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

[Bletchleyite]

OED: prophylactic: adj. Protecting against disease, tending to prevent disease. Hence more widely: preservative, precautionary.
treatment: 3. Management in the application of remedies; medical or surgical application or service.

So another neat little paradox for the lawyers - like the fact that, in law, the government has kept all schools open to all students throughout this - and you can start to understand why TfL chose to issue a safety notice.

A vaccine is very specifically something that you take once, or if necessary periodically, to develop immunity against an infectious disease of some kind, be that viral, bacterial, fungal or parasitic. Specifically, it does so by a mechanism involving the immune system.

A prophylactic is where you take, on an ongoing, frequent basis, a medicine of some kind to prevent such a disease developing - in this case there's no effect on the immune system, what you're effectly doing is taking treatment for the disease in case it happens (because it happening is so disastrous), so it's effectly treated straight off and doesn't develop. Lots of examples of that too - anti-malarials, blood thinners (against clotting/strokes), PrEP against HIV etc.

A mask isn't really either.

Edit: though some refer to condoms as a prophylactic, and they are similar to masks in their purpose and mechanism...

 

[trebor79]

Edit: though some refer to condoms as a prophylactic, and they are similar to masks in their purpose and mechanism...

Exactly. And the government has never pronounced that they must legally be used, just in case one of you has HIV or some other disease.

And is it just me who can't help but think of that scene in The Blues Brothers whenever the word 'prohylactic' is used?

 

[Enthusiast]

What are the seven reasons or where can I find list, please?

This is from the legislation for public transport (in England). The shop legislation has not been published yet and will probably appear around 11:59pm next Thursday:

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings on Public Transport) (England) Regulations 2020

These Regulations require members of the public to wear face coverings whilst using public transport (such as buses, trains, the London Underground, trams, aircraft and water taxis) in England to protect against the risks to public health arising from coronavirus, except in certain limited cases.

www.legislation.gov.uk

I rather doubt if the CPS would pursue it.

So do I. Particularly if the "shops" SI follows that for public transport. That SI has been badly drafted. It says this:

"No person may, without reasonable excuse, use a public transport service without wearing a face covering."

This puts the onus on the prosecution to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant had no reasonable excuse. It is notoriously difficult to prove a negative. The defendant is not required to explain what his reasonable excuse is at the time he was stopped and he is not required to explain it in court before the prosecution ends its case. The wording of the SI requires the prosecution to prove that he had no reasonable excuse and quite how they would do that without the defendant's co-operation is a little unclear.

The SI should have been drafted along the lines of S172 of the Road Traffic Act. This requires (very broadly) the Registered Keeper of a vehicle to provide the details of the driver at the time of an alleged offence (e.g. being "flashed" by a speed camera). It says (again very broadly):

"The person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police."

There are no "ifs", no "buts". All the prosecution has to do to prove their case is to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that a notice was served and that no response was received. But the Act also goes on to say this:

"A person shall not be guilty of an offence ....above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was."

[my emphasis]

So, a get out clause (a "statutory defence"), but the burden is on the defendant to show he could not identify the driver, not on the prosecution to prove that he could. This could easily have been done with the face covering legislation, viz: "It is an offence to travel on public transport without a face covering". Then "but a person shall not be guilty of an offence if he shows that he had a reasonable excuse."

If S172 had been drafted in the same way as the face coverings SI there would never have been a successful prosecution for "failing to provide driver's details". Unless either the SI is modified or some case law from a higher court interprets it to mean that you have to prove you had a reasonable excuse when challenged I cannot see any convictions being recorded against those who simply choose to keep their "reasonable excuses" to themselves.

 

[talldave]

I've already seen an independent shop with a written sign that effectively said "everyone welcome, we don't mind whether you have a mask or not" (but in fruitier language). I hope people power can lead to the adoption of a symbol/sign that shops can use to indicate that they welcome everyone.

 

[Huntergreed]

I've already seen an independent shop with a written sign that effectively said "everyone welcome, we don't mind whether you have a mask or not" (but in fruitier language). I hope people power can lead to the adoption of a symbol/sign that shops can use to indicate that they welcome everyone.

I fear that local authorities may shut these types of places down for not being 'covid-safe'. I can only hope common sense prevails, but given what's happened so far, who knows!?

 

[DB]

I fear that local authorities may shut these types of places down for not being 'covid-safe'. I can only hope common sense prevails, but given what's happened so far, who knows!?

Provided they word it carefully they should be OK - along the lines of 'we will assume that if you are not wearing a mask then you have a valid exemption, and we will not ask you about this'

 

[talldave]

I fear that local authorities may shut these types of places down for not being 'covid-safe'. I can only hope common sense prevails, but given what's happened so far, who knows!?

Indeed, hence my hope for a symbol to represent the intention e.g. a bright orange thumbs up.

 

[westv]

Cases rising again in Japan and Hong Kong?
It seems perhaps that face coverings are not the panacea some people seem to make out them being. Perhaps an argument that, in this instance, tests done under laboratory conditions are no substitute for analysis of their effect in the real world with real people.

