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

[adc82140]

The whole purpose of this new ruling is to pander to public opinion. We have been going to supermarkets throughout this pandemic, earlier in which cases were much more prevalent. If you are sure that wearing a mask in a shop reduces the spread of the virus please post a link to one case / story - just one will be enough - where a shop in this country has been identified as a source of a covid outbreak.

Well of course it doesn't actually do anything. We all know that. But the official line is that they are to protect others, not yourself.

 

[NorthOxonian]

How do you define "outbreak"? Shops may have a small effect in passing on Covid between 1 or 2 people only. Who i turn pass it on to 1 or 2 each, more likely now with relaxation to social distancing.

A face mask is really not an onerous ask for most, so let's just grin and bear it for a while....?

The trouble is, we don't know if this will just be for a while. There's no clear end date - as mentioned earlier this could easily continue for years, far beyond when it would have significant health benefits. The thought of living in a masked dystopia might seem outlandish now, but I do consider it a real risk.

 

[ashkeba]

This is what's so infuriating. You try asking that, you get a deafening wall of silence.

Have you tried asking government? Nobody else knows because government has yet again announced something without publishing draft law.

 

[Mag_seven]

George Eustice told BBC TV news this morning that Shop staff will be exempt from wearing masks.

I’m sorry, but that makes a complete nonsense of the whole thing. If it’s for safety, the people who are in the shops most need masks most. So either they are all talking rubbish, or the masks are to make people feel safer, or it’s about continuing to control the population. Or a combination.

Its clear to me the whole thing is about 5% medical and 95% psychological. Its a classic "placebo" all about making people "feel" safer rather than actually "making" them safer.

 

[ashkeba]

Councils would have a field day employing "Indoor Face Covering Compliance Officers" knocking on doors and taking photographs through windows, and issuing fixed penalty notices.

Councils don't enforce street parking controls in clear safety cases so there's pretty much no chance most would do any such thing.

 

[MikeWM]

Its clear to me the whole thing is about 5% medical and 95% psychological. Its a classic "placebo" all about making people "feel" safer rather than actually "making" them safer.

And humiliates/breaks dissenters from the Party line, who find themselves forced to acquiesce and do something they believe to be nonsense, simply in order to continue to exist.

That's a standard (and rather effective) tactic straight out of the old communist state playbook.

 

[Huntergreed]

The whole purpose of this new ruling is to pander to public opinion. We have been going to supermarkets throughout this pandemic, earlier in which cases were much more prevalent. If you are sure that wearing a mask in a shop reduces the spread of the virus please post a link to one case / story - just one will be enough - where a shop in this country has been identified as a source of a covid outbreak.

Exactly, I totally agree with this. The reasons they were introduced on transport were (as I understand things):

• Public transport has been portrayed as somewhat of a moving deathtrap throughout the crisis, so in order to make people feel more 'safe', they mandated masks to reduce spread (in my opinion it actually makes people feel less safe as it constantly reminds them of the danger, oh and it's dreadfully uncomfortable and can cause other issues!)
• Many countries mandated masks on transport in their initial stages of reopening (when they were just past the peak) and removed this requirement when cases had fallen significantly enough to justify this (unlike our government, who seem to still think they can drive the deaths down and down and eventually get rid of them, not going to work forever!!)
• The more extreme lockdown supporters in the public have remained the most vocal throughout the pandemic (sadly) and they feed the media, which in turn fuels their anger. They have been screaming (quite literally) to get masks mandated on transport for ages, and the government decided to bow down to them rather than think it through logically and consider the wider public view, not just the screaming locktivists.

Upon hearing how popular this was with the public in England, Sturgeon decided to follow suit to gain public approval, but in order to appear 'safer' and in turn 'better' than Westminster in the public eye, she mandates them in shops as well. This goes down well with the vocal part of the Scottish public, and so England notice this and decide to follow suit. I beleive that's how it's went, note there's not one mention of scientific evidence or epidemiology, it's all to gain approval and 'look good' whilst causing much discomfort in shops and transport and making the amount of 'enjoyable life' (which is what I call the time in life where we're actually happy as we should be) much lower for a long time sadly.

How do you define "outbreak"? Shops may have a small effect in passing on Covid between 1 or 2 people only. Who i turn pass it on to 1 or 2 each, more likely now with relaxation to social distancing.

A face mask is really not an onerous ask for most, so let's just grin and bear it for a while....?

'Let's just grin and bear it' is a very poor attitude to show towards a piece of new legislation. In my opinion, the default is that legislation should not be allowed to pass through parliament without scrutiny, and that in order to convince members that the legislation is justified, a proper debate with solid evidence must be held, else the legislation is not justified and should not be followed through. If someone just locked us inside for a year with no evidence would you be happy to just 'grin and bear it'? Likely not I imagine. For many, masks are a source of great discomfort and distress, and for those who are legally exempt, they fear encountering abuse from self-appointed vigilantes who believe that anyone exempt shouldn't so much as be allowed to live their lives. Is this really something we should just 'grin and bear' and accept without proper, strong scientific evidence and a clear criteria for the termination of the legislation? I for one do not think so.

