UK face coverings discussion

[adc82140]

Right, let's clear this up.

My NHS professional hat is on.

Nobody outside a healthcare setting should be wearing a N95 mask. Full stop. They are reserved for healthcare/care staff. They must be professionally fit tested, if they are not at best they are no better than a cloth face covering, at worst they are dangerous. Anyone else wearing one should cease forthwith and stop being so selfish.

Air France are mandating a surgical mask. I've checked their website. A surgical mask is not a respirator. It is a 3 layered face covering of a specific grade.

Thank you.

NHS hat off.

 

[ainsworth74]

Question is, do we have a government imposing restrictions on a population where the vast majority of people do not agree with them and simply want a less restrictive approach? Quite possibly, and this isn't a healthy way for a democracy to operate.

You sure about that? It's been a while since I saw any polling on the issues around mask wearing and lockdown restrictions but that last ones I saw didn't scream that the Government was out of step with the "vast majority". The vast majority of Forum members perhaps seeing as we're a hot bed of anti-maskers but I'm not so sure about the vast majority of the wider public.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Question is, do we have a government imposing restrictions on a population where the vast majority of people do not agree with them and simply want a less restrictive approach? Quite possibly, and this isn't a healthy way for a democracy to operate.

No, I don't believe that is the case.

 

[adc82140]

I think, judging by the amount of face coverings worn just before they became compulsory, public opinion is similar to mine. Would rather not wear one, but will to prevent causing a scene. It remains to be seen how this will play out in the long term.

 

[DB]

You sure about that? It's been a while since I saw any polling on the issues around mask wearing and lockdown restrictions but that last ones I saw didn't scream that the Government was out of step with the "vast majority". The vast majority of Forum members perhaps seeing as we're a hot bed of anti-maskers but I'm not so sure about the vast majority of the wider public.

And yet, talking to colleagues I don't get the idea that the current measures are popular with many.

As regards masks, if they were so much demanded by the public then it would have been expected that most would be wearing them of their own accord before it was announced that they would be made mandatory in shops. In reality the opposite was true, and hardly anybody was wearing them.

 

[py_megapixel]

As regards masks, if they were so much demanded by the public then it would have been expected that most would be wearing them of their own accord before it was announced that they would be made mandatory in shops.

Do we know how many people didn't visit shops before masks were mandated because they didn't feel safe/confident doing so?

 

[trebor79]

I am too. Let's just set the 5 levels of "lockdown", publish them, and apply each one up front. If that means "masks in all indoor places where more than one household is present", then, up front and honestly, go for it.

This is another thing NZ has got very right.

I agree, I thought the 5 stage thing that was unveiled as lockdown started to ease looked pretty sensible and clear cut. Unfortunately Boris started to ad-lib almost immediately so it's useless. Instead we now have different measures being put in place to control local flare ups which is just confusing. If I go to Leicester or Manchester I'm not sure what is and isn't allowed. Whereas if I knew "Manchester has Level 4 controls" I'd know exactly what that meant.
That assumes there is sufficient detail behind the scale of course, from what I recall it was all quite vague.

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?

I think it could happen. I would hate for it to happen, and it would be absurd, but in some ways it might make it easier for exempt people like me to go about our business. I feel a bit self-concious walking into the supermarket with no mask (not that anyone's batted an eyelid), but that effect might be lessened if I'm "openly" exempt.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think it could happen. I would hate for it to happen, and it would be absurd, but in some ways it might make it easier for exempt people like me to go about our business. I feel a bit self-concious walking into the supermarket with no mask (not that anyone's batted an eyelid), but that effect might be lessened if I'm "openly" exempt.

Another advantage of it (I don't support it, but I think it's right to recognise it does have a few advantages) would be people not repeatedly touching masks to put them on and off. Put it on before leaving the house/car, take it off when you get back to the house/car.

 

[DB]

Another advantage of it (I don't support it, but I think it's right to recognise it does have a few advantages) would be people not repeatedly touching masks to put them on and off. Put it on before leaving the house/car, take it off when you get back to the house/car.

But on the other hand, wearing them for longer would just mean that they fiddle with them more.

 

[adc82140]

I can guarantee that particularly in weather like this many would be worn as chin ornaments.

 

[DB]

Do we know how many people didn't visit shops before masks were mandated because they didn't feel safe/confident doing so?

No - and neither do we know how many now avoid shops because of the mask rule.

 

[py_megapixel]

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?

