UK face coverings discussion

[43066]

They sound like precisely the sort of people who should be in receipt of the fines for non-wearing (as well as potentially assault, I can't quite tell from the description). There was no need for the aggression; even if they were lying "Yes, we're both exempt" would have ended the discussion. They were clearly out to make some kind of point, which means the old "attitude test" was failed.

For once, I completely agree with you.

Me too. No need for that.

 

[43066]

They are not generally required to do so, but if a shop owner wishes to ask about masks (e.g. by offering to give them out for free to those who don't have them[1]) and it is not against company policy for them to do so then that is entirely up to them. What they do need to do, though, is to accept "I'm exempt" at face value.

That’s the second time I’ve agreed with you in as many minutes. There must be something in the water today!

 

[yorkie]

Are face coverings mandatory in open air areas of stations in Scotland?

 

[Journeyman]

Are face coverings mandatory in open air areas of stations in Scotland?

ScotRail certainly appear to be trying to enforce it, although compliance is low from what I've seen.

 

[island]

Are face coverings mandatory in open air areas of stations in Scotland?

Yes they are. See this post for reference.

 

[Huntergreed]

Watching the BBC News at 1 today coverage of the Paris outdoor mandation of masks, I noticed they were stopping and asking anyone without a mask on “why not?”. I don’t think it’s at all within a journalist’s right to be asking people the reason for their exemption.
I genuinely fear with the continuous extension of mask mandation, we may see it extended to outside the home eventually, I dearly hope not, but if this trend continues could we see this happen?

 

[Huntergreed]

Are face coverings mandatory in open air areas of stations in Scotland?

Legally: yes. From a practical perspective, I doubt it will be enforced

 

[Scrotnig]

Watching the BBC News at 1 today coverage of the Paris outdoor mandation of masks, I noticed they were stopping and asking anyone without a mask on “why not?”. I don’t think it’s at all within a journalist’s right to be asking people the reason for their exemption.
I genuinely fear with the continuous extension of mask mandation, we may see it extended to outside the home eventually, I dearly hope not, but if this trend continues could we see this happen?

It is absolutely inevitable. I believe it's always been the plan, and they are just introducing it in stages to quell any negative reaction.

Next will be schools
Then workplaces
Then everywhere outside your home
Then within your home unless you live alone

That's where it's heading. I've said so several times. They want a fully masked society at all times.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Watching the BBC News at 1 today coverage of the Paris outdoor mandation of masks, I noticed they were stopping and asking anyone without a mask on “why not?”. I don’t think it’s at all within a journalist’s right to be asking people the reason for their exemption.

A journalist can ask you whatever they wish, that's how a free Press works. You can tell them to get lost.

 

[ainsworth74]

I've said so several times.

Indeed. I've yet to see you or any else provide any evidence that the end point will be wearing masks at home. But by all means continue to worry yourself about it (though I do think there's more mileage in the possibility masks might be required in the other settings however!).

I noticed they were stopping and asking anyone without a mask on “why not?”. I don’t think it’s at all within a journalist’s right to be asking people the reason for their exemption.

I think perhaps we need to calm down a bit here. A journalist asking someone a question about an issue which is currently effecting a great many people does not seem to me be a massive breach of someones personal liberty (or anything else).

 

[DB]

I think perhaps we need to calm down a bit here. A journalist asking someone a question about an issue which is currently effecting a great many people does not seem to me be a massive breach of someones personal liberty (or anything else).

But it will get very wearing to be asked repeatedly by assorted people (some of which will have no justificable reason to ask).

 

[ainsworth74]

But it will get very wearing to be asked repeatedly by assorted people (some of which will have no justificable reason to ask).

I dunno about you but I don't see journalists on the street that often so I think that their net impact on the number of times a person may be asked is likely to be negligible and indeed so close to zero as to be indistinguishable from actually being zero.

 

[Bantamzen]

I think perhaps we need to calm down a bit here. A journalist asking someone a question about an issue which is currently effecting a great many people does not seem to me be a massive breach of someones personal liberty (or anything else).