 

[ashkeba]

It's a week and a half since "Super Saturday", and boy have those infections peaked.

Oh wait.....

Half of pubs didn't open because they'd not had time to get ready and many of those that did had very limited capacity with some bars still closed and staff still working to rearrange the furnishings to comply with the law. There were a few pub outbreaks, with some town in Somerset having two (was it Burnham?) but as usual people are terrible at assessing what's risky and sitting in an ad hoc beer garden outside the pub on the village green was never going to be a big outbreak. It's a distraction from factory reopenings with face to face working conditions and no screens or distancing.

 

[Bantamzen]

George Eustice told BBC TV news this morning that Shop staff will be exempt from wearing masks.

I’m sorry, but that makes a complete nonsense of the whole thing. If it’s for safety, the people who are in the shops most need masks most. So either they are all talking rubbish, or the masks are to make people feel safer, or it’s about continuing to control the population. Or a combination.

This is rapidly become a conflict point. I suspect that whilst being exempt, staff will still be pressured into wearing them so as not to upset customers. And if they don't wear them, it only be a matter of time before the Tweets & shouting in stores begin.

Its clear to me the whole thing is about 5% medical and 95% psychological. Its a classic "placebo" all about making people "feel" safer rather than actually "making" them safer.

Except that its making people feel even less safe. The mandating of masks for more indoor spaces will make some feel like they have become riskier, others who are exempt will be on edge wondering when they are going to be harassed by an over-zealous member of public, and others again will be wondering if Old Bill are going to pull them up for not wearing a mask correctly.

 

[Ianno87]

Exactly, I totally agree with this. The reasons they were introduced on transport were (as I understand things):

• Public transport has been portrayed as somewhat of a moving deathtrap throughout the crisis, so in order to make people feel more 'safe', they mandated masks to reduce spread (in my opinion it actually makes people feel less safe as it constantly reminds them of the danger, oh and it's dreadfully uncomfortable and can cause other issues!)
• Many countries mandated masks on transport in their initial stages of reopening (when they were just past the peak) and removed this requirement when cases had fallen significantly enough to justify this (unlike our government, who seem to still think they can drive the deaths down and down and eventually get rid of them, not going to work forever!!)
• The more extreme lockdown supporters in the public have remained the most vocal throughout the pandemic (sadly) and they feed the media, which in turn fuels their anger. They have been screaming (quite literally) to get masks mandated on transport for ages, and the government decided to bow down to them rather than think it through logically and consider the wider public view, not just the screaming locktivists.

Upon hearing how popular this was with the public in England, Sturgeon decided to follow suit to gain public approval, but in order to appear 'safer' and in turn 'better' than Westminster in the public eye, she mandates them in shops as well. This goes down well with the vocal part of the Scottish public, and so England notice this and decide to follow suit. I beleive that's how it's went, note there's not one mention of scientific evidence or epidemiology, it's all to gain approval and 'look good' whilst causing much discomfort in shops and transport and making the amount of 'enjoyable life' (which is what I call the time in life where we're actually happy as we should be) much lower for a long time sadly.


'Let's just grin and bear it' is a very poor attitude to show towards a piece of new legislation. In my opinion, the default is that legislation should not be allowed to pass through parliament without scrutiny, and that in order to convince members that the legislation is justified, a proper debate with solid evidence must be held, else the legislation is not justified and should not be followed through. If someone just locked us inside for a year with no evidence would you be happy to just 'grin and bear it'? Likely not I imagine. For many, masks are a source of great discomfort and distress, and for those who are legally exempt, they fear encountering abuse from self-appointed vigilantes who believe that anyone exempt shouldn't so much as be allowed to live their lives. Is this really something we should just 'grin and bear' and accept without proper, strong scientific evidence and a clear criteria for the termination of the legislation? I for one do not think so.

Making petty excuses in order to avoid saving other peoples lives is an even poorer attitude.

 

[Bantamzen]

Making petty excuses in order to avoid saving other peoples lives is an even poorer attitude.

Oh please.....

 

[MikeWM]

Except that its making people feel even less safe. The mandating of masks for more indoor spaces will make some feel like they have become riskier, others who are exempt will be on edge wondering when they are going to be harassed by an over-zealous member of public, and others again will be wondering if Old Bill are going to pull them up for not wearing a mask correctly.

Don't forget all the people whose life will be made a lot more difficult as a result. The 12 million deaf and HOH people in the UK, just for starters. Should we just give up on them so some vocal people can feel 'safe'?

