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

[MikeWM]

It is, if your planning on commiting a crime. Very hard to I.D someone when you only see the eyes

Especially if wearing sunglasses too For a good while a few years ago I had to wear sunglasses and a hat whenever in a bright place, because I had issues with with my eyes. Add a mask, and you may as well be entirely anonymous.

 

[DB]

We don't have time to find out for sure, for the sake of what is, to most, a small inconvenience.

But we have found out - if shopping without masks caused any measurable increase in transmission that would be observable - e.g. when a lot more of the shops started to open again, there would have been an increase in cases within two or three weeks. That did not happen. In fact, the reverse happened and numbers continued to fall.

 

[MikeWM]

We don't have time to find out for sure, for the sake of what is, to most, a small inconvenience.

A valid argument ('try everything we can think of!') if we're facing an extinction event, or something truly appalling like airborne ebola. But we're not.

 

[duncanp]

My old local in Newcastle have emailed me to say they're re-opening this week, but wearing a mask will be mandatory except when sitting at a table.

People are just making stuff up as they go along now.

Oh dear, the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

What are you supposed to do if, after having had several pints, you want to go to the toilet? Do you have to put on a fresh mask just to go for a p***, and if so how do you dispose of it safely and securely once you are back at your table?

There is nothing in the government guidance for re-opening the hospitality industry which suggests that masks are necessary or even advised inside pubs.

The reason is that other measures are in place, such as social distancing, booking tables, capacity limits, hand sanitiser, screens at the bar... etc.

I suspect this pub in Newcastle won't last long with their compulsory masks policy.

 

[Ianno87]

A valid argument ('try everything we can think of!') if we're facing an extinction event, or something truly appalling like airborne ebola. But we're not.

But you'll find few enthusiasts of another lockdown when we could take a few sensible precautions (even if they may be overkill) now to keep R<1.

Lockdown is not easy for quite a few people.

 

[MikeWM]

But you'll find few enthusiasts of another lockdown when we could take a few sensible precautions (even if they may be overkill) now to keep R<1.

Lockdown is not easy for quite a few people.

It's not one or the other, even if that is the way it is being presented.

 

[Jayden99]

I think it is important to remember that this thread really isn't with public opinion at large. While it's interesting to see a more sceptical vocal minority, while I was out today in glamorous Melton Mowbray, I saw both a very large amount of people shopping, and certainly a lot more wearing masks than I might have expected given how often I've seen it before the announcement. Maybe this was a rush of discretionary spending before the masked tyranny, or Melton is just surprisingly pro mask, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a similar scene next Friday, just with more masks. I'm certainly happy to eat these words, but as a few others have said, if this is a step towards more freedom, then I'll happily partake. Shouts of tyranny and rights would only be appropriate if we were still in this situation with no obvious spike by say, October

 

[DB]

But you'll find few enthusiasts of another lockdown when we could take a few sensible precautions (even if they may be overkill) now to keep R<1.

Lockdown is not easy for quite a few people.

There won't be another lockdown because it wouldn't work - it cannot be afforded, and a sizeable number of people would refuse to comply a second time round - probably a sufficiently high number that prosecuting them all would not be practical (i.e. a poll tax situation).

I really don't see what the maskivists think the end game is here. Are they expecting to continue wearing masks indefinitely, in the hope that a vaccine might eventually appear?

 

[Huntergreed]

But you'll find few enthusiasts of another lockdown when we could take a few sensible precautions (even if they may be overkill) now to keep R<1.

Lockdown is not easy for quite a few people.

I agree that lockdown is not easy and we must use everything we can to avoid having a second national lockdown.

BUT

That does NOT mean mandating a precaution which has a significant impact on our daily lives without strong scientific justification, which is what is happening.

Imagine they said 'we're going to ask everyone to wear blue bodysuits because this might help, we're not sure'. This is more or less what's happened here and, without further evidence, I refuse to accept that mandation can be justified, be that on a 390 or tesco round the corner.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

I refuse to accept that mandation can be justified, be that on a 390 or tesco round the corner.

