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

[mmh]

The goalposts have been moving ever since the stated aim of getting NHS capacity up was announced. I'm starting to suspect that even if a vaccine were to be developed, there would be other reasons why masks and distancing would have to be maintained.

Indeed. "We cannot be certain The Virus has not mutated into new forms the vaccine may not be effective for, so we must continue to exercise caution in order to prevent a Second Wave (part 327) of The Virus."

 

[nlogax]

I'm starting to suspect that even if a vaccine were to be developed, there would be other reasons why masks and distancing would have to be maintained.

What reasons, specifically? That would make zero sense.

 

[Bantamzen]

Indeed. "We cannot be certain The Virus has not mutated into new forms the vaccine may not be effective for, so we must continue to exercise caution in order to prevent a Second Wave (part 327) of The Virus."

I predict it will go something like this:

1. We need these measures until there is a vaccine.
2. Its too early to relax because the vaccine has only been given to 20% / 40% / 60% of the population, we need a higher immunity ratio.
3. We can't be sure if the vaccine will be effective in the long term, we need some more time.
4. What if the virus mutates and renders the vaccine ineffective?
5. What about Covid-20 / 21 / 22 / 23?
6. What about other viruses we don't know about?

Rinse & repeat....

 

[trebor79]

What other things are folk prevented from doing as a result of imposing socially accepted rules - smoking in public places might be an easy one to start.

Yes but smoking undisputedly damages the smokers own health and shortens their life, and has a similar effect on bystanders. It's an actively made choice to smoke regardless of the health effect.
Not wanting to wear an ineffective mask given the remote chance I'm an asymptomatic carrier of covid is completely different.

 

[DB]

What reasons, specifically? That would make zero sense.

For it to be government policy, there is no requirement for it to make any sense!

 

[45107]

Countries where the political debate is a little more advanced than it perhaps is in the UK are starting to remove mask requirements. Now is not the time to start adding them here

What countries would those be ?

 

[nlogax]

For it to be government policy, there is no requirement for it to make any sense!

Too true But 'other reasons'.. what would they be? I can't think of a single one...

 

[DB]

Too true But 'other reasons'.. what would they be? I can't think of a single one...

The ones given by Bantamzen above are not out of the question! Yes, they are ridiculous and he intends them as a parody, but it's not out of the question that government "thinking" would go along these lines.

 

[nlogax]

The ones given by Bantamzen above are not out of the question! Yes, they are ridiculous and he intends them as a parody, but it's not out of the question that government "thinking" would go along these lines.

Hmm, I disagree. There's a fair bit of tin foil-hattery going on at the moment in addition to the entire gamut of armchair science. Maybe it'd behoove us to all take a step back and stop analysing every single nuance of every news story that's floating around.

 

[Bantamzen]

Hmm, I disagree. There's a fair bit of tin foil-hattery going on at the moment in addition to the entire gamut of armchair science. Maybe it'd behoove us to all take a step back and stop analysing every single nuance of every news story that's floating around.

You do remember the initial aim of the lockdown right? That is to give time to allow additional capacity for the NHS? Well we got that, barely used it, mothballed it and yet here we still are figuring out more & more ways to keep the measures going even though the numbers continue to fall. The government has been flip-flopping between strategies, one minute tightening, then relaxing, then tightening again whilst on the one hand the economy is crying out to be restarted, but on the other people demanding ever more restrictive measures. Whilst my post was partially in jest, I really wouldn't be in the least be surprised if at least some of those delay tactics were employed.

 

[adc82140]

Straw poll whilst out today. Saw 9 people wearing face coverings. 8 wore them incorrectly. Utter waste of time.

 

[MikeWM]

I think everyone has to draw their own conclusions as to why most countries around the world simultaneously decided lockdowns were the answer when they never have been before; and now that the virus has all but been eradicated in the community, most countries seem to have simultaneously decided this is the time to introduce mandatory masking.

It certainly makes no *rational* sense that this is being done for the reasons stated, so you have to start to consider what the actual reasons may be.

