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

[talldave]

Yet on FB, if you dare question the idea of wearing a face mask, some think you are the scum of the earth !

Well there must be a certain truth in that as you're on FB, which is where the scum of the earth congregate!!

I think that's more to do with the fact that the purpose of going to a pub (other than the social aspect) is to consume food and/or drink, so you'd have to repeatedly remove and refit a mask which is itself a risk. Track and trace is the mitigation for pubs - it's much harder to do that for Tesco.

On the contrary, my Tesco Clubcard provides all the information they need for zero effort. If you don't have one you're being selfish for not supporting Track & Trace. [see what I did there?!!]

 

[Ianno87]

Indeed. It will put a great many people off from going to non-essential shops, despite the government seeming to think it will give people more confidence to go out shopping! It will put many people from taking long journeys on the train and coach for leisure. That's just two examples. It will be extremely damaging to the mood of the nation and the economy, the longer this insane nonsense goes on for.

So you think that nobody will minimise being in situations where they have to wear a masks, leading to a lot fewer shop visits? Really?

Conversely, thereay be a silent majority who may now feel more confident going out and spending money.

The anti-maskers just seem to be the ones shouting the loudest. Doesn't mean they are the majority

 

[Richard Scott]

My logic is very simple. It's a small ask that might make a difference.

Most of the mask objections can be summarised as "because I don't want to".

No, not because I don't want to but because I can't. I cannot deal with anything over my nose and mouth for more than a couple of minutes at the absolute most.

 

[Huntergreed]

Conversely, thereay be a silent majority who may now feel more confident going out and spending money.

The anti-maskers just seem to be the ones shouting the loudest. Doesn't mean they are the majority

In my experience, the pro-maskers seem to be the loudest, with anyone who dares raising an anti-mask argument screamed at and labelled a “murderer” and accused of wanting to “kill their granny”.

 

[DB]

Most of the mask objections can be summarised as "because I don't want to".

No, they can be summarised as "because this is a highly intrusive measure* and there is very weak evidence for it making any appreciable difference, and it is therefore not justified"

*I'd appreciate it if you avoided arguing about whether or not this highly intrusive - I think we can take it as read that you don't find it so, but nevertheless many people do believe that it is.

 

[talldave]

Well let's see how it pans out. Fines are unenforceable, as already proven on public transport.

 

[Ianno87]

In my experience, the pro-maskers seem to be the loudest, with anyone who dares raising an anti-mask argument screamed at and labelled a “murderer” and accused of wanting to “kill their granny”.

1) I haven't used those words - I've made reasonable points thoughout. Neither has anybody else

2) Your assertion on majority does not appear to be the case in this thread.

 

[DB]

The anti-maskers just seem to be the ones shouting the loudest. Doesn't mean they are the majority

Now that is simply not the case - the whole reason for this restriction is as a knee-jerk government reaction to the maskivists shouting louder and louder.

 

[AM9]

But wearing a mask is not 'normal' - it is unpleasant and will put many people off from doing things which they would otherwise do. It alsp perpetuates a mindset of everyone being 'unclean'.

If the government was to set out with a policy of bankrupting local businesses and driving everyone to online retailers, it's hard to think of a policy which would be more effective than this.

It doesn't need to be within your definition of 'Normal'. I clearly remember all the self-righteous twits saying that wearing a seat belt wasn't normal, democratic, safe (usually with some erroneous contrived circumstance that in their minds made wearing of a seat belt more dangerous) to their limited knowledge etc.. Same goes for the decades when smoking was known by experts to be dangerous, yet there were many (and still are a few) who were completely in denial of the science.
The big difference here is that wearing a face covering (note that objectors persist in claiming that face masks are mandated), is an act to contribute to society's wellbeing as a whole, not just the individual. Apart from those with a medically confirmed antisocial personality, that says a lot about those continually looking for excuses not to comply.*

* A section of the population has genuine health reasons for not being able to wear masks, a much larger part doesn't.

 

[Huntergreed]

1) I haven't used those words - I've made reasonable points thoughout. Neither has anybody else

2) Your assertion on majority does not appear to be the case in this thread.

From my personal observations, the majority of views on this forum seem to be against what the majority of the public seem to think.

Try looking down the comments section of a “mask mandation” news article on social media and you’ll see what I mean. Also a recent you-gov poll showed 70% in favour of mandation in shops.

 

[Skymonster]

Most of the mask objections can be summarised as "because I don't want to".

No, most of the objections are based on a lack of adequate explanation, a lack of shared in-depth scientific evidence, a lack of democratic scrutiny and consensus, and a lack of logic.

