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

[RomeoCharlie71]

I'd rather not wait and find out the hard way, for the sake of a minor inconvenience now.

We've managed to find out the easy way over the past 3 months, without compulsory face coverings. The number of COVID-19 cases and deaths has steadily declined, and is still declining to this date, without them being compulsory.

 

[bramling]

I've got a sense of perspective. It's called wanting normality back and being unable to even comprehend having to face the idea of another lockdown, given how hard the first version has been at times.

Having people genuinely scared to go into shops because they’re worried how others might react to their exposed face is *not* normal.

An issue to come is what might happen in offices, especially air-conditioned open-plan ones. My place has already had a bit of a tizzy over this, which again is based largely on an ulterior motive of one set of people trying to discourage hotdeskers coming to the building. Thankfully I have my own office with opening windows, so no one is going to be forcing me to wear a mask in it.

 

[Tetchytyke]

But for some reason, those who claim it's amazing never seem to be able to provide links to scientific papers which show this. A few have linked to a recent Lancet paper, which actually draws most of its evidence from domestic settings, which are completely different and with a much higher risk of transmission.

The "strong evidence" I've seen appear to be small, non-randomised, non-peer-reviewed studies of death rates, and nothing more in-depth than that. The gist seems to be "country x wears masks, country x has a lower death rate, therefore masks are good!". Correlation is taken as causation.

I'm also not buying this whole "but Covid is new!" excuse either. SARS-CoV-2 is a new virus, but airborne coronaviruses are old.

 

[Ianno87]

A seatbelt doesn't cover your mouth, that's the issue I have with Facemasks, the thought of that makes me anxious as hate having my mouth covered. I can't breathe through my nose so any restriction causes anxiety. I have no issue with wearing a seatbelt as doesn't cause anxiety.

I stuggle with nose breathing too, as I have a cleft lip and palate.

We've managed to find out the easy way over the past 3 months, without compulsory face coverings. The number of COVID-19 cases and deaths has steadily declined, and is still declining to this date, without them being compulsory.

...with a very strict lockdown in place and footfall at non-essential shops zero.

Having people genuinely scared to go into shops because they’re worried how others might react to their exposed face is *not* normal.

I agree, and absolutely do not want the mask self-policers to come out and make people feel like this. There needs to be reassurance that if you have a genuine reason for not wearing a covering, you'll be fine.

 

[Ianno87]

The "strong evidence" I've seen appear to be small, non-randomised, non-peer-reviewed studies of death rates, and nothing more in-depth than that. The gist seems to be "country x wears masks, country x has a lower death rate, therefore masks are good!". Correlation is taken as causation.

I'm also not buying this whole "but Covid is new!" excuse either. SARS-CoV-2 is a new virus, but airborne coronaviruses are old.

You might be completely right.

But *why not* wear a mask, if it's not a big ask? Disabilities etc aside, I'm not hearing any particularly convincing reasons.

 

[weastebusdepot]

Thanks for the prompt reply, Journey is two by twenty minutes with ten minute change, will most likely keep I mask for each journey.

My thinking would be... is the place you are waiting for your change of trains a largely open air platform, or is it mostly enclosed such as Birmingham New Street or Manchester Victoria? If it's mostly open and you can comfortably maintain two metres between you and anyone else, I doubt there would be an issue in you breathing actual fresh air for a few minutes. Of course the policy of all TOCs and their subcontractors is unlikely to be consistent.

On another matter, since the wearing of masks is now mandatory in airport buildings and on board flights, how do they manage that moment when you arrive at your destination country and either a human or computer verifies that you look like the person on your passport photo?

 

[DB]

But *why not* wear a mask, if it's not a big ask? Disabilities etc aside, I'm not hearing any particularly convincing reasons.

Because the presumption has always been that restrictive measures are only justified if there is strong evidence to support them.

 

[NorthOxonian]

On another matter, since the wearing of masks is now mandatory in airport buildings and on board flights, how do they manage that moment when you arrive at your destination country and either a human or computer verifies that you look like the person on your passport photo?

