UK face coverings discussion

[DB]

Type "effectiveness of face masks against COVID19" into Google and the world is your oyster.

We've been through all this before - many of us on here have done just that and found no credible studies that actually demonstrate a positive impact in settings such as shops.

 

[talldave]

Exactly, some people might be able to shrug off a £100 fine but not me!

The law is pointless. Three words "I am exempt" makes you fully compliant with the law.

It's sad that millions of people have been bullied into wearing masks because of the fear of a £100 fine.

My partner was threatened with arrest or a fine by BTP. When she replied "OK which is it to be", the BTP walked away.

Quite.

It essentially comes down to "You don't agree with me so you must be stupid."

The insults are going both ways, with those agreeing with the government line and scare mongering believing that they're somehow superior to those who don't agree.

Let's see how many people swap to my side when government switch up a step with the next requirement for our police state? Everyone has a breaking point.

 

[43066]

Depends on the aim.

So, what is the aim?!

If the aim is to get back to normal life, then social distancing is going to be impossible in the medium term. Does the government think masks help with that, or doesn’t it?! If so, great, let’s abandon social distancing.

It’s all just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. We cannot carry on as we are, we don’t have a vaccine, so the virus is going to start spreading again as we open up. Maybe it’s time the government was more honest about that.

The law is pointless. Three words "I am exempt" makes you fully compliant with the law.

The only way I can see anyone being fined is if they openly admit to a police officer they they’re refusing to wear a face covering in a setting where it’s required, and specifically state that they are not within one of the exemptions.

 

[AdamWW]

We've been through all this before - many of us on here have done just that and found no credible studies that actually demonstrate a positive impact in settings such as shops.

I've just skimmed through "Face masks and coverings for the general public: Behavioural knowledge, effectiveness of cloth coverings and public messaging" from the Royal Society and British Academy.

They conclude:

Cloth face coverings are effective in reducing source virus transmission, i.e., outward protection of others, when they are of optimal material and construction (high grade cotton, hybrid and multilayer) and fitted correctly and for source protection of the wearer

The obvious argument just from the quote I gave is that probably most aren't fitted corectly.

I haven't read it carefully enough to give a comment on whether I'd agree with their methodology or not, though they no doubt have a much better idea than me on that anyway.

They do give many caveats (e.g. you shouldn't just tell people to wear them, you should tell the how, and that they help only as part of a package of measures).

 

[DB]

I haven't read it carefully enough to give a comment on whether I'd agree with their methodology or not, though they no doubt have a much better idea than me on that anyway.

That one has been discussed on here before - it's based on just four studies, all of which were in a healthcare setting (details on P7 of the report)

 

[Yew]

I've just skimmed through "Face masks and coverings for the general public: Behavioural knowledge, effectiveness of cloth coverings and public messaging" from the Royal Society and British Academy.

Isn't this the article that criticised the government for an "overreliance on an evidence based approach?"

 

[bramling]

So, what is the aim?!

If the aim is to get back to normal life, then social distancing is going to be impossible in the medium term. Does the government think masks help with that, or doesn’t it?! If so, great, let’s abandon social distancing.

It’s all just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. We cannot carry on as we are, we don’t have a vaccine, so the virus is going to start spreading again as we open up. Maybe it’s time the government was more honest about that.




The only way I can see anyone being fined is they openly admit to a police officer they they’re refusing to wear a face covering in a setting where it’s required, and are not within one of the exemptions.

So far the only mask enforcement in any setting I’ve actually seen was whilst I was at an incident with BTP present, and one of the officers - being a bit of a spare part as far as the incident itself was going as is often the case - decided to make himself useful by doing a very cursory check of passing trains. Even there all he did was point at people, mutter the word “mask” then turn away. It was made very clear what they think of it all, and needless to say none of them were wearing one themselves.

The main thing is dirty looks, that’s certainly going on, and I know we are getting occasional handles pulled - one of which caused us a 20-minute shut down the other week when the driver couldn’t get the thing to reset, needless to say a delay like that hardly benefited social distancing!

 

[MikeWM]

I've just skimmed through "Face masks and coverings for the general public: Behavioural knowledge, effectiveness of cloth coverings and public messaging" from the Royal Society and British Academy.

Haven't we looked at this one before? I already knew to turn to page 30, where it says quite clearly:

Topic : Effectiveness of cloth face coverings
Limitations : No RCTs were able to be included, with estimates come from observational research designs only. Studies all in a healthcare setting in one country. Examined SARS and H1N1 and not COVID-19 setting. Small number of studies.
Level Quality Of Evidence : Moderate-quality (to translate to public setting). No broader community settings (e.g., transport, shops) conducted as it is virtually impossible to conduct RCTs.

Deducing any effect in a train or a shop in the UK based on a small number of 'observational research' studies from healthcare settings in China does not remotely justify the conclusion that they are effective. And it is totally appalling that the Royal Society is pedalling this pseudo-science.

