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

[ForTheLoveOf]

1984, perhaps not, but 2024?

No, this is all happening under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984!

 

[Darandio]

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.

I really don't think that means anything at all. Read any local media over there and they are reporting as little as one third of people are bothering to wear them. Then many counties are also reporting that less than half of establishments re-opening are bothering with any safety precautions.

 

[MikeWM]

No, this is all happening under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984!

Yes :-/

Though the bits being used were actually inserted into that Act by the Health And Social Care Act 2008 (so we can blame Gordon Brown...). Does anyone have the original text of the 1984 Act? legislation.gov.uk doesn't go back far enough.

To quote from Hansard from the second reading of that bill

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm071126/debtext/71126-0007.htm

The Bill introduces measures to help to prevent and control the spread of diseases that could present significant harm to human health caused by infection and contamination. The measures in the Bill will update the existing powers and provisions in the Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984 relating to preventing and controlling disease. That legislation is clearly out of date. For instance, it allows us to regulate the risks from rag and bone men while remaining silent on the dangers of chemical and radioactive contamination.

The Bill seeks to bring our health protection into the 21st century by taking an all-hazards approach to health protection rather than by focusing only on specified diseases. That will allow a quick response to new or unknown diseases. I emphasise that the new legislation will be proportionate. We are updating the legislation to ensure that, while we have the powers needed to respond effectively to a public health threat, safeguards are written into the new legislation to ensure that the powers are used only when appropriate, and only to the extent necessary to secure the protection of public health.

Then they seem to have discussed it for all of about 40 minutes in Committee.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmpublic/health/080122/pm/80122s06.htm

The discussion there pretty much all revolves around orders made by judges. There doesn't seem to be any acknowledgement of the power-grab possible by the Government under these changes.


In conclusion, this turns out to be another 'New Labour' bit of legislation that had a far wider effect on civil liberties than they pretended at the time. In retrospect, probably the worst

 

[MikeWM]

I really don't think that means anything at all.

I agree few useful conclusions can be drawn, as I pointed out later down the thread.

Read any local media over there and they are reporting as little as one third of people are bothering to wear them. Then many counties are also reporting that less than half of establishments re-opening are bothering with any safety precautions.

In heavily-Democrat California? Surely not!

 

[island]

It isn't intended to be comfortable. It is intended to reduce spread.

We are in a very dangerous position at present - R=1, basically - that is, the virus is now bimbling along at a constant level.

Please can you:

• Cite the source for your assertion that “R=1”; and
• Specify the geography within which this assertion is said to apply?

Thanks in advance!

 

[island]

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.

I would substitute “therefore it shows we still need/don’t need masks” for “would have been worse/gone down quicker if not for the masks”, but I agree – cheap inferences from limited data are not useful.

 

[DelayRepay]

Please can you:

• Cite the source for your assertion that “R=1”; and
• Specify the geography within which this assertion is said to apply?

Thanks in advance!

See: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-r-number-in-the-uk

The number at the top (currently 0.7 - 0.9) is the UK Wide estimate.

For the regions, only one region's estimate has an upper boundary below 1.

So whilst R=1 isn't true, because R is an estimated range, it's not far off.

How reliable these estimated ranges are, and much this matters, is, of course, another different debate.

 

[AdamWW]

No, this is all happening under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984!

Which is indeed somewhat scary - that an existing law gave the government to make it illegal for people to leave their homes. Food for thought....

 

[adc82140]

Regarding R, I'll repeat what has been said many times before, and even Sky News are now quoting it as a caveat when they talk about it:

As the overall amount of infections falls, the estimated R value becomes more unreliable,and therefore less useful and is likely to fluctuate wildly.

Remember when the R value in Germany flew up to over 2. 24 hours later it was way below 1.

 

[AdamWW]

Regarding R, I'll repeat what has been said many times before, and even Sky News are now quoting it as a caveat when they talk about it:

As the overall amount of infections falls, the estimated R value becomes more unreliable,and therefore less useful and is likely to fluctuate wildly.

Though on the whole it doesn't seem to be, does it? It's stayed resolutely a bit below 1 for really rather a while. Which is a good thing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Please can you:

• Cite the source for your assertion that “R=1”; and
• Specify the geography within which this assertion is said to apply?