If that does happen then we might well see a significant increase in people claiming the "severely distressing" exemption.
I, for one, am fine with wearing one in shops for a few minutes but if I had to wear one at all times while outdoors it would become incredibly stressful.

 

[trebor79]

What I find interesting is that people seem to think that masks and no distancing does constitute getting back to normal but that social distancing and no masks doesn't, when in fact I'd say it's the other way round.

I had a similar thought the other day. I'd have been perfectly happy to carry on with physical distancing. It demonstrably works, everyone can do it, there are no unintended negative consequences that might actually increase infection rates and it doesn't come with a huge ecological and environmental footprint.

 

[Bantamzen]

Another advantage of it (I don't support it, but I think it's right to recognise it does have a few advantages) would be people not repeatedly touching masks to put them on and off. Put it on before leaving the house/car, take it off when you get back to the house/car.

Except they would be constantly touching them, and I think we all know it. Sorry but you're not going to suddenly have people wear them as if they were in a medical environment by mandating use outside. If anything it would increase the contact.

 

[DB]

I had a similar thought the other day. I'd have been perfectly happy to carry on with physical distancing. It demonstrably works, everyone can do it, there are no unintended negative consequences that might actually increase infection rates and it doesn't come with a huge ecological and environmental footprint.

It's definitely more bearable than masks, but the question is whehter it has enough of an impact to justify the considerable economic impact it has - some businesses just aren't viable with it in place.

 

[yorkie]

I noticed in Glasgow Central the announcement goes something like:

'Please note face coverings should be worn in all station areas, this means no food or drink can be consumed in the station'

I was under the impression that food/drink was classed as a reasonable exemption from the mask rule (and it's one I've used many times today, you have no idea how long a water bottle can last if you try )

It is legal.

I heard this announcement too.

I have to say the current situation is extremely offputting and if things get any more draconian I can see major protests taking place.

I did speak to a Guard about it; she agreed it was legal to eat and drink in the station and thought the announcements were intended to be targeted towards people acting unreasonably and that people shouldn't be prevented from eating / drinking reasonably.

I'd like to see the announcement changed to reflect this.

Some authoritarian people think that dystopian, draconian announcements & signage, swearing & aggression on social media (their slogan is 'just wear a f'ing mask') and taking things to extrene is going to bring people on board. However this couldn't be further from the truth.

The whole fiasco and behaviour of certain individuals makes me even more repulsed by the authoritarian hard left than I was before.

 

[DB]

The whole fiasco and behaviour of certain individuals makes me even more repulsed by the authoritarian hard left than I was before.

I'm not sure it is something which can be attributed to the hard left - maskivism doesn't really seem to have a political alignment.

It was to be expected that the railways would go overboard on this - the people who come up with the pointless "safety" announcements have a whole new subject to play with!

 

[trebor79]

I had a similar thought the other day. I'd have been perfectly happy to carry on with physical distancing. It demonstrably works, everyone can do it, there are no unintended negative consequences that might actually increase infection rates and it doesn't come with a huge ecological and environmental footprint.

It's definitely more bearable than masks, but the question is whehter it has enough of an impact to justify the considerable economic impact it has - some businesses just aren't viable with it in place.

So for those relatively few cases where physical distancing cannot work, you don't do it. We should be making sensible adjustments to live with the virus, not closing down entire sectors of the economy for indeterminate periods of time or mandating the wearing of facial garments.

 

[DB]

So for those relatively few cases where physical distancing cannot work, you don't do it. We should be making sensible adjustments to live with the virus, not closing down entire sectors of the economy for indeterminate periods of time or mandating the wearing of facial garments.

I don't really disagree - but I am increasingly coming to the view that we should be putting measures in place to protect those particularly at risk, and dropping all other measures entirely. Only possible exception would be very large gatherings (football crowds over a specified size, music festivals, etc) - but given it another onth or two, and provided the NHS wasn't anywhere near being overwhelmed then that restriction could be dropped too.

 

[trebor79]

I don't really disagree - but I am increasingly coming to the view that we should be putting measures in place to protect those particularly at risk, and dropping all other measures entirely. Only possible exception would be very large gatherings (football crowds over a specified size, music festivals, etc) - but given it another onth or two, and provided the NHS wasn't anywhere near being overwhelmed then that restriction could be dropped too.

Yes I would agree with that. Really perhaps those who are particularly vulnerable to COVID need to be protected in a similar way to how those with certain allergies are protected.
So peanuts will kill certain people. But peanuts aren't banned other than in food factories and some food preparation areas. Peanut allergy sufferers are kept away from peanuts by ensuring that they are given sufficient information to avoid them where they are present.
COVID kills certain people. We should not be banning everyday life, destroying the economy and mandating ineffective and probably counter-productive measure such as face coverings. We should be keeping vulnerable people safe by advising them to shield, and possibly providing proper PPE such as respirators for when they do need to go to crowded places.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Right, let's clear this up.

