

Absolutely agree re: your example of kids. This was a middle aged woman, on her mobile phone who suddenly decided to cross the road without looking. Not only did she nearly get run over by me, she continued and nearly got hit by a car coming the other way. I genuinely wouldn't have felt it was at all my fault. Even my wife, who is an awful backseat driver, was berating the pedestrian and not me for once.

 

[trebor79]

In the case of COVID-19, a 3 month plus absolute quarantine is impractical and there is no available immunisation, so the best that I can do as an individual is to minimise my chance of passing it on according to the latest scientific recommendations by the simple measure of wearing a face covering. I know that the wearing it in itself doesn't protect me much - it's the fact that most other people would do the same that helps all of us. I don't particularly like wearing a mask, especially when it it's hot, but that is a small sacrifice for those benefitting form a normal society. There will always be those who refuse to contribute to the safety of others, and some of them even try to justify it as their 'right', whatever that means.

Sorry, but people wearing masks to go shopping is not "normal" society.
There have been only 2 cases in my local authority area in the whole of July. The risk that I will be an unwitting spreader, or will catch it from an unwitting spreader is infinitesimally small and literally not worth worrying about.
I don't believe masks are effective at reducing transmission in shops, primarily because I don't believe much transmission occurs in shops. But even if there were, there would be no justification for mandating their use where I live.

 

[Bantamzen]

No and that is irrelevant. If I knew that there was a distinct possibility of passing a serious disease to others, (including where I had been recently exposed to it but was not showing symptoms), I would take specific measures to reduce that chance. To date, that has usually been by keeping away from those that might suffer from my infecting them, e.g. German Measels (Rubella) in the case of pregnant women, Chicken Pox in the case of Shingles sufferers, Mumps in the case of men who hadn't had it and colds, generally taking the hygenic approach to sneezes, coughs and disposal of materials used. If approved immunisation is offered, I take it, not just for me because despite my advancing years, I fear for the safety of others' health more than my chances in the case of flu and similar epidemial events.
In the case of COVID-19, a 3 month plus absolute quarantine is impractical and there is no available immunisation, so the best that I can do as an individual is to minimise my chance of passing it on according to the latest scientific recommendations by the simple measure of wearing a face covering. I know that the wearing it in itself doesn't protect me much - it's the fact that most other people would do the same that helps all of us. I don't particularly like wearing a mask, especially when it it's hot, but that is a small sacrifice for those benefitting form a normal society. There will always be those who refuse to contribute to the safety of others, and some of them even try to justify it as their 'right', whatever that means.

No it isn't irrelevant, because despite all the efforts of some to show that masks in the community make a difference, there simply isn't evidence that they do, just a hope that they might help. The government's position has always been the same about effectiveness, that the evidence is weak, and that masks would be more effective in reassuring people to venture outside of their homes than actually stopping spread. Even the WHO reluctantly moved their position and the evidence they offer is quite frankly vague and pretty much says the same thing as the government, that is we don't know if they will work but it can't hurt right? Wrong.

Because, and here is where the rights issue comes into play, we have the right to breath without hindrance. Its a pretty fundamental thing really. If I am going to be forced to shove cloth over my mouth, potentially with the threat of a fine, court case or even prison, I want to know damn well that it is going to make a difference, not just act as a social placebo. And moreover I want to know what the end game is, particularly as a vaccine may never be forthcoming. Because I'll be damned if I'm just going to stand by and allow our society to be forced into a situation where this becomes even semi-permanent, as some appear to want. We have survived for 2-3 million years as a species without masks, and faced far worse than this. Masks aren't going to stop this virus, many of the spikes seen around the world are starting to show that, even in places with high compliance.

We need to encourage people to keep up high levels of hygiene, and cover their mouths when coughing or sneezing. ​

If people are displaying symptoms, we need to put in places systems that mean they don't have to worry about losing their jobs. If people fall seriously ill we need to have the healthcare systems & treatments in place. We don't need masks for what amounts to no more than a fractional chance that we have the virus & that for a day or two we might shed enough of the virus into the air whilst being unaware of being infected. It is a crazy over reaction, and one that just postpones the viruses spread through our species. Quite honestly if anyone is really that concerned about being a spreader, then I'd say stay at home as much as possible because that really is the only sure fire way. But of course we all know this really isn't about being concerned about others, the vast majority of people that are scared are so only for themselves, and have just simply latched onto the "save lives" & "be a hero" mantra the government peddled at the beginning.

 

[Llanigraham]

One vote here for 'just as likely to go into shops as I was before' because it's just a mask and when all's said and done I'd rather support businesses who are struggling over staying home and complaining about wearing a mask.

Agreed, as I've voted the same.
I've been wearing masks all through this whilst making deliveries for our food bank and have found no problems with them. No glasses steaming up, no breathing problems as an asthmatic and no problems taking them off or touching them continuously.

 

[Llanigraham]

I also voted less likely for some of the same reasons. I will still continue to go into my local village Co op and small independent butchers, bakers etc but it would probably result in it being less likely that I will return to the large supermarkets any time soon. One thing the lockdown has done is convinced me of the importance of supporting my small local shops. I certainly would not want to go on a shopping trip to a large shopping centre or department stores etc in a city centre if I had to wear a mask for any long period of time. Shopping would become purely for necessity and not for leisure.