Thanks in advance!

The source is that the UK wide level of infections is static as per the official figures and neither reducing nor increasing.

England Summary | Coronavirus (COVID-19) in the UK

Official Coronavirus (COVID-19) disease situation dashboard with latest data in the UK.

coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk

It is with regard to the UK as a whole, on average.

 

[LAX54]

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"

I am still waiting for the 'spike' follwoing all the protests and beach gatherings in May and June ! that fell flat on it's face, as for face coverings I see they are now saying that a scarf and similar will be of no use whatsoever, which when you look at them is no surprise really !

 

[Smidster]

The source is that the UK wide level of infections is static as per the official figures and neither reducing nor increasing.

England Summary | Coronavirus (COVID-19) in the UK

Official Coronavirus (COVID-19) disease situation dashboard with latest data in the UK.

coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk

It is with regard to the UK as a whole, on average.

You can't just look at the absolute number of cases that are being recorded an make an inference about the R rate or the factors that are driving that R.

Several reasons for this:

1) Right now we do not appear to have widespread community transmission. The cases that are being recorded seem to be isolated in a relatively small number of communities (Of the 4,000 cases over the last week 33% have been in 10 LA areas and around half of LAs have seen 5 or fewer cases) and are often tied to very specific places like the meat packing place in Kirklees or the farm in Herefordshire. In such circumstances the R rate would actually be higher than 1 as we saw in Germany - that doesn't mean there is a problem providing you can find those outbreaks and prevent them becoming more widespread.

2) The other element is how we are doing on testing and the proportion of cases that are being picked up. It is very possible, given what is going on in regards to some of the intensive testing in hotspot areas, that we are finding more cases than previously. This is of course a very good thing but it doesn't mean more people are getting infected...we are just finding them. Unfortunately we don't have the data to look at the proportion of tests that are positive.

 

[trebor79]

Unfortunately we don't have the data to look at the proportion of tests that are positive.

Yes we do. It's all here:

England Summary | Coronavirus (COVID-19) in the UK

Official Coronavirus (COVID-19) disease situation dashboard with latest data in the UK.

coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk

 

[Bletchleyite]

You can't just look at the absolute number of cases that are being recorded an make an inference about the R rate or the factors that are driving that R.

I think you're getting a bit overtechnical here. I just used "R=1" as a means of saying the number of cases is roughly constant (neither climbing nor falling), which it is.

 

[talldave]

2) The other element is how we are doing on testing and the proportion of cases that are being picked up. It is very possible, given what is going on in regards to some of the intensive testing in hotspot areas, that we are finding more cases than previously. This is of course a very good thing but it doesn't mean more people are getting infected...we are just finding them. Unfortunately we don't have the data to look at the proportion of tests that are positive.

I'm puzzled by testing. My partner and some friends picked up 6 tests from a hospital, sent them back unopened and all have been informed they're positive. What's that all about?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm puzzled by testing. My partner and some friends picked up 6 tests from a hospital, sent them back unopened and all have been informed they're positive. What's that all about?

That sounds like a procedural error - why did you do that, though?

 

[Smidster]

Yes we do. It's all here:

England Summary | Coronavirus (COVID-19) in the UK

Official Coronavirus (COVID-19) disease situation dashboard with latest data in the UK.

coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk

At risk of getting into the weeds of the stats it doesn't quite give you the proportion of people who return a positive test as people can be tested more than once - so the test positive rate will always be the lower than the person level positive rate.

I don't think it is being over-technical at all - If you are going to throw around terms and stats then it seems very important to fully understand what it is, how it is calculated and the underlying factors. Especially with something like R where there is so much misunderstanding out there about what it is and how much to worry about it.

 

[talldave]

That sounds like a procedural error - why did you do that, though?

They did it to research the claims that positive test results are being artificially inflated. Claims I thought were ludicrous but results would indicate otherwise. Even more surreal for one of the group was that an Instagram post about the experiment resulted in her account being shut down. I'm the greatest of sceptics of conspiracy theories but struggle to explain their results.

Despite that, most areas are heading for a week of zero positives as the coronaphobes rub their hands with glee as the freedom to show our face is about to be taken from us.