 

[Bantamzen]

I think everyone has to draw their own conclusions as to why most countries around the world simultaneously decided lockdowns were the answer when they never have been before; and now that the virus has all but been eradicated in the community, most countries seem to have simultaneously decided this is the time to introduce mandatory masking.

It certainly makes no *rational* sense that this is being done for the reasons stated, so you have to start to consider what the actual reasons may be.

I think initially many countries went with lockdowns and masks because the previous one did (starting with China) to be seen to be doing something. The problem is that China is still a very authoritarian country, and so forced lockdowns & mandatory mask wearing were easy, and visible measures for them to enforce. When other countries followed suit, none wanted to be seen to be rushing ahead of China "just in case", and so now they are locked into a cycle of lock-unlock until at least some other countries make their move. And it is all this that is driving opinion in this country, which in turn our government are knee-jerking to. Basically mass panic, some might even say hysteria.

 

[DB]

I think everyone has to draw their own conclusions as to why most countries around the world simultaneously decided lockdowns were the answer when they never have been before; and now that the virus has all but been eradicated in the community, most countries seem to have simultaneously decided this is the time to introduce mandatory masking.

It certainly makes no *rational* sense that this is being done for the reasons stated, so you have to start to consider what the actual reasons may be.

I think it started with China, who can easily place restrictions on their citizens, and because the number of cases there dropped, most other countries followed suit to the extent they could. The example of Sweden shows that it's not that clearcut though, and in any case any pandemic will at some point peak and decline so cause and effect can be difficult to determine.

It's also important not to underestimate the importance of the internet - even 20 years ago, this sort of situation would probably not have been possible. Now, with the significant growth of online shopping and 24-hour news, and the ability of many people to work from home, it could be done.

The government, having whipped up paranoia, now seems to be trying to pander to those who have become terrified to step outside their front door. This paranoia probably be reasonably compared to OCD and phobias, and as anyone who had any direct knowledge of these types of condition will know, the very worst thing those around can do is to try to go along with it as that just makes it worse.

 

[nlogax]

It certainly makes no *rational* sense that this is being done for the reasons stated, so you have to start to consider what the actual reasons may be.

Let's not forget that masks weren't exactly easy to come by during much of lockdown. Production of both surgical PPE and domestic masks has hugely ramped up in the last couple of months.

 

[Domh245]

Maybe it'd behoove us to all take a step back and stop analysing every single nuance of every news story that's floating around.

I respectfully disagree, especially when so many of the 'pro-mask' studies that are being reported on are barely anything of the sort.

 

[Huntergreed]

You do remember the initial aim of the lockdown right? That is to give time to allow additional capacity for the NHS? Well we got that, barely used it, mothballed it and yet here we still are figuring out more & more ways to keep the measures going even though the numbers continue to fall. The government has been flip-flopping between strategies, one minute tightening, then relaxing, then tightening again whilst on the one hand the economy is crying out to be restarted, but on the other people demanding ever more restrictive measures. Whilst my post was partially in jest, I really wouldn't be in the least be surprised if at least some of those delay tactics were not employed.

Let's have a recap of what's happened so far. Initially, on 23rd March when he ordered a national lockdown, Boris Johnson said:

Without a huge national effort to halt the growth of this virus, there will come a moment where no health service in the world could possibly cope, because there won’t be enough ventilators, enough intensive care beds, enough doctors and nurses. As we’ve seen elsewhere, in other countries that also have fantastic healthcare systems, that is the moment of real danger. To put it simply, if too many people become seriously unwell at one time, the NHS will be unable to handle it, meaning more people are likely to die, not just from coronavirus but from other illnesses as well. So it’s vital to slow the spread of the disease because that is the way we reduce the number of people needing hospital treatment at any one time so we can protect the NHS’s ability to cope and save more lives. That’s why we’ve been asking people to stay at home during this pandemic. Though huge numbers are complying, and I thank you all, the time has now come for us all to do more.

Notice that the aim of the lockdown is immediately identified, then elaborated on. The neccessity for us to collectively suppress the virus is expressed and there's a clear, well-explained goal behind the measures implemented.

