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

[AdamWW]

Is the correct answer. As you say, as the number come down R will fluctuate with localised spikes, rising quickly before dropping away as quickly. This was demonstrated in Germany a few weeks when the media went into a frenzy when in rose to 2.8 there briefly, before quickly dropping back below 1 as has done her.

But that does not mean that the overall averaged value isn't significant.

If it goes above 1, infections will rise increasingly rapidly.

Or if you don't want to think about R, look at infection levels. If they start to consistently rise, then unless something changes that rise is going to keep on going and to accelerate.

 

[Bantamzen]

But that does not mean that the overall averaged value isn't significant.

If it goes above 1, infections will rise increasingly rapidly.

Or if you don't want to think about R, look at infection levels. If they start to consistently rise, then unless something changes that rise is going to keep on going and to accelerate.

Yes but it cannot be used in isolation, specially when you have measures in place to handle localised spikes because the values will swing wildly.

 

[Huntergreed]

Even if it gets more people back in shops, improving the economy with all the advantages that brings?

Yes, even if it does have an economic benefit, no law or legislation should be rushed through parliament without proper scrutiny from both sides of the house.

I'm quite shocked that, in this instance, neither the government nor the opposition batted an eyelid to the mandation of masks and both sides seem to view it as a positive move.

Also, there are many people on this forum that have said, like myself, they'll be much less inclined to go out shopping whilst this law is in place, so I wouldn't necessarily agree that it will get more people in shops (in Scotland footfall has decreased quite a bit in my own observations).

 

[trebor79]

Even if it is, if it works, great.

No, not great. If masks are nothing but a placebo that encourage more activity then the epidemic will take off again. I'm concerned that mass gatherings are being mooted, after some "trial events". How are they going to measure the risk of these "trial events"

 

[CaptainHaddock]

No, not great. If masks are nothing but a placebo that encourage more activity then the epidemic will take off again. I'm concerned that mass gatherings are being mooted, after some "trial events". How are they going to measure the risk of these "trial events"

Well we've had several "mass gatherings" over the past few months; VE Day, protest marches, the Dorset beach frenzy, pubs reopening en masse and not one of these events has led to a spike or increase in infections.

 

[MikeWM]

Yes, even if it does have an economic benefit, no law or legislation should be rushed through parliament without proper scrutiny from both sides of the house.

I'm quite shocked that, in this instance, neither the government nor the opposition batted an eyelid to the mandation of masks and both sides seem to view it as a positive move.

Also, there are many people on this forum that have said, like myself, they'll be much less inclined to go out shopping whilst this law is in place, so I wouldn't necessarily agree that it will get more people in shops (in Scotland footfall has decreased quite a bit in my own observations).

Indeed; this reminds me somewhat of the smoking ban in 2007 (whether you agree with it or not isn't relevant to this point

Before the ban came in, lots of people were saying how they'd be happy to regularly go to pubs if only they didn't have to put up with smoking. But once it did, these people mostly failed to materialise, or went once and then didn't go back, and meanwhile pubs lost lots of their regular customers who didn't want the inconvenience of having to pop outside all the time, especially when the weather was unpleasant.

Result : lots of pubs closed over the following few years.

I won't speak for anyone else, but certainly *I* will be shopping less going forward, just as I've been making fewer discretionary train trips than I normally would have done over the last month.

 

[MikeWM]

No, not great. If masks are nothing but a placebo that encourage more activity then the epidemic will take off again.

They don't seem to have helped much in California, for example. They mandated masks in all public places about 5 weeks ago, and daily cases have increased dramatically since then.

 

[birchesgreen]

Got to say wearing masks bothers me a lot less than i thought it would as i've gotten used to it. How easily we accept tyranny (or something )

 

[trebor79]

Had wear a mask for my haircut this morning. Didn't like it, would be even worse if a haircut didn't mean removing glasses.
My bandana has arrived, tried it and it's less unpleasant than a mask. Will not be wearing it again until next Thursday at the earliest.