Personally I have had more than enough of the BBC's almost fanatical obsession with masks, do we really need to know why someone isn't wearing one? I'd much rather they explore the scientific basis of their effectiveness when not used to medical standards, although to be fair that would be a rather short article.

 

[PaulMc7]

Just seen this from Costco. Visors and face coverings needed. Good luck to them enforcing this. Twitter has got as bad as Facebook these days for the busybody type complaining about people not wearing face coverings too. Still plenty of people responding to public transport operators in particular asking why they're not enforcing it

 

[ainsworth74]

Personally I have had more than enough of the BBC's almost fanatical obsession with masks, do we really need to know why someone isn't wearing one? I'd much rather they explore the scientific basis of their effectiveness when not used to medical standards, although to be fair that would be a rather short article.

I don't recognise that characterisation of the BBCs coverage (and I have them on as background noise whilst I'm working!) but in any event I'd rather they just didn't bother vox pops at all personally as I've yet to see a vox pop on any issue that was actually interesting or added anything to the discussion whether it be about masks, Brexit, an election, or whatever other issue is under discussion.

 

[Huntergreed]

Just seen this from Costco. Visors and face coverings needed. Good luck to them enforcing this. Twitter has got as bad as Facebook these days for the busybody type complaining about people not wearing face coverings too. Still plenty of people responding to public transport operators in particular asking why they're not enforcing it

Not quite both required, they’re just saying if you wear a visor you also need a mask as Sturgeon doesn’t think visors are effective enough on their own according to the evidence (which i would be interested in seeing)

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's where it's heading. I've said so several times. They want a fully masked society at all times.

Can I ask what motivation you feel "they" have for this? Possibly as an anti-COVID measure, yes. However, what would motivate them to do it long-term? It renders CCTV ineffective, for instance, so it's not a good feature of a surveillance society, as they might viably be accused of wanting to introduce.

 

[AdamWW]

Just seen this from Costco. Visors and face coverings needed. Good luck to them enforcing this. Twitter has got as bad as Facebook these days for the busybody type complaining about people not wearing face coverings too. Still plenty of people responding to public transport operators in particular asking why they're not enforcing it

I read that as saying a visor on its own isn't enough, not that everyone needs a visor as well as a mask. Anyone else read it that way?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not quite both required, they’re just saying if you wear a visor you also need a mask as Sturgeon doesn’t think visors are effective enough on their own according to the evidence (which i would be interested in seeing)

I don't know about evidence, but it's intuitive. Visors do not filter your exhalations, they just redirect them. The purpose of a visor is to protect the wearer from droplets directly infecting them via their face (e.g. in the eyes), e.g. a doctor protected from a sneezing or coughing patient.

I read that as saying a visor on its own isn't enough, not that everyone needs a visor as well as a mask. Anyone else read it that way?

Yes, that's very clear. It's saying that you can wear a visor if you want but it does not remove the requirement for a mask.

 

[dan5324]

I see Scotrail have re-liveried 2 HST’s to have facemasks (and the best part? They’re around the chin only )

https://www.scotrail.co.uk/about-scotrail/news/if-scotrail-trains-can-cover-their-face-so-can-you

I do find the article title rather patronising as well, I feel so bad for those with genuine exemptions, they’re being made to feel like they’re an unwanted and unimportant part of society and I don’t think it’s acceptable whatsoever.

haha. That imo does more to push people into cars than an car tv ad could do. Bravo scotrail!

 

[PaulMc7]

I read that as saying a visor on its own isn't enough, not that everyone needs a visor as well as a mask. Anyone else read it that way?

Yep that's exactly what it means. Says must be accompanied by a face covering

 

[talldave]

That’s the second time I’ve agreed with you in as many minutes. There must be something in the water today!

Vaguely related, I read that they're measuring COVID levels in sewage to spot local surges.

Can I ask what motivation you feel "they" have for this? Possibly as an anti-COVID measure, yes. However, what would motivate them to do it long-term? It renders CCTV ineffective, for instance, so it's not a good feature of a surveillance society, as they might viably be accused of wanting to introduce.