Let's then take a look at what happened over the next month. On 30th April, a month after the national lockdown was implemented and after Boris Johnson nearly died from coronavirus, he said the following in a daily briefing:

Across this country, therefore, families every day are continuing to lose loved ones before their time. We grieve for them and with them. But, as we grieve, we are strengthened in our resolve to defeat this virus, to get this whole country back to health, back on its feet. And we’re determined, urgently and in particular, to overcome those challenges that in the last few weeks have been so naughty and so infuriating... Today, the number of COVID hospital admissions is falling. The number of patients in ICU is falling. We’ve so far succeeded in the first and most important task we set ourselves as a nation to avoid the tragedy that engulfed other parts of the world. Because at no stage has our NHS been overwhelmed. No patient went without a ventilator. No patient was deprived of intensive care. We have five of the seven projected Nightingale Wards. And it’s thanks to that massive collective effort to shield the NHS that we avoided an uncontrollable and catastrophic epidemic where the reasonable worst case scenario was 500,000 deaths. .

The aim of the lockdown is slightly less clear from this text. The entire aim of the lockdown (preventing the overwhelming of the NHS) is now expressed simply as 'the first and more important task we set ourselves'. I note that there are no further mentions of any other 'tasks' that we must achieve. We can, however, identify that this is roughly the point where the narrative has started to change. We know the NHS was not overwhelmed, we know that the peak is past at this point, but there's no explicit aim or purpose for the measures stated here.

If we fast-forward once more, to May 25, Boris Johnson said in his daily briefing:

Two weeks ago, I set out our roadmap for the next phase in our fight against COVID-19. It’s a cautious plan informed by the evidence about what is safe and it’s conditional upon our continual progress against the virus, and we are making progress. Thanks to this country’s collective efforts, the key indicators are heading in the right direction. The daily number of deaths is done. The number of new cases is done. Our survey evidence suggests the infection rate is falling and the R has not risen above one.

From this point, there is no mention of any literal purpose or 'aim' of the measures whatsoever. We are now describing the pandemic as a 'fight', however there is no mention of the criteria that we must meet in order to win said 'fight'. The purpose of the lockdown from this point onwards is never explicitly stated, and it is simply assumed to be 'eradication', which I think we can all collectively agree is, without a working, effective injection, practically impossible.

The most recent briefing Boris Johnson gave was on 16th June, during which he said:

Although those figures are still very sad, they do show that we’re making good progress in controlling the spread of the virus. Tests are up. The cases are down. Hospital admissions down, the number of patients overall in hospital, and specifically those on mechanical ventilation beds, both down. Of course, while each death is one too many, deaths, to repeat, are coming down too. That progress has, of course, only been possible thanks to the dedication of the British people as we work together to beat this virus. By observing the lockdown, sacrificing contact with friends and families, everybody has played their part in bringing the virus under control, so it’s critical now that we hold our nerve and don’t throw away the progress that we’ve made.

The aim is actually stated here twice, and is said to be to 'control the virus'. What does this mean and what are the criteria for this? This is not stated and never has been, it is extremely unclear. I can only assume they want to drive it down further, but with elimination or eradication not possible, what are we actually trying to do and what number will be classed as acceptable for Johnson/Hancock at this point? I think it's clear to say at this point that whilst the initial aim was clearly stated and explained well, we've now lost all clarity and are simply continuing with the measures because, as many others have said 'we must be seen to be doing something'.

 

[nlogax]

I respectfully disagree, especially when so many of the 'pro-mask' studies that are being reported on are barely anything of the sort.

You're right. Let's agree to disagree there.

 

[bramling]

Has anyone in the political realm in the UK actually come out and said 'we want to eradicate the virus without a vaccine'? I don't recall hearing that from anyone, and SAGE have already indicated that would be impossible.

I’m sure I’ve heard Sturgeon intimate that is what she is pursuing in Scotland, though not quite as directly as that. Goodness knows what Boris’s objective is. Being charitable perhaps it’s some vagueness like keeping R below 1.