 

[AdamWW]

They don't seem to have helped much in California, for example. They mandated masks in all public places about 5 weeks ago, and daily cases have increased dramatically since then.

And the evidence that they wouldn't have gone up more without them is?

 

[43066]

And the evidence that they wouldn't have gone up more without them is?

... exactly the same as they evidence they wouldn’t have gone up more of everyone had carried crucifixes.

 

[Bantamzen]

And the evidence that they wouldn't have gone up more without them is?

Isn't the theory that masks prevent people spreading the virus? So if they've been in regular use for a number of weeks, and the number of cases is still rising, doesn't that suggest they may not be as effective as claimed?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Isn't the theory that masks prevent people spreading the virus? So if they've been in regular use for a number of weeks, and the number of cases is still rises, doesn't that suggest they may not be as effective as claimed?

The problem is they've been introduced at the same time as slackening of regulations so it's hard to tell.

 

[MikeWM]

And the evidence that they wouldn't have gone up more without them is?

Exactly!!!

Goes down - must be due to the masks.
Goes up - would have been worse if not for the masks.
Neither - masks must be keeping it under control.

Or

Goes down - would have gone down quicker if not for the masks
Goes up - masks don't seem to work
Neither - masks aren't helping


*Whatever* happens, it can be used to support your side of the argument. That's why we need proper *science*, not this observational/behavioural nonsense that keeps on being pushed at us.

 

[Huntergreed]

And the evidence that they wouldn't have gone up more without them is?

This shouldn’t be the basis for introducing new laws. The basis should be that in order to prove its justifiable, evidence must be presented in support of the new law, rather than passing it unless there’s evidence against it.

I genuinely think this is a psychological exercise to encourage people back onto the streets again, but I fear it’ll have the opposite effect and I can only hope this will be lifted as soon as this happens.

 

[AdamWW]

Isn't the theory that masks prevent people spreading the virus? So if they've been in regular use for a number of weeks, and the number of cases is still rises, doesn't that suggest they may not be as effective as claimed?

Er no, not unless absolutely everything else stayed the same.

(And the principle isn't that masks prevent spread, it's that they reduces it).

 

[AdamWW]

This shouldn’t be the basis for introducing new laws. The basis should be that in order to prove its justifiable, evidence must be presented in support of the new law, rather than passing it unless there’s evidence against it.

No, it shouldn't be the basis of introducing mask laws, and you know what, I don't think it is.

But it also shouldn't be used in a rational discussion over whether masks actually help or not.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Exactly!!!

Goes down - must be due to the masks.
Goes up - would have been worse if not for the masks.
Neither - masks must be keeping it under control.

Or

Goes down - would have gone down quicker if not for the masks
Goes up - masks don't seem to work
Neither - masks aren't helping


*Whatever* happens, it can be used to support your side of the argument. That's why we need proper *science*, not this observational/behavioural nonsense that keeps on being pushed at us.

You've hit the nail on the head there. Anecdotes are useless. Small scale trials are useless. You need to do comparisons between different areas with different face covering laws, adjusting for any prior difference in health, average age, infections etc. before you can even hope to come to a half usable conclusion. Even then it's still half guesswork.

 

[Huntergreed]

No, it shouldn't be the basis of introducing mask laws, and you know what, I don't think it is.

But it also shouldn't be used in a rational discussion over whether masks actually help or not.

So are you suggesting that we should be free to pass laws unless there’s direct evidence against their effectiveness? If so that’s a very dangerous philosophy and there’s many things that could go very wrong indeed with that sort of system.

Interestingly, I’ve seen hundreds of posts saying masks reduce spread and should be mandated, but not one piece of evidence in support of this.

 

[Bantamzen]

The problem is they've been introduced at the same time as slackening of regulations so it's hard to tell.

So you are suggesting that masks don't actually help in social situations?

Er no, not unless absolutely everything else stayed the same.

(And the principle isn't that masks prevent spread, it's that they reduces it).

I know, and that hasn't happened. Ye gods, some of you guys are in the wrong job. You've both got the makings of the next Dominic Cummings with that amount of spin!!

