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

[Scrotnig]

Then you would have a "reasonable excuse".

Which will do you no good when being abused by unintelligent hysterical members of the public shouting "you're killing people" at you.

 

[birchesgreen]

Which will do you no good when being abused by unintelligent hysterical members of the public shouting "you're killing people" at you.

I know and this will be a real problem, there are some pretty nasty people out there itching to do some shaming. Its bad enough online, yesterday i noticed a tweet from someone obviously losing it at the thought of having something over their mouth and having to explain it to strangers. Naturally the replies were full of empathy an understanding... not.

 

[jfollows]

I'd like to see evidence that breathing back in your own CO2 is not unhealthy. No one ever seems to ask that question.

Because every breath everyone takes includes inhaling carbon dioxide previously produced in the lungs, which has nothing to do with the presence or absence of a face mask. If it were unhealthy, then everyone would suffer as a result. Some of the carbon dioxide produced in the lungs never makes it out of the body when you exhale, and is therefore reintroduced back into the lungs when you inhale.

I don't see how wearing a face mask would increase the amount re-inhaled by more than a very small amount.

 

[Scrotnig]

Of course, it does make things more difficult for the hard of hearing or the deaf.

Well, we don't care about them any more, as their disabilities have nothing to do with the deadly killer virus.

Similarly, people in wheelchairs can now legally be told they aren't welcome, and people with cancer are being told to go home to die.

 

[talldave]

Apparently shop staff aren't worth caring about either. Confirms that this is an ineffective half-arsed pointless gesture.

 

[ashkeba]

Sorry, but that's really not credible. If they had made their decision on the basis of this alleged evidence, they would have it immeditely to hand and would have produced it to support their policy.

It seems more credible than there being some big conspiracy to dominate the population and they've managed to avoid all leaks about it. This government is not even competent to publish draft announced laws in a timely manner at the minute so I think it's more likely that they aren't managing to publish background evidence either.

 

[ashkeba]

Well it goes something like this. If the mask is successfully preventing the virus past it from someone with it, the virus will accumulate in said mask. So if then someone touches that area they may transfer some of the viral load to their hands, and then if not immediately washing their hands onto surfaces where the viral load may accumulate if other people with the virus do the same. So then when someone without it comes along & touches that same area, transfers some of the load onto their hands and if they then don't immediately wash their hands they may transfer that onto their face / mask and thus into their respiratory system.

Now if you consider that some common surfaces in shops are probably more likely to transmit than a moving body of air where the virus will be dissipated rather than accumulated, you might see where a problem could lie. All of this was heavily discussed and considered at the start of the epidemic, and remained the position of the WHO (and possibly still is).

That falls down in many ways, including that the action of unhooking from the ear does not touch the accumulation area, only the straps, plus we have been told to wash or sterilise our hands as soon as possible after touching a mask - although not so much in the UK where the government is being especially rubbish at mask education.

I think it is very unlikely to negate the benefits, but better education information from Boris's government could make it even more unlikely.

 

[Ian Cunningham]

I'd like to see evidence that breathing back in your own CO2 is not unhealthy. No one ever seems to ask that question.

The fact that the HSE does not mention this at all in their RPE (Respiratory Protective Equipment) guidance would suggest that this is not a heath concern
Lung and breathing conditions (most common being asthma) need to be considered before using RPE as there could be an impact for those with already restricted lung capacity.
This doesn't mean RPE can't be worn - it's just you have to assess properly so you don't create new (or increase existing) hazards for an individual

Thousands of people wear RPE everyday at work - if there was an issue with re-breathing exhaled CO2 we would have had firm evidence of this years ago.

 

[Skymonster]

Sigh... And now we have local officials trying to take matters into their own hands and move the regulation forward. Quote from the BBC website:

Health officials in York say residents and visitors should begin wearing face masks immediately and not wait for the government's date of 24 July.

 

[ashkeba]

Well, we don't care about them any more, as their disabilities have nothing to do with the deadly killer virus.

Similarly, people in wheelchairs can now legally be told they aren't welcome, and people with cancer are being told to go home to die.

Most of you didn't seem to care about us before, especially the right wing survival of the fittest crowd who seem most against masks. Please don't use us as an excuse now.

And most cancer and other chronic illness treatments are continuing, as me and my family have experienced. Some are even better, with us no longer travelling for routine fifteen minute consultant appointments, instead doing that by uploading pictures of healing incisions and talking on the telephone, with tests and minor procedures done at the GP not hospital.

 

[ashkeba]

I'd like to see evidence that breathing back in your own CO2 is not unhealthy. No one ever seems to ask that question.

It was literally asked and answered yesterday on this very discussion, unless it has been moderated.