I can somewhat see their benefit on public transport as you could be within 2 meters of somebody for more than 15 minutes.

In shops this is highly unlikely, unless you need to think that long about which cereal you'd like this week, thus the argument against face coverings in shops is much stronger than on public transport, IMO anyway.

 

[Huntergreed]

I really don't see what the maskivists think the end game is here. Are they expecting to continue wearing masks indefinitely, in the hope that a vaccine might eventually appear?

This is exactly what they're expecting, Hancock said as much this morning on BBC Breakfast. I do truly hope that we have a U-turn on this sooner rather than later, particularly if there's no spike and there's no forthcoming evidence to support them (Why hasn't Starmer called them up on this?)

 

[mmh]

This is exactly what they're expecting, Hancock said as much this morning on BBC Breakfast. I do truly hope that we have a U-turn on this sooner rather than later, particularly if there's no spike and there's no forthcoming evidence to support them (Why hasn't Starmer called them up on this?)

Because no mainstream politician has the gumption to be the person attacked for "killing people." It's a pathetic situation.

 

[MikeWM]

This is exactly what they're expecting, Hancock said as much this morning on BBC Breakfast. I do truly hope that we have a U-turn on this sooner rather than later, particularly if there's no spike and there's no forthcoming evidence to support them (Why hasn't Starmer called them up on this?)

The Labour party seem to be having more difficulties with the ideas of freedom and civil liberties than even the Tories are at the moment. That's the main reason I resigned from the party last month.

(Perhaps not a surprise given the record of Blair and Brown - but the left of the party, at least, used to have a very strong record on such matters. It seems not anymore - the typical Corbyn supporter seems more lockdown-happy than most. Have you seen the state of The Canary or Skwarkbox recently?!)

 

[Ianno87]

I agree that lockdown is not easy and we must use everything we can to avoid having a second national lockdown.

BUT

That does NOT mean mandating a precaution which has a significant impact on our daily lives without strong scientific justification, which is what is happening.

Imagine they said 'we're going to ask everyone to wear blue bodysuits because this might help, we're not sure'. This is more or less what's happened here and, without further evidence, I refuse to accept that mandation can be justified, be that on a 390 or tesco round the corner.

I dispute the "significant impact on daily lives" claim. It's an extra item of clothing meaning the economy can be opened up more.

This is exactly what they're expecting, Hancock said as much this morning on BBC Breakfast. I do truly hope that we have a U-turn on this sooner rather than later, particularly if there's no spike and there's no forthcoming evidence to support them (Why hasn't Starmer called them up on this?)

If after several months R remains stable or continues downward then yes lets review masks again.

 

[bramling]

Oh dear, the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

What are you supposed to do if, after having had several pints, you want to go to the toilet? Do you have to put on a fresh mask just to go for a p***, and if so how do you dispose of it safely and securely once you are back at your table?

There is nothing in the government guidance for re-opening the hospitality industry which suggests that masks are necessary or even advised inside pubs.

The reason is that other measures are in place, such as social distancing, booking tables, capacity limits, hand sanitiser, screens at the bar... etc.

I suspect this pub in Newcastle won't last long with their compulsory masks policy.

How long before panic buying of masks starts? Of course what will happen in practice is people will just keep a mask in their pocket and use it over and over again.

 

[DB]

I dispute the "significant impact on daily lives" claim. It's an extra item of clothing meaning the economy can be opened up more.

It's a lot more than that - it's a symbol, and it's something which will put many people off from shopping more than they absolutely need to. The infection rates are falling, so there is absolutely nothing preventing the economy from being 'opened up more' in any case.

If after several months R remains stable or continues downward then yes lets review masks again.

But it's already been going downwards, so there's no need for it at all, in the absence of any compelling evidence that it actually helps in any case. There is also no review date for six months.

