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

[Jonny]

Be prepared for the areas covered by the "mask rule" to expand rather than contract.

It would be nigh on impossible to wear a mask when running or on a cycle-run.

 

[Scrotnig]

I think the harsh reality is, mandatory mask wearing is NEVER going to be lifted.

Compliance may well fade away but there will always be a vocal minority shouting about killing people....even if this virus is completely eradicated (which it won't be), there are others such as flu that will be used to justify keeping this awful muzzling of people in place.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would be nigh on impossible to wear a mask when running or on a cycle-run.

That's quite unlikely, though I think some US states (and campaigners) do favour it. To be fair, some cyclists do wear anti pollution masks, though they are valved so no use for COVID purposes. But it's generally felt that most spread occurs indoors.

That it might extend to all public indoor spaces is not unlikely. They might also ask that you do it when having friends over indoors, but it's hardly enforceable, if you close the curtains who is going to know?

 

[Scrotnig]

Be prepared for the areas covered by the "mask rule" to expand rather than contract.

Inded.

The next one will be workplaces.

Then it will be 'all public places', eg parks, pavements.

There is even a noisy group of people that are demanding it be mandatory inside your own home.

 

[Scrotnig]

That's quite unlikely, though I think some US states (and campaigners) do favour it. To be fair, some cyclists do wear anti pollution masks, though they are valved so no use for COVID purposes. But it's generally felt that most spread occurs indoors.

That it might extend to all public indoor spaces is not unlikely. They might also ask that you do it when having friends over indoors, but it's hardly enforceable, if you close the curtains who is going to know?

There is absolutely NO way I will tolerate them mandating what I wear in the privacy of my home. No way at all. They can go whistle for that.

 

[trebor79]

That it might extend to all public indoor spaces is not unlikely. They might also ask that you do it when having friends over indoors, but it's hardly enforceable, if you close the curtains who is going to know?

Can the government tell you how to behave in your own home? Genuine question.
If you invite people over and there's a disagreement about mask wearing, the visitors are free to leave, or the host to chuck them out. It's a bit different to public buildings.
Not that anybody would comply and I highly doubt there would be any enforcement activity whatsoever. That would be the definition of a police state.

 

[birchesgreen]

They'll probably ban curtains and locked doors so Mask Inspector Strike Squads can spot check citizen compliance and keep everyone SAFE.

 

[al78]

There are some who feel like those in this thread:

Hundreds gather in Hyde Park to protest against wearing masks

Hundreds of people have gathered in Hyde Park in central London to protest against wearing masks.Crowds started congregating at about 1pm on Sunday ahead of an expected march organised by campaign gro...

uk.yahoo.com

Unless you want to be infuriated, don't look at the comments section.

 

[al78]

Can the government tell you how to behave in your own home? Genuine question.
If you invite people over and there's a disagreement about mask wearing, the visitors are free to leave, or the host to chuck them out. It's a bit different to public buildings.
Not that anybody would comply and I highly doubt there would be any enforcement activity whatsoever. That would be the definition of a police state.

They can pass laws which prohibit you from causing harm or a nuisance to others, for example, you're not allowed to rape someone in the privacy of your home, and you can't have loud parties through the night (at least repeatedly).

 

[Huntergreed]

They can pass laws which prohibit you from causing harm to others, for example, you wouldn't be allowed to rape someone in the privacy of your home.

I feared this answer. Technically not wearing a mask is viewed as “causing harm” to others. Does this mean the inevitable is inevitable?

If they do do this, I won’t think twice about leaving and not coming back!

 

[DB]

I feared this answer. Technically not wearing a mask is viewed as “causing harm” to others. Does this mean the inevitable is inevitable?

By this logic, driving a car is causing harm due to the pollution and the risk of an accident which injures someone.

The risk involved with cars is actually demonstrable, whereas the theoretical risk of passing this virus on to someone in the supermarket has not actually been demonstrated to have happened...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Can the government tell you how to behave in your own home? Genuine question.