 

[mmh]

Exactly. And the government has never pronounced that they must legally be used, just in case one of you has HIV or some other disease.

I made that point on here months ago and was roundly pooh-poohed. Somehow that public health crisis was different, but nobody could explain how.

And is it just me who can't help but think of that scene in The Blues Brothers whenever the word 'prohylactic' is used?

For me it's the middle aged Welsh couple in Fawlty Towers who having to leave after Basil trying to hide the corpse in their room say they'll try "the place by the prophylactic emporium."

 

[VauxhallandI]

I’m glad Surgeons and theatre staff have managed to get over the inconveniences of wearing a mask over the years; it must be far easier than the twenty minute torture some will have to go through in WH Smith.

If it doesn’t help it doesn’t help but whilst there is a chance I really don’t see what the problem is? If I’m willing to over look Johnson and his bunch of country destroyers then you Tory folks have a duty to?

 

[Scrotnig]

I’m glad Surgeons and theatre staff have managed to get over the inconveniences of wearing a mask over the years; it must be far easier than the twenty minute torture some will have to go through in WH Smith.

Again, some people cannot do so for various legitimate reasons.

Just because it's no issue to you, doesn't mean it's no issue to others.

If it doesn’t help it doesn’t help but whilst there is a chance I really don’t see what the problem is?

The problem is that we shouldn't be imposing such a substantial restriction on the public 'just in case'.

 

[Yew]

I’m glad Surgeons and theatre staff have managed to get over the inconveniences of wearing a mask over the years; it must be far easier than the twenty minute torture some will have to go through in WH Smith.

If it doesn’t help it doesn’t help but whilst there is a chance I really don’t see what the problem is? If I’m willing to over look Johnson and his bunch of country destroyers then you Tory folks have a duty to?

Because it costs hundreds of millions of pounds to mask everyone? ~50 Million adults at £5 for a reusable mask suddenly becomes £250 million. All for a measure that probably doesn't work, for a virus less than 1/4000 of us have, in a situation that doesn't seem to be a major driver of infection.

 

[Huntergreed]

Again, some people cannot do so for various legitimate reasons.

Just because it's no issue to you, doesn't mean it's no issue to others.


The problem is that we shouldn't be imposing such a substantial restriction on the public 'just in case'.

This is a modern democracy, in a democracy, the government has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the restrictions they are imposing are necessary for public health, and the restrictions shouldn’t be in place for a moment longer than absolutely necessary. This hasn’t happened this time, and I don’t feel comfortable that the government are now passing laws with no scientific basis which restrict our lives more “just in case”, that’s not, and shouldn’t be, how it works.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Percentage of people who cannot v will not?

 

[Richard Scott]

I’m glad Surgeons and theatre staff have managed to get over the inconveniences of wearing a mask over the years; it must be far easier than the twenty minute torture some will have to go through in WH Smith.

If it doesn’t help it doesn’t help but whilst there is a chance I really don’t see what the problem is? If I’m willing to over look Johnson and his bunch of country destroyers then you Tory folks have a duty to?

There's a good reasons surgeons wear them and there's plenty of science to back it up - your skin is an excellent defence so when someone is opened up all sorts of pathogens can get in. Wearing one because one in 1000 people may have a virus that may affect 1 in 50 people in a serious way is not a good scientific reason. Please compare like for like if using an example.

 

[VauxhallandI]

This is a modern democracy, in a democracy, the government has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the restrictions they are imposing are necessary for public health, and the restrictions shouldn’t be in place for a moment longer than absolutely necessary. This hasn’t happened this time, and I don’t feel comfortable that the government are now passing laws with no scientific basis which restrict our lives more “just in case”, that’s not, and shouldn’t be, how it works.

There isn’t ever going to be an exact science on this is there?

If the just in case keeps my parents alive then I’m up for it.

We need to get things going again so why not take steps to cover our bums on that journey.

The chances of me being ill on holiday are slim but I take insurance “just in case” and put up with the monetary inconvenience. The difference being if I don’t I don’t possibly subject someone else to MY choices which could be the case here.

If you can medically wear one then get over yourselves and wear a poxy mask in a shop.

 

[VauxhallandI]

There's a good reasons surgeons wear them and there's plenty of science to back it up - your skin is an excellent defence so when someone is opened up all sorts of pathogens can get in. Wearing one because one in 1000 people may have a virus that may affect 1 in 50 people in a serious way is not a good scientific reason. Please compare like for like if using an example.

The NHS staff working 12 shifts over the last three months with no open skin.

 

[Richard Scott]

The NHS staff working 12 shifts over the last three months with no open skin.

Now you're changing it, originally you said surgeons and theatre staff.

 

[VauxhallandI]

There's a good reasons surgeons wear them and there's plenty of science to back it up - your skin is an excellent defence so when someone is opened up all sorts of pathogens can get in. Wearing one because one in 1000 people may have a virus that may affect 1 in 50 people in a serious way is not a good scientific reason. Please compare like for like if using an example.