 

[43066]

I don’t think that’s the case at all. Ignoring civil liberties, there seem to be four main strands of objection - all of which seem very reasonable to me.
1) Risk of spreading infection through incorrect use, which based on what we see on transport is a very real problem that doesn’t seem to have a ready solution
2) Discomfort to many
3) Impact on those who have issues preventing them wearing a mask, in particular the very real risk of them being singled out and on the receiving end of abuse.
4) Putting shop staff in a difficult position when it comes to enforcement and dealing with conflict.

All of these seem very valid to me, and no one has yet offered any robust mitigations to these issues. With Boris’s legendary lack of attention to detail I don’t trust him to deal with these problems adequately.

Add in that the evidence really hasn’t been shown to people, which if you’re wanting to get mass buy-in to an idea is really essential, especially an idea which relies on people taking the trouble to do things properly and correctly. Because of all these factors it simply feels like being seen to do something, so it’s not really surprising many are cynical about it.

This is purely a political decision, with little to no scientific basis underpinning it. Just as with every other decision the government has taken in recent months.

Quite simply, the government has terrified a large segment of the population so much that it’s now politically impossible for them to restart the economy. The requirement for us all to wear masks isn’t about science at all. It’s about trying to persuade the “if you go outside you’re killing people” brigade that it’s safe for them to venture out and go back to work.

Personally I’d rather that was achieved by cutting furlough and making these people face some difficult choices, rather than imposing masks on the rest of us to pander to their fears, but of course that wouldn’t win votes...

@CaptainHaddock thanks for that source in your earlier posts - lots of food for thought. What have we seen from the government to overturn any of that evidence, (all of which seems to come from reputable sources)?

 

[Scrotnig]

Most of you didn't seem to care about us before, especially the right wing survival of the fittest crowd who seem most against masks. Please don't use us as an excuse now.

I'm against masks and I'm neither right wing nor "survival of the fittest", thanks all the same.

Many groups representing the deaf and hard of hearing have raised grave concerns about the impact of mass mask wearing. If it doesn't bother you, that's great for you, but it does bother a huge number of people who feel their concerns are just being swept away as if they don't matter. It's not an excuse. It's a genuine concern raised by the people affected.

I am vehemently against excluding anyone from society because they suddenly become inconvenient or don't fit the current agenda.

 

[Bantamzen]

That falls down in many ways, including that the action of unhooking from the ear does not touch the accumulation area, only the straps, plus we have been told to wash or sterilise our hands as soon as possible after touching a mask - although not so much in the UK where the government is being especially rubbish at mask education.

I think it is very unlikely to negate the benefits, but better education information from Boris's government could make it even more unlikely.

Your argument falls down because it fails to take I to account what will actually happen.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sigh... And now we have local officials trying to take matters into their own hands and move the regulation forward. Quote from the BBC website:

This makes sense. A delay is needed to allow people to get one, and for the legislative process.

 

[MikeWM]

And most cancer and other chronic illness treatments are continuing, as me and my family have experienced. Some are even better, with us no longer travelling for routine fifteen minute consultant appointments, instead doing that by uploading pictures of healing incisions and talking on the telephone, with tests and minor procedures done at the GP not hospital.

Everyone will have their own opinion, but as far as I'm concerned pictures and telephones are a very poor substitute for an in-person consultation. Better than nothing, I suppose.

And are we sure the uploading mechanism is sufficiently secure for such personal information? NHS IT projects tend not to have gone terribly well.

 

[ashkeba]

Many groups representing the deaf and hard of hearing have raised grave concerns about the impact of mass mask wearing. If it doesn't bother you, that's great for you, but it does bother a huge number of people who feel their concerns are just being swept away as if they don't matter. It's not an excuse. It's a genuine concern raised by the people affected.

I know what the groups are doing and it's to mitigate the impact, not block or oppose masks. And we are not being ignored. For example https://actiononhearingloss.org.uk/2020/06/face-coverings-for-the-general-public/

We called on the government to take action to address this barrier and we have been working closely with them to look at how best to do this. We want to ensure that people with hearing loss can communicate while also protecting themselves and others.

It's misusing these concerns to oppose masks in totality which is using us as an excuse.

 

[Weekender]

I notice on the bbc website the government have finally admitted that the R rate has been massively overstated.
0.7 to 1.1 quoted in May when the real rate was 0.57

 

[ashkeba]

Your argument falls down because it fails to take I to account what will actually happen.

Let's hope the government will late start a mask use education. They've done everything else late!

 

[MikeWM]

I'm against masks and I'm neither right wing nor "survival of the fittest", thanks all the same.

Many groups representing the deaf and hard of hearing have raised grave concerns about the impact of mass mask wearing. If it doesn't bother you, that's great for you, but it does bother a huge number of people who feel their concerns are just being swept away as if they don't matter. It's not an excuse. It's a genuine concern raised by the people affected.

I am vehemently against excluding anyone from society because they suddenly become inconvenient or don't fit the current agenda.

