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

[Baxenden Bank]

I've just had a wander into town. More masks than last week (when there were hardly any), but still a minority.

One thing I did notice though - several people in cars on their own, wearing masks. Why?

Well, this week I had (yet another) Amazon delivery. The van pulled up outside my house, the driver got out and pulled his mask down, handed me my parcel at arms length, then pulled his mask back up as he got into the van!

Another delivery this week and the Amazon driver had a most impressive mask on. Not quite a gas mask or respirator but most impressive nonetheless - a very rigid and tight / close fitting black number. I wish I'd taken a picture. He placed my parcel on the front path, scanned it, and retreated (which is the correct procedure).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Except they still haven't told us what will be deemed acceptable. There will be no practical notice.

It'd be rather surprising if it differed from public transport.

 

[DB]

It'd be rather surprising if it differed from public transport.

Yes, but with this government you can never be sure!

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Probably the same ones who turn into a quivering wreck if they have to pass anyone in the street. There’s still plenty of this breed around. Alleyways are a favourite when they see just how far they can press themselves in to a brick wall.

Surely they just need to take a deep breath as you approach and hold it for a good few paces afterwards ie any airborne diseased droplets will have fallen below breathing level. Or is that just too simple for them to work out? Difficult in a crowded alley with a succession of passings, but in most cases perfectly easy to achieve.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Can I give you a bit of advice? Read your sources before presenting them. In this case note the use of the words "surgical" & "medical" in the latter study. Then consider this, are masks being used by the general public to strict medical or surgical standards?

Next!

Thanks for that. Next time I need an unsolicited, incorrect and uninformed opinion I will know where to go.

Next!

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Do you find that it varies by time of day? I've noticed when doing the shopping in supermarkets that the later in the day it is, the fewer people wearing masks (this has been the case for months, and still seems pretty much the same - hardly anyone was wearing one in Tesco at about 9pm yesterday).

Not a scientific survey, but a behavioural science one, which seems entirely acceptable nowadays. Yes, I have noticed emerging research suggests face covering use declines as the hours pass. I went to Tesco on Monday morning, it was like a face-covering festival. All my recent evening trips have been relatively face-covering free.

 

[_toommm_]

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

There's also one in Leeds too (Headingley, to be specific), although that is just a line of 10 shops on Otley Road

 

[Baxenden Bank]

There's also one in Leeds too (Headingley, to be specific), although that is just a line of 10 shops on Otley Road

Please forgive my off topicness, but, from Wikipedia:

Arndale Centres were the first "American-style" malls to be built in the United Kingdom. In total twenty-two Arndales have been built in the UK, and two in Australia. The first opened in Jarrow in 1961, as a pedestrianised shopping area.

Including one in Accrington.

 

[Busaholic]

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

It's probably significant that the Police and Crime Commissioner for Devon and Cornwall, Alison Hernandez, who was elected under the Conservative banner, has been equally outspoken about the local police force not getting involved. It's not surprising to those of us living there who now see even routine police car patrols of the towns in the evening and at night withdrawn.

 

[BJames]

Have you asked them all?

No... have you?

I said

I'm not convinced all staff feel the same way

I did not say
"I'm convinced all staff don't feel the same way"

It isn't the same thing.

Missing the point anyway. I will just repeat what I said... most of the shops I have been in, the staff have not been wearing face coverings. They're not about to tell customers to wear a face covering when they are not wearing one themselves. But if they're customer facing they don't need to - they're working behind screens 99% of the time now anyway and staff stacking shelves not wearing masks will be more able to distance if a customer makes them feel uncomfortable.

 

[Jonny]

No... have you?

I said

I did not say
"I'm convinced all staff don't feel the same way"

It isn't the same thing.

Missing the point anyway. I will just repeat what I said... most of the shops I have been in, the staff have not been wearing face coverings. They're not about to tell customers to wear a face covering when they are not wearing one themselves. But if they're customer facing they don't need to - they're working behind screens 99% of the time now anyway and staff stacking shelves not wearing masks will be more able to distance if a customer makes them feel uncomfortable.

Also, even without the new regulations the staff will be subject to other laws (The Health and Safety Act 1974 and derived legislation, etc.) which means that they probably should be doing something wherever possible.

 

[Pete_uk]

Probably the same ones who turn into a quivering wreck if they have to pass anyone in the street. There’s still plenty of this breed around. Alleyways are a favourite when they see just how far they can press themselves in to a brick wall.

Or in my case on Tuesday, a shy looking woman who pushed herself into a bush at the side of the two meter wide path.

 

[duncanp]

The madness continues and gets worse.

The Telegraph is now reporting that masks muzzles will now become compulsory in takeaways and sandwich shops so that if, for example, you visit McDonalds/Costa Coffee you will have to

• Wear a mask muzzle if you want to order from the counter and take the food away
• Sit down straight away for table service if you want to eat in. If you eat in, they will graciously allow you not to wear a mask muzzle.

I can't see this being enforced rigorously, especially in small independent sandwich shops and cafes.

This time, the lunatics really have taken over the asylum.