 

[Huntergreed]

Making petty excuses in order to avoid saving other peoples lives is an even poorer attitude.

Making petty excuses and bowing to public opinion in order to introduce new laws without proper evidence is an extremely poor attitude, something we've seen plenty of in recent times sadly.

 

[ashkeba]

It’s odd how this forum is so far the opposite way in terms of opinion, if some of the views here were expressed elsewhere you’d be accused of murdering old ladies within 10 minutes.

This forum is full of public transport enthusiasts who decide to make choices that are generally good for society, but many make the error of thinking everyone can be trusted to act as socially responsibly as them, washing hands, covering sneezes and coughs and keeping distance, but we know that isn't correct because most people keep driving antisocial distances in old polluting clunkers. So I think it is not a big surprise that the general public differ from this forum.

 

[adc82140]

Making petty excuses in order to avoid saving other peoples lives is an even poorer attitude.

Please cite the evidence that bits of cloth will "save lives"

 

[Skymonster]

How do you define "outbreak"? Shops may have a small effect in passing on Covid between 1 or 2 people only. Who i turn pass it on to 1 or 2 each, more likely now with relaxation to social distancing.

So your answer is no then - there is no evidence that shops have been a source of infection throughout the outbreak (i.e. since March). The supermarkets are no more crowded now than they were at the start of all this, the virus is less prevalent, there have been no cases linked to shops despite track and trace being implemented, and yet the government now bring in this mask rule - which is just a placebo designed to make them appear to be doing something and assuage fears of the corona-moaners.

 

[Skymonster]

Please cite the evidence that bits of cloth will "save lives"

The regulations make "bits of cloth" an acceptable form of compliance. Please explain why the law is not more stringent if you think bits of cloth are not acceptable.

 

[BJames]

George Eustice told BBC TV news this morning that Shop staff will be exempt from wearing masks.

I’m sorry, but that makes a complete nonsense of the whole thing. If it’s for safety, the people who are in the shops most need masks most. So either they are all talking rubbish, or the masks are to make people feel safer, or it’s about continuing to control the population. Or a combination.

Oh dear. This is the complete worst thing he could have said. I've already seen people complaining about how Nottingham's Tram Drivers are not wearing masks... they're in their own cab, completely sealed away from everyone and even the seats closest to the cab door sealed off, like on the Bakerloo line. That's a lot more protection than shop staff have got. And that's before we get to the issue of someone not wearing a mask telling someone else to wear a mask. I doubt that's going to be met with apologies and immediate compliance.

Edit: Eustice also said this morning you already have to wear masks in hairdressers and barbers. Someone should come and tell that to all the hairdressers and barbers in my town, none of whom were mandating masks for customers. I didn't wear one when I had my cut, the barber said it would make it much slower and more difficult for him so he didn't mind me not wearing one. I think most will probably be on the same wavelength.

 

[Scrotnig]

'Let's just grin and bear it' is a very poor attitude to show towards a piece of new legislation. In my opinion, the default is that legislation should not be allowed to pass through parliament without scrutiny, and that in order to convince members that the legislation is justified, a proper debate with solid evidence must be held, else the legislation is not justified and should not be followed through. If someone just locked us inside for a year with no evidence would you be happy to just 'grin and bear it'? Likely not I imagine. For many, masks are a source of great discomfort and distress, and for those who are legally exempt, they fear encountering abuse from self-appointed vigilantes who believe that anyone exempt shouldn't so much as be allowed to live their lives. Is this really something we should just 'grin and bear' and accept without proper, strong scientific evidence and a clear criteria for the termination of the legislation? I for one do not think so.

You're right of course, but there is absolutely no stopping this juggernaut now.

I fully expect it to be expanded to "whenever outdoors" very shortly, and after that "within your own home".

 

[ashkeba]

Don't forget all the people whose life will be made a lot more difficult as a result. The 12 million deaf and HOH people in the UK, just for starters. Should we just give up on them so some vocal people can feel 'safe'?

I am HOH. I would prefer to sign a little or play charades than have everyone unmasked in enclosed spaces at the moment. If we can't cope, then let's step back or go either side of a screen and unhook one ear for a few moments. So far the only place I've had problems is the post office but the problem is more their terrible microphone and speaker system!

We'll do what we can. Please don't use us as an excuse not to cover up.

 

[MikeWM]

Upon hearing how popular this was with the public in England, Sturgeon decided to follow suit to gain public approval, but in order to appear 'safer' and in turn 'better' than Westminster in the public eye, she mandates them in shops as well. This goes down well with the vocal part of the Scottish public, and so England notice this and decide to follow suit. I beleive that's how it's went, note there's not one mention of scientific evidence or epidemiology, it's all to gain approval and 'look good' whilst causing much discomfort in shops and transport and making the amount of 'enjoyable life' (which is what I call the time in life where we're actually happy as we should be) much lower for a long time sadly.