 

[nlogax]

I’m sure I’ve heard Sturgeon intimate that is what she is pursuing in Scotland, though not quite as directly as that. Goodness knows what Boris’s objective is. Being charitable perhaps it’s some vagueness like keeping R below 1.

If Sturgeon really does want that then she's on a hiding to nothing. Just like every other country in the world she's going to have to accept Covid as a viral background noise which is at best only controllable.

 

[westv]

What exactly is the "clarification" the news is on about? You either wear a mask if you want to or you don't. Simple.
Sounds like the mask police are shouting the loudest so the Government will follow them.

 

[jfollows]

YouGov (https://yougov.co.uk) is today running one of its (unscientific) snap poll daily questions "Should wearing face masks in shops be made compulsory?" to which the significant majority of responders so far have answered "yes". Expect to see newspaper articles along the lines of "70% of people, when asked, think that face masks should be made compulsory in shops" tomorrow.

 

[Huntergreed]

YouGov (https://yougov.co.uk) is today running one of its (unscientific) snap poll daily questions "Should wearing face masks in shops be made compulsory?" to which the significant majority of responders so far have answered "yes". Expect to see newspaper articles along the lines of "70% of people, when asked, think that face masks should be made compulsory in shops" tomorrow.

I expect that to be accompanied with “60% of Scots want to introduce 14-day quarantine for English visitors” as in the poll above.

 

[westv]

YouGov (https://yougov.co.uk) is today running one of its (unscientific) snap poll daily questions "Should wearing face masks in shops be made compulsory?" to which the significant majority of responders so far have answered "yes". Expect to see newspaper articles along the lines of "70% of people, when asked, think that face masks should be made compulsory in shops" tomorrow.

If 70% think they should be compulsory then why aren't 70% of people already wearing a covering?

 

[Bantamzen]

If 70% think they should be compulsory then why aren't 70% of people already wearing a covering?

It depends on who is voting. I've voted now, twice...

 

[talldave]

If 70% think they should be compulsory then why aren't 70% of people already wearing a covering?

Because large portions of the population are thick and cannot think for themselves, slavishly doing whatever the government tells them to do. Their voting will be based on what Karen on Facebook said.

Interesting then that this site, where the users are definitely not thick, votes totally the opposite way.

 

[DB]

YouGov (https://yougov.co.uk) is today running one of its (unscientific) snap poll daily questions "Should wearing face masks in shops be made compulsory?" to which the significant majority of responders so far have answered "yes". Expect to see newspaper articles along the lines of "70% of people, when asked, think that face masks should be made compulsory in shops" tomorrow.

Probably being shared on Facebook among all the locktivists!

If the number on that poll was representative of public opinion, it would logically be expected that these people would already be choosing to wear masks, so this would be reflected in the number of masked people you would see on a shopping trip. Clearly, in reality there is nothing like that as the number wearing masks, and the number actually seems to have decreased over the past few weeks.

 

[al78]

People are. There's people who want to see marks compulsory for anyone outside their front door, and their view towards people with medical exemptions is essentially "tough they should stay indoors then to keep the rest of us safe". I'm sure this is very much a minority viewpoint, but there's certainly people who think along these lines.

There are always extremists around. Best thing to do is ignore them.

 

[DB]

There are always extremists around. Best thing to do is ignore them.

Indeed - but the government seems to be paying undue attention to them at the moment!

 

[al78]

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.

You would be partly to blame if you theoretically could have taken evasive action or could seen the person ahead and anticipated they were likely to step out in front of you. I have to do that all the time when cycling, because people don't look for bikes and cyclists make minimal noise (unless you are about to step out in front of them!). The advice is to be aware of what is going on around you and look for hazards before they are on top of you. Drivers will sooner or later hit someone or something if they don't look beyond the front of their bonnet.

A Case for Presumed Liability in the UK

So cycling is in the news again. It’s not a happy occasion, as has become the norm lately. A few weeks ago, Transport Minister Jesse Norman announced an “urgent review into cycle

www.honorcycles.com