Access Restricted

Customers will be required to wear a face mask in takeaways and sandwich shops under laws to be introduced on Friday, The Telegraph understands.
Buying food from the counter and then sitting down to eat will be banned. Takeaways with seating inside will be counted as shops, where masks will become compulsory.
A government source said only premises with table service would not require masks, adding that customers would not be allowed to come in, buy a sandwich at the till, then sit down.
“You have to sit down straight away if you are going to eat in. If you can sit at a table, you don’t need to wear a mask,” the source said.
They would be subject to existing rules, requiring the taking of customers’ details in case of an outbreak.
It would mean customers in McDonald’s, for example, would have to wear a mask while ordering at the counter for a takeaway, or sit down for table service if they wanted to eat indoors, which the chain said it would offer to take part in the Chancellor’s August voucher scheme.

The Government changed the rules on masks as part of a range of measures to avoid a second Covid-19 wave in the winter. On Wednesday night Boris Johnson told backbench Tory MPs that he could not ease the rules too quickly or the country would risk a spike in cases, such as has occurred in America.
Although the Government last week announced that face masks would be compulsory in shops, there has been confusion over whether takeaways will be included. It caused a split in government, with Downing Street claiming masks would not be compulsory in takeaways, but Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary, insisting they would.
Mr Hancock will publish an order that will amend the Public Health Act 1984 to make face masks compulsory in shops. People without one will face fines of up to £100. Children under 11 and those with disabilities are exempt. Shoppers can also be turned away at tills if they are not wearing a mask, The Telegraph understands. However, the legal responsibility to wear masks will fall on the individual, not the shops. “We’re not expecting businesses to become police officers,” a minister said.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A takeaway is a shop selling hot food, so I see no reason it should not be subject to the same rules as a shop.

You can't wear a mask while eating food, so this is a sensible exception for a sit-in restaurant, however other mitigations must be in place such as the arrangement of the tables.

 

[adc82140]

This is only clarifying the Gove exemption. It seems he lost the argument on this one. So therefore my theory of whatever Gove says or does expect the opposite still stands.

 

[trebor79]

The madness continues and gets worse.

The Telegraph is now reporting that masks muzzles will now become compulsory in takeaways and sandwich shops so that if, for example, you visit McDonalds/Costa Coffee you will have to

• Wear a mask muzzle if you want to order from the counter and take the food away
• Sit down straight away for table service if you want to eat in. If you eat in, they will graciously allow you not to wear a mask muzzle.

I can't see this being enforced rigorously, especially in small independent sandwich shops and cafes.

This time, the lunatics really have taken over the asylum.

Access Restricted

A takeaway is a shop selling hot food, so I see no reason it should not be subject to the same rules as a shop.

You can't wear a mask while eating food, so this is a sensible exception for a sit-in restaurant, however other mitigations must be in place such as the arrangement of the tables.

I guess the line has to be drawn somewhere, and although I disagree with the mask mandate, I agree that a takeaway is essentially a shop.
What I don't understand however, is the 'logic' that means you are banned from buying your sandwich at the counter in Pret, then sitting down to eat it. I can only assume they are trying to discourage people from sitting in an eating, expecting that lots of places won't bother to do table service. It's completely at odds with "Eat Out to Help Out" but I long ago stopped expecting anything coherent to emanate from Boris & co on this.
I also wonder how this will be legislated, or whether it will be by way of "rules" and "guidance" that have no legal basis but a large proportion of the public believe are law.

 

[duncanp]

A takeaway is a shop selling hot food, so I see no reason it should not be subject to the same rules as a shop.

You can't wear a mask while eating food, so this is a sensible exception for a sit-in restaurant, however other mitigations must be in place such as the arrangement of the tables.

But some places such as Caffe Nero and Pret A Manger function as both takeaways and sit in cafes.

I suspect what will happen in practice is that if you want to eat in, you will go up to the counter, place your order and pay, and then the food and drink will be brought to your table, rather like what happens when you order something that has to be heated up.

 

[adc82140]

If there's one silver lining from all this, I find table service far more civilised.

 

[talldave]

Apologies as it's probably already been said, but it's a bit late. If it was going to become compulsory it should have been introduced months ago!

If masks were effective and necessary then it would have been logical to mandate them in March. But think back and consider what a big ask that would have been and the push back against it. Now, after months of fear inducing propaganda and media coverage we've been softened up to the extent that probably a majority of people will blindly obey like sheep without question.

So now we find ourselves muzzled without even being told why - in terms of measurable metrics - which conveniently means there's no exit strategy. Infection levels have reduced whilst we've all been shopping without masks. In the areas I'm monitoring we're almost at the point of a whole week without a new positive case.

The doom & gloom merchants told us that visiting the beach would cause a huge surge in cases, it didn't. They said street protests would cause a surge, they didn't. They predicted a surge when the pubs opened, it didn't happen.

My back of envelope calculations tell me that at current infection levels it'll take me 50 years of Sainsbury's trips before I encounter an infected person. By next week it'll probably be 75 years. Sadly, in the world of reality I'll probably never get to meet my infected person because one or other of us will have died first from other causes.

So whilst many people will be bowing to the irrational request to muzzle up with an ineffective face covering to protect themselves against an infinitessimally small risk, I am not a sheep.