One of the reasons which is given in the law for removing a face covering is to verify identity, presumably this applies here. I would presume a similar procedure would apply if ID was required in a supermarket for buying alcohol or other restricted items.

That said, my local bus company has a discounted fare for under 25s, which requires photo ID for those towards the upper end of the age range. I wonder how that is being enforced - since faffing around with face coverings would add quite a lot of time to boarding, and boarding in front of the driver seems about the highest risk part of the journey!

 

[Tetchytyke]

But *why not* wear a mask, if it's not a big ask?

Making it mandatory, with a big fine for non-compliance, turns it into a big deal.

If people want to wear masks, they can. If private businesses want to insist on masks, that's up to them. But for the government to decide that it's OK to fine people for not wearing a pointless piece of fabric is a rather big deal. Restrictions should come in when there is evidence to support them, not because a weak and useless leader wants to appear decisive.

Without evidence, we may as well making wearing a pink tutu mandatory. There's no evidence that it protects us from coronaviruses, but it might work!

 

[bramling]

You might be completely right.

But *why not* wear a mask, if it's not a big ask? Disabilities etc aside, I'm not hearing any particularly convincing reasons.

There has been a lot of publicity relating to the risk of incorrectly worn and used masks increasing the risk of transmitting germs. To me that’s quite a convincing reasonespecially when one observes how many people are doing wrong things with their masks on transport. I’d think this could be even more of an issue in shops if people take their mask off between shops, plus there’s the added issue that people will likely be touching things in shops.

It might work if people had a robust regime for fitting, wearing and removing masks, however I simply don’t think this is going to happen.

But for this reason I might be inclined to take your view that in the current situation it’s probably worthwhile as a shot to nothing, subject to some checks to ensure it’s reviewed on a pretty constant basis to stop it dragging out and becoming some kind of expected norm in public, as opposed to a strictly controlled emergency measure. However when combined with the flaky evidence as to effectiveness this tips the balance away from it.

I have also experienced first-hand how correct use is virtually impossible in a railway setting, so can fully understand how this is likely to be an issue elsewhere too.

 

[Ianno87]

Making it mandatory, with a big fine for non-compliance, turns it into a big deal.

If people want to wear masks, they can. If private businesses want to insist on masks, that's up to them. But for the government to decide that it's OK to fine people for not wearing a pointless piece of fabric is a rather big deal. Restrictions should come in when there is evidence to support them, not because a weak and useless leader wants to appear decisive.

It's weird that the government have been criticised throughout for unclear messaging.

So here they come out with a clear, unambiguous requirement, and what do we have? Yet more criticism by people that don't like it!

Without evidence, we may as well making wearing a pink tutu mandatory. There's no evidence that it protects us from coronaviruses, but it might work!

Other than the fact you don't breathe through a pink tutu...

 

[Ianno87]

There has been a lot of publicity relating to the risk of incorrectly worn and used masks increasing the risk of transmitting germs. To me that’s quite a convincing reasons, especially when one observes how many people are doing wrong things with their masks on transport. I’d think this could be even more of an issue in shops if people take their mask off between shops, plus there’s the added issue that people will likely be touching things in shops.

It might work if people had a robust regime for fitting, wearing and removing masks, however I simply don’t think this is going to happen.

That is true, although a simple poster campaign and some polite reminders from shop security staff on entry would help.

 

[ashkeba]

If it transmitted in shops, there would logically be a spike in cases among supermarket workers, who have been working throughout the past four months, mostly not wearing masks. The fact that there isn't any such spike gives a pretty clear indication as to the risk.

Why a spike instead of just a higher rate?

Deaths in shop workers up to 75% higher than rest of country

Matt Hancock revealed the startling statistic in the Commons as he announced the new face mask measures for England, which will come into force on July 24.

metro.co.uk

The Health Secretary said the Covid-19 death rate among male shop workers is 75% higher than the general population, and 60% higher in women

 

[DB]

Why a spike instead of just a higher rate?