Can it legally? Yes. Murder, for example, is not allowed in a private home.

Will it? Unlikely in this case. They might ask or suggest but would be very unlikely to legislate.

 

[trebor79]

They can pass laws which prohibit you from causing harm or a nuisance to others, for example, you're not allowed to rape someone in the privacy of your home, and you can't have loud parties through the night (at least repeatedly).

I feared this answer. Technically not wearing a mask is viewed as “causing harm” to others. Does this mean the inevitable is inevitable?

If they do do this, I won’t think twice about leaving and not coming back!

But you're allowed to smoke in your own home. That demonstrably causes harm to others. Not wearing a mask won't harm anyone if you aren't infected (if the stupid thing makes a difference anyway)
And in any case there's no law that says you can't have visitors to your home if you are suffering from measles, flu or any other disease, which can be fatal to some people.
I hate the mask mandates, but I'd be astounded if it became law to wear at home.

 

[Ianno87]

Just chucking this into the discussion, and then going to swiftly exit again....

Oxford COVID-19 study: face masks and coverings work – act now

Cloth face coverings, even homemade masks made of the correct material, are effective in reducing the spread of COVID-19 - for the wearer and those around them - according to a new study from Oxford’s Leverhulme Centre for Demographic Science.

www.ox.ac.uk

Cloth face coverings, even homemade masks made of the correct material, are effective in reducing the spread of COVID-19 - for the wearer and those around them - according to a new study from Oxford’s Leverhulme Centre for Demographic Science.

(Continues)

 

[MikeWM]

Just chucking this into the discussion, and then going to swiftly exit again....

Oxford COVID-19 study: face masks and coverings work – act now

Cloth face coverings, even homemade masks made of the correct material, are effective in reducing the spread of COVID-19 - for the wearer and those around them - according to a new study from Oxford’s Leverhulme Centre for Demographic Science.

www.ox.ac.uk

Oh look, another set of behavioural scientists!

But the report finds that face covering policy has been impacted by a lack of clear recommendations, likely because of an ‘over-reliance on an evidence-based approach and assertion that evidence was weak due to few conclusive RCT (randomized control trial) results in community settings, discounting high quality non-RCT evidence’.
Professor Mills insists this should not be the sole consideration, ‘RCTs don’t fit well when looking at behaviour and it was clear that high quality observational and behavioural research had been largely discarded.

Throwing away the scientific method like this is really dangerous, but if it fits the agenda......

 

[Bantamzen]

Oh look, another set of behavioural scientists!



Throwing away the scientific method like this is really dangerous, but if it fits the agenda......

Hmmm, indeed. Its telling that the paper behind the article seems to spend a lot more time on how to impose masks than the actual evidence they are effective in limiting spread. As with everything else like this, it seems to be saying "we're not entirely sure, but everyone else is doing it" which is pretty much the mask mantra.

 

[DB]

Oh look, another set of behavioural scientists!

Throwing away the scientific method like this is really dangerous, but if it fits the agenda......

Indeed. I will read it in full later, but just had a look through the actual paper (download link on that news article) and it's not at all convincing. A large part of it focuses on what countries are doing in terms of mandating it, with the implication that it lots are doing it then it must be effective. I would also point to the description of the four studies on which the whole paper is based (page 7, table 1). Of these, three look at healthcare workers and show that masks had an impact. In this sort of situation, where there will be a high incidence of actual infections, people particularly at risk of infection, close contact, and the healthcare professionals will know how to use masks properly, and it's highly likely that there is a benefit - I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise, and it's why masks in healthcare have been the norm for a long time. However, even in this case the fourth study noted that masks "did not significantly decrease the risk of infection in health care setting".

So from a first reading of this paper, it appears to show that a meta analysis of only four studies shows that in 75% of the studies masks appeared to be of benefit in a healthcare setting. This appears to have been extrapolated somehow to argue that they are of benefit amoung the general public...