Ditto!
Only been in a supermarket twice since this all started. Now do 90% of our shopping in the local independent shops.

 

[Non Multi]

I'm sharing this interesting long article focusing on immunity, by Beda M. Stadler https://medium.com/@vernunftundrichtigkeit/coronavirus-why-everyone-was-wrong-fce6db5ba809

Switzerland was roughly a month ahead of us in the outbreak. His thoughts on the current situation:

The virus is gone for now. It will probably come back in winter, but it won’t be a second wave, but just a cold. Those young and healthy people who currently walk around with a mask on their faces would be better off wearing a helmet instead, because the risk of something falling on their head is greater than that of getting a serious case of Covid-19.

 

[DB]

I see from the poll that a majority on here seem to have the same views that I do - against it, and less likely to use shops.

I've been trying to use locally-owned shops where I can since they reopened, as they've had a tough time of it and I think it's important to support local businesses. However, a ridiculous rule about masks would probably mean going back to ordering online wherever possible - the very opposite of what this policy would be supposed to achieve. I'm sure I wouldn't be alone in this.

It does seem that the country is now splitting more and more into those who are trying to get back to normal, and a minority who ar getting ever more paranoid and vocal, who the government is trying to placate.

Wandered through te town centre yesterday - nice afternoon, and tourists come here so it was pretty busy. Out of probably several hundred people I only saw one wearing a mask, plus another with a mask round their neck - clearly, those who are prepared to go outside don't seem to think they are necessary.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Most colds I seem to get when I've been sat near someone who simply has a streaming nose.

I'd love to know how much of that is airborne and breathing droplets in, and how much is touching things that people with colds have touched.

I've not caught a cold from sitting near someone on the train with a cold. I've caught plenty at work though, even in jobs where I've had my own office.

I will put up with it only for the necessary time.

For me, the issue is that the masks seem to be political in nature. They weren't mandated at the height of lockdown, when it would have made most sense, and they're only being discussed now as it becomes apparent the government have failed Leicester. "We must do something, this is something, we must do this".

As with other "temporary" security/safety theatre, like airport security (temporary restrictions on liquids celebrate their 20th birthday next year!) when the motivation is political then necessity becomes open-ended.

 

[Robin Edwards]

Imagine that wearing a face mask could save only 0.1% of air-borne infections of another person. It's much higher than that but if you as an individual had the potential ability to save just one person from getting seriously ill or worse for the inconvenience of wearing a face covering, why wouldn't you?

 

[trebor79]

Imagine that wearing a face mask could save only 0.1% of air-borne infections of another person. It's much higher than that but if you as an individual had the potential ability to save just one person from getting seriously ill or worse for the inconvenience of wearing a face covering, why wouldn't you?

That's a completely vacuous argument.
If I never drove my car ever again, I'd potentially save one person from debilitating ling disease or death.
Does that factor in my decision to use the car? No.

In any case, those of us who are opposed are opposed because there's zero evidence it will make a difference, particularly now.

 

[birchesgreen]

Imagine that wearing a face mask could save only 0.1% of air-borne infections of another person. It's much higher than that but if you as an individual had the potential ability to save just one person from getting seriously ill or worse for the inconvenience of wearing a face covering, why wouldn't you?

Would i choose to put myself in discomfort, risk weakening my own immune system to possibly save someone i do not know? Nope.

 

[Yew]

It is not necessary to cough or sneeze to emit adequate droplets to spread respiratory infections. Most colds I seem to get when I've been sat near someone who simply has a streaming nose.

Most colds are not Coronaviruses, and there is increasing evidence that asymptomatic transmission is not a major driver of the disease spread.

 

[Robin Edwards]

For me, the issue is that the masks seem to be political in nature. They weren't mandated at the height of lockdown, when it would have made most sense, and they're only being discussed now as it becomes apparent the government have failed Leicester. "We must do something, this is something, we must do this".

Not political in my mind, just lack of politicians being firm & decisive and willing to look to other nations where wearing of face masks is pretty matter of fact and socially respectful for limiting viral airborne transmissions.
Does anyone remember being a kid in the past where passive smoking around adults was considered normal? Most kids didn't die from the actions of their elders but most here would surely denounce returning to such practices.

 

[Tetchytyke]

That's a completely vacuous argument.

Indeed it is. Everything we do has consequences- our cars kill people through pollution, our clothing kills people in their manufacture, etc etc.

 

[PHILIPE]

Another mixed message. Robert Buckland the Justice Secretary has just said on TV that he thinks that perhaps people should wear masks in shops. Can straightfoward advice ever come from this Government ? There seems to be nobody leading from the front and take responsibility for making decisions and, I'm sorry to say, the PM seems completely incapable of doing that just spouting the first thing that comes into his head without thinking things through first.

 

[Robin Edwards]

Would i choose to put myself in discomfort, risk weakening my own immune system to possibly save someone i do not know? Nope.

Shame. I don't seen people in far-eastern countries exhibiting weakened immune systems. In Japan the practice has been common for over 100 years since Flu outbreaks.
Would you care if someone in your family died by contracting a virus that could have been prevented if someone you don't know could have been bothered?