Here's a theory: We're being gradually worn down with all the stupid requirements and (mostly) accepting them in the slow-drip form in which they've been presented. At some distant point in the future, you'll be given your freedom back in return for accepting "the vaccine".

 

[Bantamzen]

I don't recognise that characterisation of the BBCs coverage (and I have them on as background noise whilst I'm working!) but in any event I'd rather they just didn't bother vox pops at all personally as I've yet to see a vox pop on any issue that was actually interesting or added anything to the discussion whether it be about masks, Brexit, an election, or whatever other issue is under discussion.

I was thinking more about their web pages, I'd long since stopped watching BBC News regularly before this pandemic. Many of their articles feel like they have being trying to normalise masks even before they were mandated even for public transport let alone shops. Maybe its just me, although independently my wife also noted the same a while back. But constant images of people wearing masks, even when the context doesn't require it, almost every day posting their "how to make your own" articles and so on. It just feels like they are actively trying to promote them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Here's a theory: We're being gradually worn down with all the stupid requirements and (mostly) accepting them in the slow-drip form in which they've been presented. At some distant point in the future, you'll be given your freedom back in return for accepting "the vaccine".

As I intend to take a COVID-19 vaccine as soon as one becomes available on the NHS, and believe strongly that anyone for whom there is not a medical contraindication to it should do so too (as that's the true route to the magic herd immunity), I don't overly care.

 

[DB]

As I intend to take a COVID-19 vaccine as soon as one becomes available on the NHS, and believe strongly that anyone for whom there is not a medical contraindication to it should do so too (as that's the true route to the magic herd immunity), I don't overly care.

Well, that's your choice - but a lot of people who are not generally anti-vaccine are likely to be very wary of one which has been rushed, especially given this government's track record of incompetence so far.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well, that's your choice - but a lot of people who are not generally anti-vaccine are likely to be very wary of one which has been rushed, especially given this government's track record of incompetence so far.

I may not trust the Government (i.e. Bojo and his cronies), but I do trust the NHS and the quality of the UK's medical researchers, something on which we are very advanced indeed as a country.

Things are being done to mitigate that "rush" such as basing the vaccine on existing, well-tested ones.

 

[DB]

I may not trust the Government (i.e. Bojo and his cronies), but I do trust the NHS and the quality of the UK's medical researchers, something on which we are very advanced indeed as a country.

Things are being done to mitigate that "rush" such as basing the vaccine on existing, well-tested ones.

The trouble is, there could be a LOT of political pressure to get it through acceptance, whether or not it's fully ready.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think we're about to go down a vaccine rabbit hole here. It's worthy of discussion but in it's own thread please. Let's try and stick broadly to masks on this thread if we can. Thanks

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

Just seen this from Costco. Visors and face coverings needed. Good luck to them enforcing this. Twitter has got as bad as Facebook these days for the busybody type complaining about people not wearing face coverings too. Still plenty of people responding to public transport operators in particular asking why they're not enforcing it

As far as I can see there's nothing in law stating that a face covering must be worn in conjunction with a visor - it's only guidance. But of course, Costco are entitled to go further than the law.

 

[MikeWM]

It is absolutely inevitable. I believe it's always been the plan, and they are just introducing it in stages to quell any negative reaction.

Next will be schools
Then workplaces
Then everywhere outside your home
Then within your home unless you live alone

That's where it's heading. I've said so several times. They want a fully masked society at all times.

The underlying 'advice' has remained fairly standard for a couple of months now, and can still be found on gov.uk:

3.15 Do I have to wear a face covering in public? ... People are also strongly encouraged to wear face coverings in any other enclosed public spaces where there are people they do not normally meet.

That is pretty much what they were saying back at the start of June (I posted a 'UK Prime Minister' tweet on 5th June that told people to wear masks if they were going shopping) and the 'creep' so far has been slowly turning that advice into law, which is pretty much complete now.


That doesn't mean they won't 'creep' further, of course, or change the underlying advice - but the recent changes were strongly telegraphed; further changes haven't been (yet).