My NHS professional hat is on.

Nobody outside a healthcare setting should be wearing a N95 mask. Full stop. They are reserved for healthcare/care staff. They must be professionally fit tested, if they are not at best they are no better than a cloth face covering, at worst they are dangerous. Anyone else wearing one should cease forthwith and stop being so selfish.

Air France are mandating a surgical mask. I've checked their website. A surgical mask is not a respirator. It is a 3 layered face covering of a specific grade.

Thank you.

NHS hat off.

To make it clear and to correct my mistakes, what I have is actually a surgical mask that Air France have mandated. Which is officially classified as a N95 as well though.

 

[talldave]

Why everybody in my opinion should wear N95s if possible to reduce the spread.

Can you confirm that you accept that this is wrong?

I'd say the only reason why in my opinion cases have increased is because so many people have been wearing the wrong type of mask.

Ermmm, but when people weren't wearing masks, "cases" reduced?? So masks have caused the increase.

 

[island]

Ermmm, but when people weren't wearing masks, "cases" reduced?? So masks have caused the increase.

This argument can be made any which way.

Wear masks -> cases increase -> they would have increased more but for masks
Wear masks -> cases increase -> masks are ineffective or counterproductive
Wear masks -> cases decrease -> masks are effective and must continue to be worn
Wear masks -> cases decrease -> therefore we don’t need masks any more
and the corresponding four variations for not wearing masks.

I therefore consider all arguments founded on the above premises invalid.

 

[MontyMinerWA]

Question is, do we have a government imposing restrictions on a population where the vast majority of people do not agree with them and simply want a less restrictive approach? Quite possibly, and this isn't a healthy way for a democracy to operate.

In my experience it's quite the opposite.

 

[adc82140]

To make it clear and to correct my mistakes, what I have is actually a surgical mask that Air France have mandated. Which is officially classified as a N95 as well though.

For the avoidance of doubt, Air France is mandating surgical masks only.

https://www.airfrance.co.uk/GB/en/common/page_flottante/information/coronavirus.htm

Since 11 May, it is compulsory to wear a surgical mask upon arrival at the airport and on board Air France flights. Each customer is required to wear an approved mask throughout their trip. We recommend that you carry several masks with you for your personal comfort.

A surgical mask is NOT a N95 mask. I don't know where you're getting that from, but I've just spoken to my infection control lead here, and I tend to believe what they say.

 

[DB]

In my experience it's quite the opposite.

Of those who want every restriction under the sun, it would be interesting to ask them what they think their chances of dying of it are if they catch it - I would reckon that in many (perhaps most) cases their perception will be that the risk is massively higher than it actually is.

 

[stuartl]

Isn't the idea of 'surgical' masks to prevent you passing the virus to others, whereas the N95 type is to stop you getting the virus. Also many of the fpp2,3 types have an exhaust valve which won't stop you passing on the virus

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is legal.

But as I've mentioned plenty of times, it's also permitted for a business to decide, as a matter of policy, that eating and drinking is not permitted on their premises. Metrolink, for example, does not permit eating or drinking on board other than plain water.

Unless it is a breach of franchise agreement or whatever contract exists with Network Rail, they can do that if they choose.

When you are on a business's premises you have to comply with the law and whatever policy they decide to set, whichever is stricter (unless that policy infringes on a protected characteristic, which this doesn't). If you disregard the latter they can unilaterally withdraw your permission to be there and remove you (using reasonable force if necessary) as a trespasser.

 

[MontyMinerWA]

Of those who want every restriction under the sun, it would be interesting to ask them what they think their chances of dying of it are if they catch it - I would reckon that in many (perhaps most) cases their perception will be that the risk is massively higher than it actually is.

That doesn't matter. My elderly parents will not allow anyone to give them a hug because they are scared of this dreadful virus. This is absolutely heartbreaking. If wearing masks helps us to get the rate of infection down then in my opinion it's worth doing.

 

[Richard Scott]

That doesn't matter. My elderly parents will not allow anyone to give them a hug because they are scared of this dreadful virus. This is absolutely heartbreaking. If wearing masks helps us to get the rate of infection down then in my opinion it's worth doing.

So what do you do when rate of infection is down, it's still there so they'll still be scared?