 

[westv]

Hmmm, indeed. Its telling that the paper behind the article seems to spend a lot more time on how to impose masks than the actual evidence they are effective in limiting spread. As with everything else like this, it seems to be saying "we're not entirely sure, but everyone else is doing it" which is pretty much the mask mantra.

Another research group wanting to get their name in the news!

 

[LAX54]

Indeed. I will read it in full later, but just had a look through the actual paper (download link on that news article) and it's not at all convincing. A large part of it focuses on what countries are doing in terms of mandating it, with the implication that it lots are doing it then it must be effective. I would also point to the description of the four studies on which the whole paper is based (page 7, table 1). Of these, three look at healthcare workers and show that masks had an impact. In this sort of situation, where there will be a high incidence of actual infections, people particularly at risk of infection, close contact, and the healthcare professionals will know how to use masks properly, and it's highly likely that there is a benefit - I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise, and it's why masks in healthcare have been the norm for a long time. However, even in this case the fourth study noted that masks "did not significantly decrease the risk of infection in health care setting".

So from a first reading of this paper, it appears to show that a meta analysis of only four studies shows that in 75% of the studies masks appeared to be of benefit in a healthcare setting. This appears to have been extrapolated somehow to argue that they are of benefit amoung the general public...

Don't think there has been any dispute they work in a medical setting, which of course is why they wear them but also dispose of them after every interaction with a patient, so worn not much more than 15 mins or so, plus of course they are also there to protect from other medical nasties that maybe far worse than C-19, I can see the public getting the 'disposable' ones and just use them all day, if not more ! and of course the home made ones must be made of the right material, we have a few here at work showing us what they plan to use, which is a stretchy type material, but when worn, toy can see the 'holes' that make it stretch !

 

[Bantamzen]

Indeed. I will read it in full later, but just had a look through the actual paper (download link on that news article) and it's not at all convincing. A large part of it focuses on what countries are doing in terms of mandating it, with the implication that it lots are doing it then it must be effective. I would also point to the description of the four studies on which the whole paper is based (page 7, table 1). Of these, three look at healthcare workers and show that masks had an impact. In this sort of situation, where there will be a high incidence of actual infections, people particularly at risk of infection, close contact, and the healthcare professionals will know how to use masks properly, and it's highly likely that there is a benefit - I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise, and it's why masks in healthcare have been the norm for a long time. However, even in this case the fourth study noted that masks "did not significantly decrease the risk of infection in health care setting".

So from a first reading of this paper, it appears to show that a meta analysis of only four studies shows that in 75% of the studies masks appeared to be of benefit in a healthcare setting. This appears to have been extrapolated somehow to argue that they are of benefit amoung the general public...

I've only briefly looked at it too, but I do agree that the actual evidence really doesn't back up the assertion that mask wearing in public makes any difference, with most of the studies looking at medical masks in medical environments.

Another research group wanting to get their name in the news!

It certainly seems that way. I wonder how many more will come out of the woodwork with more copy & paste science?

 

[baz962]

They can pass laws which prohibit you from causing harm or a nuisance to others, for example, you're not allowed to rape someone in the privacy of your home, and you can't have loud parties through the night (at least repeatedly).

Bit different though , as the victims can complain in the music/ sexual assault scenario. If you close curtains , then there are no witnesses to the mask compliance.

 

[Huntergreed]

Bit different though , as the victims can complain in the music/ sexual assault scenario. If you close curtains , then there are no witnesses to the mask compliance.

If you catch the virus, you could potentially complain that masks were not worn.

 

[baz962]

If you catch the virus, you could potentially complain that masks were not worn.

If you were in my house. If I don't have anyone in , then there is nothing to see here.

 

[MikeWM]

I've re-read the quote I mentioned above and I don't think I realised first time around quite how chilling it actually is

'over-reliance on an evidence-based approach'

This is (supposed) *scientists* saying this. Do they understand what science actually is? A rerun of the dark ages is quickly approaching.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you catch the virus, you could potentially complain that masks were not worn.