 

[Bletchleyite]

So you are suggesting that masks don't actually help in social situations?

No, I'm suggesting that if you make a load of changes at once (say, you reopen pubs and introduce masks near enough at the same time) you don't know which thing did what.

 

[Bantamzen]

No, I'm suggesting that if you make a load of changes at once (say, you reopen pubs and introduce masks near enough at the same time) you don't know which thing did what.

California has been ordering bar closures in many counties for many weeks due to spikes, yet they continue even with the closures and masks.

 

[greyman42]

No, not great. If masks are nothing but a placebo that encourage more activity then the epidemic will take off again. I'm concerned that mass gatherings are being mooted, after some "trial events". How are they going to measure the risk of these "trial events"

At some point, in the not too distant future, you just have to risk it and see what happens. It is not possible to carry on like we are at the moment for years to come.

 

[greyman42]

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

There are a lot of people who completely agree with him.

 

[DB]

Has the legislation actually been published yet? We are assuming it'll be the same as for the trains, but with this government who knows!

 

[furlong]

Has the legislation actually been published yet?

No, because they have fallen into the bad habit of using an 'emergency' power to bypass normal parliamentary scrutiny. If they published it earlier than at the latest possible time then they wouldn't be able to maintain the 'fiction' that the matter is too urgent for there to be any time for parliament to consider it in a customary fashion.

 

[Scrotnig]

No, because they have fallen into the bad habit of using an 'emergency' power to bypass normal parliamentary scrutiny. If they published it earlier than at the latest possible time then they wouldn't be able to maintain the 'fiction' that the matter is too urgent for there to be any time for parliament to consider it in a customary fashion.

And this trend is exceptionally worrying. We have become functionally a dictatorship.

When you factor in the police trying to enforce ministerial guidelines instead of the law, you not only have a dictatorship but also a police state.

And the most worrying thing of all - the apparently huge numbers of members of the public (purportedly 70%+) who not only think this is all wonderful but want things to be even stricter.

What has happened to our country?

 

[MikeWM]

What has happened to our country?

I don't know, but it is deeply concerning. This is not a good path to be on.

 

[trebor79]

And this trend is exceptionally worrying. We have become functionally a dictatorship.


What has happened to our country?

I don't know, but it is deeply concerning. This is not a good path to be on.

Indeed. It's galling to see emergency powers being used to rule (badly) by decree.
We likely won't know what sort of face covering we are me at to wear in shops from Friday until very late on Thursday. This is to maintain the pretence that it's so urgently required that there's no time for a parliamentary debate, despite the act BoJo announced it over a week ago now.

I can see things turning very nasty very quickly once public patience tires (which it will) and the government starts to fall further out of step with public opinion (which it will). There could easily be significant civil unrest.
Who knows what might happen then. Perhaps another enabling act to deal with the unrest, lockdown, curfews, more "emergency" decrees for an indeterminate period of time.

 

[Huntergreed]

Indeed. It's galling to see emergency powers being used to rule (badly) by decree.
We likely won't know what sort of face covering we are me at to wear in shops from Friday until very late on Thursday. This is to maintain the pretence that it's so urgently required that there's no time for a parliamentary debate, despite the act BoJo announced it over a week ago now.

I can see things turning very nasty very quickly once public patience tires (which it will) and the government starts to fall further out of step with public opinion (which it will). There could easily be significant civil unrest.
Who knows what might happen then. Perhaps another enabling act to deal with the unrest, lockdown, curfews, more "emergency" decrees for an indeterminate period of time.

That’s just a recipe for a completely authoritarian society, and it’s something we must avoid at all cost.

What’s happened in the last few months is scary. We’ve essentially had a government who have used fear driven messaging to scare the population into obeying their guidance and abusing emergency legislation powers to pass laws without the appropriate justification and or/scrutiny, even scarier that the majority of the population are in favour of these restrictions and want the government to have more authority of their lives. 1984, perhaps not, but 2024?