 

[Huntergreed]

It doesn't need to be within your definition of 'Normal'. I clearly remember all the self-righteous twits saying that wearing a seat belt wasn't normal, democratic, safe (usually with some erroneous contrived circumstance that in their minds made wearing of a seat belt more dangerous) to their limited knowledge etc.. Same goes for the decades when smoking was known by experts to be dangerous, yet there were many (and still are a few) who were completely in denial of the science.
The big difference here is that wearing a face covering (note that objectors persist in claiming that face masks are mandated), is an act to contribute to society's wellbeing as a whole, not just the individual. Apart from those with a medically confirmed antisocial personality, that says a lot about those continually looking for excuses not to comply.*

* A section of the population has genuine health reasons for not being able to wear masks, a much larger part doesn't.

Seatbelts have been through rigorous crash-testing and proven to be very effective through strong scientific evidence.

Scientific studies have also proven the dangers of smoking to be significant through hard evidence.

The mask law, which makes daily life much less comfortable and enjoyable, has no such evidence and, as such, is not justified at present.

 

[DB]

1) I haven't used those words - I've made reasonable points thoughout. Neither has anybody else

2) Your assertion on majority does not appear to be the case in this thread.

It doesn't need to be within your definition of 'Normal'. I clearly remember all the self-righteous twits saying that wearing a seat belt wasn't normal, democratic, safe (usually with some erroneous contrived circumstance that in their minds made wearing of a seat belt more dangerous) to their limited knowledge etc.. Same goes for the decades when smoking was known by experts to be dangerous, yet there were many (and still are a few) who were completely in denial of the science.
The big difference here is that wearing a face covering (note that objectors persist in claiming that face masks are mandated), is an act to contribute to society's wellbeing as a whole, not just the individual. Apart from those with a medically confirmed antisocial personality, that says a lot about those continually looking for excuses not to comply.*

* A section of the population has genuine health reasons for not being able to wear masks, a much larger part doesn't.

We've been through this one already. There is clear evidence showing the benefits of seat belts. Likewise the risks of smoking.

In contrast, there is no clear evidence at all for the benefit of face masks in the current situation - what little evidence there is remains weak and inconclusive.

 

[DB]

From my personal observations, the majority of views on this forum seem to be against what the majority of the public seem to think.

Try looking down the comments section of a “mask mandation” news article on social media and you’ll see what I mean. Also a recent you-gov poll showed 70% in favour of mandation in shops.

I do wonder whether to some extent this is because many people spending all day on social media have time on their hands because they are furloughed and quite like the situation of being paid to not work, so want it to carry on indefinitely. Meanwhile those who are actually trying to carry on as close to normal as they can can devote less time to such things.

 

[adc82140]

I clearly remember all the self-righteous twits saying that wearing a seat belt wasn't normal, democratic, safe (usually with some erroneous contrived circumstance that in their minds made wearing of a seat belt more dangerous) to their limited knowledge etc.. Same goes for the decades when smoking was known by experts to be dangerous....

In both of the examples the evidence is there for all to see. Watch one of the TRL crash films and it's evident why you should wear a seat belt. Watch a long term smoker coughing their guts up and the danger is obvious. I don't think most people are objecting to wearing masks for the sake of it. We just want to be presented with the evidence in a non emotive way. If someone can tell me that a mask will absolutely reduce covid infections and show me the evidence how this will happen, then I'll wear one in any enclosed public space.

 

[talldave]

2) Your assertion on majority does not appear to be the case in this thread.

Because, as I've suggested previously, the average IQ of people on these forums is considerably higher than that on Facebook. And intelligent people analyse facts and figures and want rational justification for having their life inconvenienced. The requirement for masks has come when infection levels are continuing downwards with NO evidence or justification for their mandation. Which in itself means there's no exit parameters defined either. And for the avoidance of doubt making Karen from Facebook feel safer is not a valid justification.

99.9998% of the time people are going to be protecting other people from something they haven't got.

 

[Bantamzen]

And that's why PPE is justified.

In hospitals yes. But as I have said time & again, medical staff are trained in, & properly disciplined in how to properly use masks as described above. This level of use will not be replicated in the general public, and this could increase the risk of transmission through surface contact, something people seem to constantly ignore. Depending on the type of surface this could see higher concentrations of the virus than you would find in the air around them, and the virus could be viable on those surfaces for much longer than airborne.

Masks used around the world will in my opinion, and increasingly among some experts, at best masks offer only a very slight amount of spread mitigation whilst introducing an additional risk in being a higher concentration source that could easily be transferred to common surfaces through poor use. All of this was widely discussed right back at the start of the pandemic, and why for so long the WHO did not recommend their wide use in public. And as is being discussed in the media thread, there are now some suggestions that the WHO's positional change was politically motivated rather than scientifically.

 

[ashkeba]

I read somewhere the majority of deaths in Sweden were connected with care homes - the rest of the population fared better.

I would be interested to read that.

Interesting recent article also on the fact they may be better prepared for a second wave if it comes.