 

[MikeWM]

How long before panic buying of masks starts? Of course what will happen in practice is people will just keep a mask in their pocket and use it over and over again.

I saw Boots yesterday were selling boxes of them for £30/£35 a go...

 

[Ianno87]

I saw Boots yesterday were selling boxes of them for £30/£35 a go...

You get 50 for that price...

It's a lot more than that - it's a symbol, and it's something which will put many people off from shopping more than they absolutely need to. The infection rates are falling, so there is absolutely nothing preventing the economy from being 'opened up more' in any case.

But it's already been going downwards, so there's no need for it at all, in the absence of any compelling evidence that it actually helps in any case. There is also no review date for six months.

Downwards, but before the latest stage of reopening pubs, barbers etc has hit the numbers. Remember R 'lags' behind the latesr changes.

I do agree that a fixed review date would be beneficial. *Maybe* it will get tied into to the public transport review.

 

[Huntergreed]

You get 50 for that price...

Downwards, but before the latest stage of reopening pubs, barbers etc has hit the numbers. Remember R 'lags' behind the latesr changes.

I would argue without a change in the 'R' no change is neccessary.

Cases are still falling, deaths are falling, the 'R' is below 1.

IF (and only if) it starts to go back, THEN mandate masks IF the science proves this will be effective, otherwise this is pointless, has no effect, and makes life much more uncomfortable in many ways.

 

[Richard Scott]

You get 50 for that price...




Downwards, but before the latest stage of reopening pubs, barbers etc has hit the numbers. Remember R 'lags' behind the latesr changes.

I do agree that a fixed review date would be beneficial. *Maybe* it will get tied into to the public transport review.

Remember R is pretty meaningless once you get down to the numbers we have.

 

[mmh]

How long before panic buying of masks starts? Of course what will happen in practice is people will just keep a mask in their pocket and use it over and over again.

I have one in my pocket, unused as yet, in case I need to take a bus (the only place they are enforced here at the moment). It's disposable but I won't be disposing of it until it breaks.

(It's almost been worn, I had it ready to put on when boarding a rail replacement coach but when the driver wasn't wearing one and made a "don't bother" gesture it went back in the pocket presumably covered in my lethal fingerprints.)

 

[CaptainHaddock]

I've said it a lot of times on here, but just to reiterate, no one, other than an authorised person (ie a police officer) has the right to question why you are not wearing a face cover. Do not even engage the other person in conversation. They will be the one looking like a crazy person if they are ranting and raving all on their own.

Alternatively you could just say to the masktivist "hang on a minute, I think I'm going to sneeze" and watch them scarper!

 

[bramling]

I saw Boots yesterday were selling boxes of them for £30/£35 a go...

Great. If the government want me to wear masks in shops, how about they provide me with them? They’ve been more than happy to splash money round on other things after all.

 

[al78]

It's a lot more than that - it's a symbol, and it's something which will put many people off from shopping more than they absolutely need to.

Not necessarily a bad thing, a major contributor to environmental damage is overconsumption by rich Western countries.

It's a symbol? Really? I just see it as an extra bit of clothing. I admit I don't get much of the emotional stuff that seems to inflict many people. If I have to wear a mask to go shopping, I will, I am not going to restrict my life any more than I have too just to try and feel like I am making a point or fighting a battle against authority.

 

[Richard Scott]

Not necessarily a bad thing, a major contributor to environmental damage is overconsumption by rich Western countries.

It's a symbol? Really? I just see it as an extra bit of clothing. I admit I don't get much of the emotional stuff that seems to inflict many people. If I have to wear a mask to go shopping, I will, I am not going to restrict my life any more than I have too just to try and feel like I am making a point or fighting a battle against authority.