Totally agree. I concede that, sadly, the loudest voices against this do seem to be mostly from the libertarian pro-Brexit right-wing camp, but that doesn't mean there aren't sensible people elsewhere on the political compass either. I was quite a committed Corbyn supporter, rejoined the party as a result, and voted Labour in the last two elections. The Corbyn-ite left used to be excellent on civil liberties (Corbyn himself being a particularly good example, before 2015 at least). The elected politicians seem to have lost their way, alas.

 

[ashkeba]

I notice on the bbc website the government have finally admitted that the R rate has been massively overstated.
0.7 to 1.1 quoted in May when the real rate was 0.57

Who says that was the real rate?

 

[DB]

It seems more credible than there being some big conspiracy to dominate the population and they've managed to avoid all leaks about it. This government is not even competent to publish draft announced laws in a timely manner at the minute so I think it's more likely that they aren't managing to publish background evidence either.

I don't think there's some 'big conspiracy' - it's merely making up policy on the hoof to pander to the most paranoid. If it was based on credible evidence, there is no way this would not have been published, and mentioned specifically by ministers when they appeared in the media.

 

[MikeWM]

It's misusing these concerns to oppose masks in totality which is using us as an excuse.

I haven't seen anyone doing that. However it is one - of many matters - that needs to be taken into consideration.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Whilst searching for evidence about the effectiveness of facemasks I came across this excellent site

Face coverings

Many people can now be seen wearing face coverings in public but what is the evidence for their use to stop COVID-19?

evidencenotfear.com

Leaving face masks aside, it looks like the whole website is an excellent resource that collates the facts about the virus and the way it's been handled and reported.

COVID-19 - Evidence Not Fear

We are seeing far-reaching changes to our way of life. What is the scientific basis for the measures in place against COVID-19?

evidencenotfear.com

Unlike many online sources, the site's reports are based on scientific evidence backed up by experts in their field. Hopefully people will find their evidence reassuring!

Your sources, which pander to your confirmation basis, have been selectively assembled by naturopathic doctors. I'll leave it to others to judge their expertise.

One of headlines of a SAGE paper quoted on the site, which is referenced, but conveniently ignored is:

it is reasonable to consider the extended use of facemasks by healthcare workers (and face coverings by the public) in hospitals.

The reference to hospitals is because the paper is specifically concerning hospitals.

 

[DB]

Your sources, which pander to your confirmation basis,

Point us to some credible sources which demonstrate that masks are of benefit in situations of transitory proximity (such as shops), then! Several of us who are opposed to masks have requested this a number of times on a number of threads, but nobody has come up with anything yet.

 

[jtuk]

This is purely a political decision, with little to no scientific basis underpinning it. Just as with every other decision the government has taken in recent months.

Of course it is. The clue is when the WHO didn't deny that their committee, when reviewing the relevant evidence, didn't back their use but recommended it as a result of political lobbying

 

[DB]

I saw a good demonstration today of how people will in many cases just do what the government says and take it further (e.g keeping masks on when not in shops as well). On Sunday, the town centre was busy and I saw one person wearing a mask (and another with one round their neck - that was the total). Just been into the town centre this morning, and it's again busy, but there were quite a few people wearing masks. Still a minority, but a significant increase on sunday. This is almost certainly down to the government announcement, as up until then visible mask use had been in decline since March/April.

 

[baz962]

Except it pro

Wear a face mask (a minor inconvenience) and it opens up doing more normal things.

Except it probably won't. I wear one on the train to get to work , as I will follow the rules. I don't get on with them , as I have sensitive skin and don't like wearing them , but I'm not exempt. I was actively looking to go out and spend money , in places that I didn't need to , but to put money in people's businesses and back in the economy . Well I won't be now and I guess a lot of others won't , so that won't help the getting back to normal.

 

[MikeWM]

Whilst searching for evidence about the effectiveness of facemasks I came across this excellent site

Face coverings

Many people can now be seen wearing face coverings in public but what is the evidence for their use to stop COVID-19?

evidencenotfear.com

Leaving face masks aside, it looks like the whole website is an excellent resource that collates the facts about the virus and the way it's been handled and reported.

This one is rather good too.

https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/

Fully referenced facts about Covid-19, provided by experts in the field, to help our readers make a realistic risk assessment.

 

[Domh245]

One of headlines of a SAGE paper quoted on the site, which is referenced, but conveniently ignored is:

The reference to hospitals is because the paper is specifically concerning hospitals.

Yourself conveniently overlooking the following line of the report:

There is limited evidence from practice to support the extended use of medical/surgical face masks by all healthcare workers, i.e. beyond patient facing interactions, to reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in hospitals.

So if there's limited evidence to support masks in a non-clinical setting within a hospital, there's limited evidence for their use in non-clinical settings outside of hospitals too.