Incredibly weak government. Does Boris Johnson think following Sturgeon, and caving in to Khan's demands, are going to enthuse his supporters? Because it certainly doesn't seem so. Seeing a lot of cut-up Conservative party membership cards on twitter this morning. And he seems to have even lost the support of some of the more vocal Brexiteers, who now are saying things like 'what's the point of getting our freedom back if we end up with a government telling us what we must wear'?

 

[adc82140]

The regulations make "bits of cloth" an acceptable form of compliance. Please explain why the law is not more stringent if you think bits of cloth are not acceptable.

It doesn't matter how stringent the law is. They could mandate full radiation suits and it would make naff all difference to transmission in shops. This is my point. There is no risk of transmission in shops with social distancing, nor has there been any outbreak in this environment up to this point.

 

[MikeWM]

I am HOH. I would prefer to sign a little or play charades than have everyone unmasked in enclosed spaces at the moment. If we can't cope, then let's step back or go either side of a screen and unhook one ear for a few moments. So far the only place I've had problems is the post office but the problem is more their terrible microphone and speaker system!

We'll do what we can. Please don't use us as an excuse not to cover up.

Sounds like you're fairly adaptable - good. I'd expect there are a fair number who are less so.

 

[BJames]

Half of pubs didn't open because they'd not had time to get ready and many of those that did had very limited capacity with some bars still closed and staff still working to rearrange the furnishings to comply with the law. There were a few pub outbreaks, with some town in Somerset having two (was it Burnham?) but as usual people are terrible at assessing what's risky and sitting in an ad hoc beer garden outside the pub on the village green was never going to be a big outbreak. It's a distraction from factory reopenings with face to face working conditions and no screens or distancing.

Maybe just my locality but every pub I went past was open on the first day, and the second, and every day until now. We drove round the area to check. All pubs open, nobody wanted to miss out on business. But it's true, sitting in a beer garden isn't going to cause a big outbreak.

 

[NorthOxonian]

Incredibly weak government. Does Boris Johnson think following Sturgeon, and caving in to Khan's demands, are going to enthuse his supporters? Because it certainly doesn't seem so. Seeing a lot of cut-up Conservative party membership cards on twitter this morning. And he seems to have even lost the support of some of the more vocal Brexiteers, who now are saying things like 'what's the point of getting our freedom back if we end up with a government telling us what we must wear'?

Though not all vocal Brexiteers seem to mind. I was surprised to see Nigel Farage coming out in favour of this move - I'd have expected him to oppose it since he tends to enjoy railing against the consensus.

 

[Scrotnig]

Don't forget all the people whose life will be made a lot more difficult as a result. The 12 million deaf and HOH people in the UK, just for starters. Should we just give up on them so some vocal people can feel 'safe'?

Well we'e already given up on cancer, heart attacks, strokes and all manner of other things where we now simply send people home to die because it's not the deadly killer virus.

We also now allow discrimation against disabled people (at least one heritage railway has actually got "people in wheelchairs can no longer be accommodated on the railway" on their wesite which is apparently now completely ok).

So if any deaf or HOH people find this difficult, the government's attitude is "tough luck".

 

[ashkeba]

And he seems to have even lost the support of some of the more vocal Brexiteers, who now are saying things like 'what's the point of getting our freedom back if we end up with a government telling us what we must wear'?

This is what taking back control means. No one to challenge Boris or later prime ministers. No essential freedoms in a binding written treaty or constitution. Everything vulnerable to change very quickly without much consultation or even publishing the laws until hours before effectiveness, backed up by a landslide parliament without even the threat of loss of easy access to our main foreign markets because we've already surrendered that. Get ready for much more of this = get ready for Brexit.

 

[trebor79]

Though not all vocal Brexiteers seem to mind. I was surprised to see Nigel Farage coming out in favour of this move - I'd have expected him to oppose it since he tends to enjoy railing against the consensus.

Yeah but the consensus outside of Westminster and the noisy minority is that we don't want to wear face coverings. So he is against the consensus in that respect.

 

[MikeWM]

Though not all vocal Brexiteers seem to mind. I was surprised to see Nigel Farage coming out in favour of this move - I'd have expected him to oppose it since he tends to enjoy railing against the consensus.

Yes, that's... odd. Doesn't seem a terribly popular decision with his twitter followers though.

This whole thing is certainly moving us all around politically :-/

 

[ashkeba]

Sounds like you're fairly adaptable - good. I'd expect there are a fair number who are less so.

Yes but this has a fairly simple human adaptation. Things like trains with faint PA, no working screens and DOO are far worse insults to HOH and I wish people who are suddenly concerned about us would campaign in those even half as efficacy!