So overconsumption of masks is ok? They're all using resources and have to be transported all contributing to airborne pollution. People not going to shops will probably still buy things just on Amazon. I do agree there is overconsumption in our modern world and needs moderating, though.
The mask may also be another bit of clothing but it covers your mouth, something I've never done and feel very uncomfortable with. Never covered my mouth with a scarf even in extreme cold. Remember going go-karting a while back and having to wear a balaclava, if hadn't been able to pull it away from my mouth would've been game over.

 

[NorthOxonian]

Not necessarily a bad thing, a major contributor to environmental damage is overconsumption by rich Western countries.

It's a symbol? Really? I just see it as an extra bit of clothing. I admit I don't get much of the emotional stuff that seems to inflict many people. If I have to wear a mask to go shopping, I will, I am not going to restrict my life any more than I have too just to try and feel like I am making a point or fighting a battle against authority.

I'm sorry but I disagree. While masks do have a small impact on transmission, I think they're dehumanising. It isn't as if other pieces of clothes cover the one part of us which is most unique, and where most of our non-verbal communication comes from. This is another difference between us and some Asian countries - apparently there much more non-verbal communication is done through the eyes so face coverings aren't quite as intrusive.

While I'm willing to endure this for a few months, I'd be desparately sad if we became a masked dystopia for the rest of our lives. Imagine never seeing another smile, or properly seeing anyone's face in public - that horrible thought should convince you we shouldn't mandate masks for a moment longer than necessary.

 

[Ianno87]

I'm sorry but I disagree. While masks do have a small impact on transmission, I think they're dehumanising. It isn't as if other pieces of clothes cover the one part of us which is most unique, and where most of our non-verbal communication comes from. This is another difference between us and some Asian countries - apparently there much more non-verbal communication is done through the eyes so face coverings aren't quite as intrusive.

While I'm willing to endure this for a few months, I'd be desparately sad if we became a masked dystopia for the rest of our lives. Imagine never seeing another smile, or properly seeing anyone's face in public - that horrible thought should convince you we shouldn't mandate masks for a moment longer than necessary.

I'm only pro-mask on the presumption to it is a temporary, needs-must requirement.

If they're still around in 2024, I'd find it hard to believe their removal wouldn't become political by the point for the General Election.

 

[duncanp]

I saw Boots yesterday were selling boxes of them for £30/£35 a go...

Which then raises the question of "mask poverty".

If you follow the rules to the letter, you might end up needing four or five masks per day, so a box of 50 masks would only last 10 days, which then means you might have to spend up to £90 per month on masks just for yourself, never mind your partner or children.

Yes, you can buy cloth masks which can be washed, but they tend to be more expensive, and you would still need quite a few depending on how often you can do your washing.

 

[Ianno87]

Which then raises the question of "mask poverty".

If you follow the rules to the letter, you might end up needing four or five masks per day, so a box of 50 masks would only last 10 days, which then means you might have to spend up to £90 per month on masks just for yourself, never mind your partner or children.

Yes, you can buy cloth masks which can be washed, but they tend to be more expensive, and you would still need quite a few depending on how often you can do your washing.

You can make your own.

A bit like how you cook your own food, rather than buying McDonalds every night.

Or scarves, bandanas etc are acceptable. It doesn't have to be a mask.

 

[LAX54]

I would argue without a change in the 'R' no change is neccessary.

Cases are still falling, deaths are falling, the 'R' is below 1.

IF (and only if) it starts to go back, THEN mandate masks IF the science proves this will be effective, otherwise this is pointless, has no effect, and makes life much more uncomfortable in many ways.

We have not had masks since the outbreak, we did have lockdown for 3 months, but thousands, if not hundreds of thousands were still working away from home, we then had May NBank Holiday when the beaches went mental, then again in June beaches packed, we had the protests where again there were thousands, it was going to result in a massive spike, which we are still waiting for some 6 weeks later, deaths are down to 85, which includes from COVID and with COVID, so not sure what the actual benefit is, apart from shopworkers will no longer have to wear them at at work !