Yes, though like with smoking you're under no obligation or pressure to be in that home. You can always tell the person to get lost and go home, or if someone lights up in your house you can chuck them out.

Protecting children is where it gets blurry, many people do support the idea that it should be illegal to smoke indoors in any setting in the presence of children, and I would to be honest be inclined to agree, as mostly children are not in a position to make that choice. So yes, I would say it should be illegal to smoke in your own house (though not in the garden) if anyone under 18 lives there; I personally consider it a form of child abuse to do so.

As children are at low risk from COVID, this would not be a sensible motivation for such a law, though.

 

[Bantamzen]

I've re-read the quote I mentioned above and I don't think I realised first time around quite how chilling it actually is

'over-reliance on an evidence-based approach'

This is (supposed) *scientists* saying this. Do they understand what science actually is? A rerun of the dark ages is quickly approaching.

I'm sure they will come up with some other ideas like the compulsory wearing of crucifixes, throwing people in lakes to see if they have covid, and of course mandatory pot banging....

 

[Huntergreed]

Interestingly, I took a scroll down the Facebook comments of an article on mask mandation today, and the vast majority of the comments were against mandating masks. This is the first I’ve seen this, normally it’s pro-restrictions in the comments. A lot of people saying the law is “pointless”, that masks “don’t work” and that people are sick of restrictions being imposed and simply want a return to normality.

It does beg the question, as a democratic society, are the government actually placing the interests of the majority of the public at heart? I don’t believe so anymore.

 

[Huntergreed]

Observations from my shopping trip today in Scotland:

I must admit, they're awfully uncomfortable and I will be shopping online and only going in when I absolutely have to until this bizarre legislation is lifted. All in all, compliance was around 90% in store, with those who were not wearing one pulled up by the security guard on entry and asked what their exemption was (I'm not sure if this is allowed, but the guidance is so vague these days who knows).

In the store, most people were fiddling with their masks (myself included). It's impossible not to after a while, it just gets too uncomfortable. A lot of people not wearing them correctly (nose not covered). I really, truly don't believe that this law is going to have any positive effect on the statistics (if anything, given the amount of fiddling going on combined with touching common surfaces, I believe it may actually increase the risk, but that's just a personal opinion).

The sooner that this law is lifted and the government stop forcing us to accept no risk the better.

 

[John Luxton]

Observations from my shopping trip today in Scotland:

I must admit, they're awfully uncomfortable and I will be shopping online and only going in when I absolutely have to until this bizarre legislation is lifted. All in all, compliance was around 90% in store, with those who were not wearing one pulled up by the security guard on entry and asked what their exemption was (I'm not sure if this is allowed, but the guidance is so vague these days who knows).

In the store, most people were fiddling with their masks (myself included). It's impossible not to after a while, it just gets too uncomfortable. A lot of people not wearing them correctly (nose not covered). I really, truly don't believe that this law is going to have any positive effect on the statistics (if anything, given the amount of fiddling going on combined with touching common surfaces, I believe it may actually increase the risk, but that's just a personal opinion).

The sooner that this law is lifted and the government stop forcing us to accept no risk the better.

I visited an artisan bakery somewhere in Wales on Saturday, one I visit regularly when in the particular area.

Interesting to note the shop looked exactly the same as it did when I was in there a couple of days before the lockdown started. No plastic screens, Payment in cash - does not take cards - no PPE in evidence.

The proprietor is very chatty and I asked him how he had got by over the lock down. He told me he was able to stay open throughout the lockdown. Now given there were obviously no precautions being taken he had obviously survived without all all the fuss.

It was just 100% normal / normal not new normal.

A really pleasant experience.

John

 

[VauxhallandI]

Bloke outside Wetherspoons today over heard saying “I aint got it so what’s the point in wearing a mask”

As long as we share the earth with idiots I am resigned to think there is little point in anything, mask wise or otherwise