Deaths in shop workers up to 75% higher than rest of country

Matt Hancock revealed the startling statistic in the Commons as he announced the new face mask measures for England, which will come into force on July 24.

metro.co.uk

Afraid I'd want to see the scientific evidence behind that before trusting it - it's remarkable that this evidence showing such an alleged anomaly has suddenly emerged when they want to shore up their hastily-implemented policy, but seems not to have received a mention before.

 

[Busaholic]

Has the government lost its mind? Face masks are compulsory in shops and trains/buses but not on planes or in pubs or at events? Why is this introduced when cases are lower than March? WHY???

I was wondering how President Johnson would eventually get his revenge on Gove, because his past record shows that he'll go to great lengths to get that revenge: he's only held back up to now to ensure his wind-up man Cummings (that's wind-up as in clockwork key in the back) doesn't quit, so D.C. must have turned against his old ally too. Gove's interview on Andrew Marr hinting his opposition to the move will have been the catalyst, and confined us all to both uncertainty that this nightmare will ever come to an end and an even further kick in the teeth to economic activity, beyond mask manufacturers. Putin will be hysterical with laughter!

 

[bramling]

That is true, although a simple poster campaign and some polite reminders from shop security staff on entry would help.

I think it would only work if there was a supply of fresh masks outside each shop (and a way of securely giving them out and putting them on), and then a way of safely disposing of them when walking out.

We’re still in the Boris territory of it being okay to stick a pair of knickers over the face. How is anyone supposed to take that seriously?

 

[DB]

It's weird that the government have been criticised throughout for unclear messaging.

So here they come out with a clear, unambiguous requirement, and what do we have? Yet more criticism by people that don't like it!

By unclear messaging, what is largely meant is unclear policy - e.g. allowing pubs to open, then soon after that imposing masks in shops. It shows no evidence of any consistent policy.

 

[Richard Scott]

Why a spike instead of just a higher rate?

Deaths in shop workers up to 75% higher than rest of country

Matt Hancock revealed the startling statistic in the Commons as he announced the new face mask measures for England, which will come into force on July 24.

metro.co.uk

Is this across all age groups? There are a number of older people employed in shops so statistic may just be skewed by this. Statement needs more information to back it up.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

Why a spike instead of just a higher rate?

Deaths in shop workers up to 75% higher than rest of country

Matt Hancock revealed the startling statistic in the Commons as he announced the new face mask measures for England, which will come into force on July 24.

metro.co.uk

Isn't that to be expected given that they were at the face of the public during the height of the pandemic, while the rest of us were being told to stay at home?

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

...with a very strict lockdown in place and footfall at non-essential shops zero.

Not since the 15th June.

 

[bramling]

I was wondering how President Johnson would eventually get his revenge on Gove, because his past record shows that he'll go to great lengths to get that revenge: he's only held back up to now to ensure his wind-up man Cummings (that's wind-up as in clockwork key in the back) doesn't quit, so D.C. must have turned against his old ally too. Gove's interview on Andrew Marr hinting his opposition to the move will have been the catalyst, and confined us all to both uncertainty that this nightmare will ever come to an end and an even further kick in the teeth to economic activity, beyond mask manufacturers. Putin will be hysterical with laughter!

It is certainly very odd to have such a senior cabinet minister coming out with something so at odds with a government policy just a day before. That does point to something dysfunctional going on.

 

[DB]

Isn't that to be expected given that they were at the face of the public during the height of the pandemic, while the rest of us were being told to stay at home?

If that was the case though, why wasn't it a prominent news item at that time?

 

[ashkeba]

The "strong evidence" I've seen appear to be small, non-randomised, non-peer-reviewed studies of death rates, and nothing more in-depth than that. The gist seems to be "country x wears masks, country x has a lower death rate, therefore masks are good!". Correlation is taken as causation.