 

[DB]

Isn't this the article that criticised the government for an "overreliance on an evidence based approach?"

yep - second column on page 2

 

[talldave]

Since so many people are keen on motoring law analogies perhaps the solution to the fact that joe public doesn't know how to wear a mask is more laws: Dangerous Mask Wearing, Mask Wearing without due care and attention,.....

 

[trebor79]

The law is pointless. Three words "I am exempt" makes you fully compliant with the law.

Yep. That's how I comply. As someone with a scientific background I just found myself getting more and more annoyed doing the charade to comply. Plus I found got a dermatitis like itch on my face and/or had to constantly adjust the covering which I felt meant I was on balance probably more at risk of spreading something than I would by simply going "nude".

 

[AdamWW]

That one has been discussed on here before - it's based on just four studies, all of which were in a healthcare setting (details on P7 of the report)

So it is. Hmmmm.

 

[AdamWW]

Since so many people are keen on motoring law analogies perhaps the solution to the fact that joe public doesn't know how to wear a mask is more laws: Dangerous Mask Wearing, Mask Wearing without due care and attention,.....

Or an information campaign on how to wear them?

I'm sure this government can come up with a catchy slogan along the lines of "clunk, click".

 

[trebor79]

The main thing is dirty looks, that’s certainly going on, and I know we are getting occasional handles pulled - one of which caused us a 20-minute shut down the other week when the driver couldn’t get the thing to reset, needless to say a delay like that hardly benefited social distancing!

I hope people pulling the handles are being hit with the "penalty for misuse".
Ridiculous behaviour, the handle should only ever be pulled if there is an imminent mortal danger, such as a bogie has derailed, or there's a fire etc. How dense must people be if they think someone not wearing a mask is a danger, and then not to think through that if they pull the handle they are going to be exposed to that "danger" for longer than if they just sat and minded their own business.

 

[43066]

The main thing is dirty looks, that’s certainly going on, and I know we are getting occasional handles pulled - one of which caused us a 20-minute shut down the other week when the driver couldn’t get the thing to reset, needless to say a delay like that hardly benefited social distancing!

You mean to say people are pulling pass coms when they see someone not wearing a mask? The mind boggles...

 

[birchesgreen]

The law is pointless. Three words "I am exempt" makes you fully compliant with the law.

If you say so but i'm not prepared to take the chance on being the bloke who tries it and gets fined.

 

[MikeWM]

Yep. That's how I comply. As someone with a scientific background I just found myself getting more and more annoyed doing the charade to comply.

I think that is fair. You're being forced to wear a visible symbol that effectively says you agree with the whole thing. (At some level, it isn't all that different to a scenario that the government had put in place a law in March 2003 forcing everyone to wear a badge saying 'I support war in Iraq').

The regulation does say an exemption is to prevent harm to yourself. Avoiding mental health issues that may be caused by doing things you believe to be utterly nonsensical seems to fit

 

[Huntergreed]

The regulation does say an exemption is to prevent harm to yourself. Avoiding mental health issues that may be caused by doing things you believe to be utterly nonsensical seems to fit

So, essentially, the law is unenforceable and relies purely on people believing (falsely) that they can get punished for not wearing one?

This demonstrates exactly why it's such a pointless law

 

[Scrotnig]

Ridiculous behaviour, the handle should only ever be pulled if there is an imminent mortal danger,

The people doing this do actually think that someone without a mask IS causing imminent mortal danger. That’s literally how these people think.

 

[bramling]

You mean to say people are pulling pass coms when they see someone not wearing a mask? The mind boggles...

Yes. If I get the privilege of being present when same happens then the person pulling the handle will be off on the basis that it’s not an emergency.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So, what is the aim?!

If the aim is to get back to normal life, then social distancing is going to be impossible in the medium term. Does the government think masks help with that, or doesn’t it?! If so, great, let’s abandon social distancing.

The aim appears to be "the hammer and the dance", i.e. that we carry on as close to normal as we can pending a vaccine. It's probably for another thread to discuss if that should be the aim, though.

Yes. If I get the privilege of being present when same happens then the person pulling the handle will be off on the basis that it’s not an emergency.

Yes, that does seem to be misuse of the handle as it can easily be resolved without stopping the train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So it is. Hmmmm.

I'm not clear why the setting matters, as dissemination of virus through the mask doesn't change based on whether you happen to be standing in a hospital or a shop.

I think that is fair. You're being forced to wear a visible symbol that effectively says you agree with the whole thing.

No, you're not. You can even get a mask with "I don't agree with masks" printed on it.

If I drive a car wearing a seatbelt it does not make a statement that I agree with seatbelt law (I don't, as it so happens[1]) - all it states is that you are wearing one, not why you are.

[1] Doesn't mean I wouldn't wear one, I certainly would, but I disagree with the law protecting individuals from themselves. So if masks protected the wearer, I would disagree with the legislation. But they don't, they protect others. Similarly, I wear a cycle helmet but that does not make a statement that I believe they should be mandatory, I very strongly believe they should not be mandatory, other than possibly for children to protect them from parents who won't provide them.