Now you're changing it, originally you said surgeons and theatre staff.

So you point out that the example is not quite right. I accept that and find one that is and that is your retort? Although in the lens of being bothered to wear a mask it still stands up.

Are we only allowed one pop?

Don’t like the new example?

 

[Richard Scott]

So you point out that the example is not quite right. I accept that and find one that is and that is your retort?

Are we only allowed one pop?

Don’t like the new example?

I think it's reasonably obvious why NHS staff wear face masks, they are dealing with ill people in an environment where there are lots of them and dealing with them at close range maybe for a reasonable period of time. These people possibly have a suppressed immune system making them more vulnerable to any pathogen. Going about your daily life it totally different, you're not going to come into contact with these sort of people as they're not well enough to be out and spending next to no time with another person anyway. Afraid the two are just not comparable. You also know if you're working for the NHS that a facemask is part of the job and if you can't cope with that wouldn't apply to work there.

 

[birchesgreen]

What i've noticed this weekend is that people are much more likely to wear masks in non-food shops than supermarkets*, which i thought was quite interesting. Maybe because people have been used to do their "essential" shopping sans masks over the last few months.

* though neither a majority by any means

 

[Busaholic]

I've already seen an independent shop with a written sign that effectively said "everyone welcome, we don't mind whether you have a mask or not" (but in fruitier language). I hope people power can lead to the adoption of a symbol/sign that shops can use to indicate that they welcome everyone.

I was a shopkeeper for thirty years, and you have to be very careful about this sort of thing, because an individual who might be a busybody or just out to cause you grief could report you to the local council and this spells TROUBLE . A local cafe put up a sign outside once saying 'no screaming brats' or somesuch (nothing more extreme) and it made the front page of the local paper and a visit from the police ensued. He gave up the cafe a little later because of the over-reaction. Best to have no sign and let sleeping dogs lie imo... if another customer genuinely objected to someone's presence without a mask I'd have a quiet word with the 'offending' party and, if they said they were exempt, I'd communicate that to the one who'd taken umbrage. One thing I would not tolerate is the offended challenging the offender directly, as it's none of their business, and it might be the offended who is asked to leave. Broad generalisation, but 99% of the offended would probably fall into the category 'unlikely to buy anything anyway', for which my antennae got pretty accurate as time went on. It was always nice to be pleasantly surprised, though.

 

[Huntergreed]

There isn’t ever going to be an exact science on this is there?

If the just in case keeps my parents alive then I’m up for it.

We need to get things going again so why not take steps to cover our bums on that journey.

The chances of me being ill on holiday are slim but I take insurance “just in case” and put up with the monetary inconvenience. The difference being if I don’t I don’t possibly subject someone else to MY choices which could be the case here.

If you can medically wear one then get over yourselves and wear a poxy mask in a shop.

But the “just in case” might not keep your parents alive (directly anyway) the chances of meeting someone who is transmitting the virus in a shop is so, so low it’s practically negligible. There’s been no spikes to suggest that shops cause significant spread, and we’ve coped fine with shopping without masks through the peak, where the chance of catching it in a shop was much, much higher.

 

[Jamiescott1]

Currently in France and it is up to the store if they require masks or not. The chains I've been in (lidl and carrefour) require a mask, the small independents - its a mix.

Also left croatia last Monday on the day they made masks mandatory in shops - as was last day there we didn't go in many shops so no experience of how well it was enforced and followed

 

[CrispyUK]

I’m glad Surgeons and theatre staff have managed to get over the inconveniences of wearing a mask over the years; it must be far easier than the twenty minute torture some will have to go through in WH Smith.

Generally when I’m in a store, I try to avoid slicing open my fellow shoppers and poking around their insides

 

[johntea]

Walking around the Arndale centre today got me thinking, does this new guidance include the entire shopping centre complex or just to the individual shops within it?

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Walking around the Arndale centre today got me thinking, does this new guidance include the entire shopping centre complex or just to the individual shops within it?

Eastbourne right?

I went there on Friday and many shops definetly seemed open.

 

[johntea]

Close, only out by 300 miles Manchester, didn't realize 'Arndale' covered a chain of centres!

Weirdly the one shop I was hoping for, Argos, was still closed

 

[bramling]

A very posh old gentleman had a passing pop at me yesterday for walking down Southwold high street the wrong way, he probably resented me even being here mind.

I suspect some of what we’re seeing is people being emboldened enough for already-extant dislikes to become expressed in having a pop at one another, whereas previously people might have simply kept these feeling to themselves. Unfortunately the clumsy way BJ has gone about things has tended to encourage this sort of thing.

Those so inclined now have a million and one new potential reasons to be irritated with others.

 

[Bishopstone]

These people who won’t wear masks because they don’t like them, they want more evidence of efficacy, and anyway there’s nothing in it for them:

What happens when a relative is taken to hospital? Do they refuse to visit, or argue the toss with hospital staff? Or do they just mask-up and get on with it, because hospitals are somehow different and where masks - useless elsewhere - miraculously become effective?