 

[Mojo]

Police force announces they won't stop shoppers for not wearing masks

Devon and Cornwall police said its officers don't have time to respond to calls about the face coverings, unless they involve a public order offence.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Police force announces they won't crack down on shoppers not wearing masks after retailers also said their staff would not intervene

A police force has announced they won't crack down on shoppers not wearing masks in stores after retailers also said their staff would not intervene.

Devon and Cornwall police said its officers don't have time to respond to calls about the face coverings, unless they involve a public order offence.

 

[DB]

Police force announces they won't stop shoppers for not wearing masks

Devon and Cornwall police said its officers don't have time to respond to calls about the face coverings, unless they involve a public order offence.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Police force announces they won't crack down on shoppers not wearing masks after retailers also said their staff would not intervene

Hopefully all police forces will take a similarly sensible approach!

 

[Scrotnig]

Hopefully all police forces will take a similarly sensible approach!

Seems not.

The BBC are reporting:
" The Met Police commissioner says she hopes people will be "shamed" into following rules on wearing face coverings in shops when they come into force on Friday. "

Nice, thanks. Those of us with exemptions can look forward to police-approved harassment and abuse by mask vigilantes.

I wonder just how much worse this nonsense is going to get.

 

[DB]

Seems not.

The BBC are reporting:
" The Met Police commissioner says she hopes people will be "shamed" into following rules on wearing face coverings in shops when they come into force on Friday. "

Nice, thanks. Those of us with exemptions can look forward to police-approved harassment and abuse by mask vigilantes.

I wonder just how much worse this nonsense is going to get.

I wonder whether that means that they aren't actually going to enforce it and are just going to leave it to the vigilantes?

 

[Huntergreed]

I wonder whether that means that they aren't actually going to enforce it and are just going to leave it to the vigilantes?

If this is the case, that's completely unfair to all those who are genuinely exempt and is totally wrong in my opinion.

 

[DB]

If this is the case, that's completely unfair to all those who are genuinely exempt and is totally wrong in my opinion.

I agree, but the whole masks concept seems to be based around trying to 'shame' as many people as possible into it, including those who are exempt and ignoring the harm it might cause.

 

[Scrotnig]

I agree, but the whole masks concept seems to be based around trying to 'shame' as many people as possible into it, including those who are exempt and ignoring the harm it might cause.

It's entirely consistent with the government's apparent view that NOTHING matters health-wise now except Covid-19.
Everything else is being ignored or forgotten or disregarded.

Let's face it, if someone goes in a shop and is either verbally or even physically attacked by a mask vigilante, there is nothing and nobody to help them. Even if someone calls 999, by the time the police get there it'll be way too late.

Hence why people like me simply won't go in shops, or on public transport, at all. They have been effectively closed to us, with the police now supporting attacks on us if we do dare venture out.

Again I must ask - what has become of this country?

 

[Richard Scott]

If I'd read this in a book last year and someone had predicted all this would happen I'd have said not in a million years, what is happening to our society? It's becoming Lord of the Flies! Exaggeration maybe but hopefully get the idea?

 

[Huntergreed]

If I'd read this in a book last year and someone had predicted all this would happen I'd have said not in a million years, what is happening to our society? It's becoming Lord of the Flies! Exaggeration maybe but hopefully get the idea?

Haha is it such an exaggeration? A couple of kids (or they act like them) on an island trying to govern, mongering fear about the mysterious 'beast' (covid) whilst society and order collapses around them, is it really that far fetched?

Take away the murdering and the tribal aspects, and the parallels are scarily similar.

 

[DB]

Haha is it such an exaggeration? A couple of kids (or they act like them) on an island trying to govern, mongering fear about the mysterious 'beast' (covid) whilst society and order collapses around them, is it really that far fetched?

Take away the murdering and the tribal aspects, and the parallels are scarily similar.

And the fact that the 'beast' proves to be a dead pilot and therefore of no danger is also perhaps appropriate when it comes to the risk this virus poses to the majority of the population.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Haha is it such an exaggeration? A couple of kids (or they act like them) on an island trying to govern, mongering fear about the mysterious 'beast' (covid) whilst society and order collapses around them, is it really that far fetched?

Take away the murdering and the tribal aspects, and the parallels are scarily similar.

The murdering is there - think of the number of people whose lives have been needlessly shortened through the ill-conceived and totally incompetent government measures.