 

[Huntergreed]

If masks were effective and necessary then it would have been logical to mandate them in March. But think back and consider what a big ask that would have been and the push back against it. Now, after months of fear inducing propaganda and media coverage we've been softened up to the extent that probably a majority of people will blindly obey like sheep without question.

So now we find ourselves muzzled without even being told why - in terms of measurable metrics - which conveniently means there's no exit strategy. Infection levels have reduced whilst we've all been shopping without masks. In the areas I'm monitoring we're almost at the point of a whole week without a new positive case.

The doom & gloom merchants told us that visiting the beach would cause a huge surge in cases, it didn't. They said street protests would cause a surge, they didn't. They predicted a surge when the pubs opened, it didn't happen.

My back of envelope calculations tell me that at current infection levels it'll take me 50 years of Sainsbury's trips before I encounter an infected person. By next week it'll probably be 75 years. Sadly, in the world of reality I'll probably never get to meet my infected person because one or other of us will have died first from other causes.

So whilst many people will be bowing to the irrational request to muzzle up with an ineffective face covering to protect themselves against an infinitessimally small risk, I am not a sheep.

I completely agree with regards to all your comments, 4 months of fear driven messaging has turned the population into a group of schoolchildren, following the rules without being told why they exist by those “in the know” (I question that very much).

I’m surprised there‘s been so little back-lash, not only at the rule itself, but the fact that it has been rushed through the “emergency” procedures, bypassing any proper opportunity for scrutiny (is it really still an “emergency”?)

 

[DB]

I’m surprised there‘s been so little back-lash, not only at the rule itself, but the fact that it has been rushed through the “emergency” procedures, bypassing any proper opportunity for scrutiny (is it really still an “emergency”?)

I don't think the legislation has actually been published yet, has it?

 

[Huntergreed]

I don't think the legislation has actually been published yet, has it?

Not yet - in the normal lockdown style, the legislation won’t be published until later today, offering absolutely no chance for adequate preparation before it comes into force tomorrow.

 

[Richard Scott]

I completely agree with regards to all your comments, 4 months of fear driven messaging has turned the population into a group of schoolchildren, following the rules without being told why they exist by those “in the know” (I question that very much).

I’m surprised there‘s been so little back-lash, not only at the rule itself, but the fact that it has been rushed through the “emergency” procedures, bypassing any proper opportunity for scrutiny (is it really still an “emergency”?)

To be honest the schoolchildren I've encountered are infinitely better behaved and more sensible than some of the ridiculous adult behaviour I've witnessed!!!!

 

[talldave]

I’m surprised there‘s been so little back-lash, not only at the rule itself, but the fact that it has been rushed through the “emergency” procedures, bypassing any proper opportunity for scrutiny (is it really still an “emergency”?)

Whilst I fully agree with you, I'm not sure I know how to back-lash against government pushing democracy aside - other than simply not obeying. It feels like we're setting a dangerous precedent, but I'm no historian so I don't know. But with laws being forced upon us that bypass the normal democratic process, it feels like we're in North Korea [or some other suitably dictatorial country].

 

[island]

Not yet - in the normal lockdown style, the legislation won’t be published until later today, offering absolutely no chance for adequate preparation before it comes into force tomorrow.

If someone were organised enough, a judicial review could be taken against the use of the emergency procedure to avoid the scrutiny of the regulations in the House of Commons.

 

[Huntergreed]

If someone were organised enough, a judicial review could be taken against the use of the emergency procedure to avoid the scrutiny of the regulations in the House of Commons.

I doubt this would be followed through if there was one sadly, as this is what happened when the government’s right to impose restrictions like this was challenged earlier.

 

[Scrotnig]

There won't be any sort of backlash against this unless it causes people to stay away from shops, takeaways, cafes etc in such numbers that loads of them go bust and large numbers of people lose their jobs.
Then and only then can I see some of the "masks everywhere even in your own house you murderer" types starting to wake up to reality. Even then it's not certain.

There's no reversing any of this. The government is drunk on the power of it all. They now literally control every tiny detail of our lives. How many people you can have at a wedding, whether you can sing in a church, the number of people you can have in your own house and what relationship they have to be to you. And every single one of these "freedoms" they have graciously given back to us can be removed on a whim at a moment's notice and we can be returned to house arrest.

This is the society we now live in for many years to come, and the public are not only lapping it up, they are demanding more of it. I am totally depressed by the whole thing.

 

[duncanp]

This is the society we now live in for many years to come, and the public are not only lapping it up, they are demanding more of it. I am totally depressed by the whole thing.

Couldn't agree with you more.

No doubt when football fans are eventually allowed to return to stadiums they will be told to wear masks muzzles.

Good luck with trying to enforce that.

 

[adc82140]

I think the removal of furlough in October will change a lot of people's attitudes.

 

[Huntergreed]

Couldn't agree with you more.

No doubt when football fans are eventually allowed to return to stadiums they will be told to wear masks muzzles.

Good luck with trying to enforce that.

I saw on BBC Breakfast this morning, when they reopen theatres they’re considering mandating masks there, so I imagine this is inevitable sadly.