If there is a second wave of Covid, the Swedish approach will have been right all along

Not going into lockdown was described as “a mad experiment” at the time, but Sweden can look to the winter with less trepidation than most

www.telegraph.co.uk

That article contains too many obvious mistakes, such as claiming Sweden continued as normal when it had guidelines like ours but just no laws and fines, or that tourism is NZ's biggest export industry when it's worth US$17bn against agriculture's $23bn (2019). It also ignores that natural immunity may be short term. I think the author decided the conclusion first.

 

[AM9]

In my experience, the pro-maskers seem to be the loudest, with anyone who dares raising an anti-mask argument screamed at and labelled a “murderer” and accused of wanting to “kill their granny”.

I've heard that there some quite extreme characters north of Hadrian's Wall, but I can't believe that anyone who disagrees with those not wearing face covering labels them as a 'murderer' or "wanting to kill their granny". Maybe you need to cut down on the hyperbole or at least indicate that you don't really mean what you post (as is normal with sarcasm or satire words used in social media messages).

 

[Skymonster]

I do wonder whether to some extent this is because many people spending all day on social media have time on their hands because they are furloughed...

Yes, very likely. Social media, the very one sided reporting on the BBC and print media, etc. These people have had three months sitting inside their homes brooding on all of this. I'm not sure I'd say they don't want to return to normal, but they have certainly got to the point where they are still seriously concerned about the percieved threats in the big bad world outside.

 

[Huntergreed]

I've heard that there some quite extreme characters north of Hadrian's Wall, but I can't believe that anyone who disagrees with those not wearing face covering labels them as a 'murderer' or "wanting to kill their granny". Maybe you need to cut down on the hyperbole or at least indicate that you don't really mean what you post (as is normal with sarcasm or satire words used in social media messages).

I can assure you the examples I give are not hyperbolic, merely anectodal. Take a scroll down the comments section of a news article about masks (or Covid in general) and you’ll see just how passionate and angry people get, it’s really not good

 

[Bantamzen]

I've heard that there some quite extreme characters north of Hadrian's Wall, but I can't believe that anyone who disagrees with those not wearing face covering labels them as a 'murderer' or "wanting to kill their granny". Maybe you need to cut down on the hyperbole or at least indicate that you don't really mean what you post (as is normal with sarcasm or satire words used in social media messages).

I've seen and heard it myself, so yes it does happen.

 

[AM9]

In both of the examples the evidence is there for all to see. Watch one of the TRL crash films and it's evident why you should wear a seat belt. Watch a long term smoker coughing their guts up and the danger is obvious. I don't think most people are objecting to wearing masks for the sake of it. We just want to be presented with the evidence in a non emotive way. If someone can tell me that a mask will absolutely reduce covid infections and show me the evidence how this will happen, then I'll wear one in any enclosed public space.

The evidence has been adequately explained so many times, on radio, TV, in newspapers, but to quote an old saying: "There's none so blind as those who will not see."

 

[CaptainHaddock]

My logic is very simple. It's a small ask that might make a difference.

Most of the mask objections can be summarised as "because I don't want to".

Exactly it "might" make a difference. There's no evidence that it will but gullible people will go along with it just because the governement has told them to.

If Boris told you that wearing a dead badger on your head "might" stop you catching the virus, would you do so?

 

[ashkeba]

No, they can be summarised as "because this is a highly intrusive measure* and there is very weak evidence for it making any appreciable difference, and it is therefore not justified"

I will ignore the * except to say a covering by definition does non intrude into the body so that is the wrong word.

Have you asked gov.uk for the changes in evidence that changed their decision? I do not think we have any gov.uk health advisers on here.

 

[AM9]

I've seen and heard it myself, so yes it does happen.

I'm sure that a few have said it and some things like it, but the OP said:

I can't believe that anyone who disagrees with those not wearing face covering labels them

 

[AM9]

I will ignore the * except to say a covering by definition does non intrude into the body so that is the wrong word.

Have you asked gov.uk for the changes in evidence that changed their decision? I do not think we have any gov.uk health advisers on here.

Yes there are, trouble is many of them learnt whilst sitting in armchairs.

 

[DB]

The evidence has been adequately explained so many times, on radio, TV, in newspapers, but to quote an old saying: "There's none so blind as those who will not see."

Can you point us to this evidence? I'm lookng for credible scientific papers here, not opinion pieces in the media.

 

[DB]

I will ignore the * except to say a covering by definition does non intrude into the body so that is the wrong word.

Have you asked gov.uk for the changes in evidence that changed their decision? I do not think we have any gov.uk health advisers on here.

Given the criticism they are getting, do you seriously believe that if the govermnment actually had any crdible evidence they wouldn't have produced it by now?

 

[AM9]

Can you point us to this evidence? I'm lookng for credible scientific papers here, not opinion pieces in the media.

The usual response. No, I have neither the time nor inclination at the moment. If you were really interested yuo would have found some of the many reports on the (not absolute but worthwhile) additional protection that everybody wearing face coverings in restricted spaces would afford everybody else.