 

[87electric]

If you say so but i'm not prepared to take the chance on being the bloke who tries it and gets fined.

It seems you would like to take the chance, but through fear, you won’t.
I refuse to bow to these unjust pressures thrust upon us and will stand up for what I believe in. And it isn’t the debacle of a flimsy mask “law”.

 

[adc82140]

I note that the Australian state of Victoria is now banning the use of masks with outlet valves. I'd be happy if the person who was on here earlier saying that they always wore one while shopping comes back and assures us that they have consigned theirs to the DIY box, and will in future wear a bandana or similar.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I note that the Australian state of Victoria is now banning the use of masks with outlet valves. I'd be happy if the person who was on here earlier saying that they always wore one while shopping comes back and assures us that they have consigned theirs to the DIY box, and will in future wear a bandana or similar.

And that anyone who is working in such a mask is educated clearly that they must maintain 2m distancing at all times from any other person while wearing one for work purposes where that is necessary. If needing to work with someone else, there needs to be a rethink as a valved N95 mask may not be workable.

 

[87electric]

The aim appears to be "the hammer and the dance", i.e. that we carry on as close to normal as we can pending a vaccine. It's probably for another thread to discuss if that should be the aim, though.
Yes, that does seem to be misuse of the handle as it can easily be resolved without stopping the train.

Close to normal?
What we are living through right now is as far removed from normal as could possibly be.
My view of the aim, and I stand by this, is further down the line the mask will be only be allowed to be ditched in exchange for a vaccine. If you refuse, the Cressida Dick shaming game will be played out for more coercion.

 

[MikeWM]

So, essentially, the law is unenforceable and relies purely on people believing (falsely) that they can get punished for not wearing one?

Well, I'm partly being facetious (because this regulation frankly doesn't deserve any more respect than that) - I imagine a court would interpret the 'harm to yourself' exemption to refer to eg. escaping a domestic violence situation, not the harm potentially caused by having to do something that you profoundly disagree with.

I think it is very hard to enforce on the face of it, but that doesn't guarantee you won't encounter a police officer who wants to throw their weight around and doesn't accept an exemption justification. As with all such circumstances, you're then left with a rather difficult choice (either accept the fixed penalty fine - if offered - or wait to see if they try to take you to court).

 

[bramling]

It seems you would like to take the chance, but through fear, you won’t.
I refuse to bow to these unjust pressures thrust upon us and will stand up for what I believe in. And it isn’t the debacle of a flimsy mask “law”.

I can understand why people would comply simply to avoid hassle - it’s understandable and I wouldn’t criticise people for doing that.

I will, to a point, comply in shops simply as I recognise the whole thing has been and is very difficult for staff, but equally that grudging compliance comes with a cost that I am very much minimising shop visits. The worst thing about that is it’s the discretionary places which *need* the business, not places like the supermarkets.

Public transport is, however, a different ball game. I *might* just consider putting a mask on should I find myself on a busy train, as that *might* just tip the balance in favour, however that’s the only time.

My overriding view is that every time a mask is put on is increasing the possibility of the Jenny Harries “more harm than good” risks.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Close to normal?
What we are living through right now is as far removed from normal as could possibly be.

Really? The lockdown was more like that.

My view of the aim, and I stand by this, is further down the line the mask will be only be allowed to be ditched in exchange for a vaccine. If you refuse, the Cressida Dick shaming game will be played out for more coercion.

I would agree that the present level of measures (possibly slightly stricter so schools can reopen) will be with us until a vaccine, masks included. To me the only viable alternative is that we lock down fully again for maybe a month to bring cases right down, then close our borders and wait it out that way. Either way, there is no viable exit strategy that could remove all measures but wouldn't involve many deaths.

 

[43066]

So, essentially, the law is unenforceable and relies purely on people believing (falsely) that they can get punished for not wearing one?

This demonstrates exactly why it's such a pointless law

In effect, yes. You can “self certify” yourself as exempt and remain fully compliant with the law.

If a police officer asks you where you aren’t wearing a covering, and you state you’re exempt, where can they go from there?

They can’t ask you for “proof” - one of the exemptions is that wearing a covering would cause you “extreme distress” - which is entirely subjective. The government’s own guidance also states that there’s no requirement to obtain medical advice, or written evidence of an exemption, from a medical professional.

[Withdrawn] [Withdrawn] Face coverings: when to wear one, exemptions and what makes a good one

www.gov.uk

Those who have an age, health or disability reason for not wearing a face covering should not be routinely asked to give any written evidence of this, this includes exemption cards. No person needs to seek advice or request a letter from a medical professional about their reason for not wearing a face covering.

The only way you would be fined is if you’re challenged by the police for not wearing covering where required and you admit that you have no valid reason for failing to do so.