Well it seems more likely that mask wearing causes reduction in infections than a reduction in infections causes mask wearing! But it may be that both are linked to a third factor but has anyone suggested possible third factors that withstand scrutiny?

It is not ideal but that is true of so much about covid. I would be happy to wait for concussive randomised controlled trials if people weren't dying and the non wearers didn't affect the survival chances of wearers if there's a net benefit

I'm also not buying this whole "but Covid is new!" excuse either. SARS-CoV-2 is a new virus, but airborne coronaviruses are old.

So does it not work for them? Was all the mask wearing during SARS useless?

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

If that was the case though, why wasn't it a prominent news item at that time?

Probably because there were more clickbait-worthy titles at the time, but ultimately your guess is as good as mine.

 

[DB]

Probably because there were more clickbait-worthy titles at the time, but ultimately your guess is as good as mine.

Hmm. Maybe. I'm just suspicious that it's suddenly emerged to back up a policy which is proving very unpopular with some (including, apparently, some of the Tory party's core constituent).

When I've got a minute I'll have a search and see if I can find any scientific papers online relating to this - because if it's genuine I would expect there to be some.

 

[ashkeba]

Isn't that to be expected given that they were at the face of the public during the height of the pandemic, while the rest of us were being told to stay at home?

We might have been told that in adverts but in reality anyone not furloughed and not able to work from home was told to go to work by their bosses and keep distancing and handwashing and so on but infection and death rates among those were not as high, as far as I know.

I would expect a slight increase because they deal with more people than most workers but the numbers by the health minister are surprisingly high.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

We might have been told that in adverts but in reality anyone not furloughed and not able to work from home was told to go to work by their bosses and keep distancing and handwashing and so on but infection and death rates among those were not as high, as far as I know.

I would expect a slight increase because they deal with more people than most workers but the numbers by the health minister are surprisingly high.

Fair enough.

And yes, I'd agree with that. I was more referring to the media making news out of it.

 

[trebor79]

It's weird that the government have been criticised throughout for unclear messaging.

So here they come out with a clear, unambiguous requirement, and what do we have? Yet more criticism by people that don't like it!

It was perfectly clear, if I wanted to wear a mask I could. If I didn't want to I didn't have to.
Now all I know is I will have to wear a face covering, but no idea what will be deemed acceptable.
It was the media and mask pressure groups pushing the need for "clarity".

 

[DB]

It was the media and mask pressure groups pushing the need for "clarity".

And the Labour party, seemingly just as a stick to prod the government with rather than anything else.

 

[Enthusiast]

If it transmitted in shops, there would logically be a spike in cases among supermarket workers, who have been working throughout the past four months, mostly not wearing masks. The fact that there isn't any such spike gives a pretty clear indication as to the risk.

Unfortunately I have lost the reference, but shop assistants make up 3.4% of the workforce but have only 2.8% of CV cases.

Which completely belies Mr Hancock's statement today. He said that shop staff had suffered disproportionately from the virus.

Some quite depressing, selfish anti-mask posts in the last few pages.

They're not depressing. I find them quite refreshing. And the reason for them is simple: many people in the UK do not like being told what to do when there is no clear reasoning behind the instruction. It's in their psyche and the "If it just saves one life" mantra simply doesn't wash. It's true that there is an increasing number who prefer to be instructed by the government how to conduct every aspect of their lives and prefer the government to think for them from cradle to grave. But thankfully they are still, I believe, in the minority.

We have endured four months where essential shops have been open throughout and a month when most of the rest of them have been open. At times during that period infections ran at >5,000 a day and daily deaths approached 1,000. Face coverings in shops were not a consideration during that period. Now those figures are down to a few hundred and a seven day average of 82. So the question is this: if they were not deemed necessary when infections and deaths were ten times the current figures, why are they deemed necessary now? If the justification is the relaxation of "social distancing", that change will have been in place for almost a month by the time the new face covering measures come in, so why wasn't it introduced coincidentally with the reduction in social distancing?