UK face coverings discussion

[AdamWW]

I don’t support the idea that laws should be introduced without reasoning behind them. There’s absolutely no evidence whatsoever they help to reduce transmission in any way, it’s simply a guess by the government on how to make people feel “safe” and to pander to the hardcore lockdown enthusiasts screaming for tougher restrictions.

Well so far as I know there is evidence, although weak.

Since you're so keen on evidence, can you give me some that the government has actually introduced them for the reason you claim?

If there was a measurable decrease in countries who mandated masks then this would suggest they are effective, but given this is not the case it suggests otherwise.

It really doesn't because other things are changing.

Let's take an example - can you find a graph showing that public transport and road usage has remained constant since face coverings were mandated in the UK? If (as I think is the case) both have increased, that shows that face coverings aren't the only thing that have changed interactions between people.

You have to compare to what would have happened without face coverings and we don't (can't) know that.

 

[Journeyman]

Well so far as I know there is evidence, although weak.

Since you're so keen on evidence, can you give me some that the government has actually introduced them for the reason you claim?

On the day it was announced that masks would be compulsory on public transport in England, Grant Shapps was interviewed, and said something very firmly along the lines of "there's no evidence it does much, but it'll make people feel better".

 

[Bletchleyite]

More that he is really enjoying using executive power to punish people if they don't do what he says, despite the fact he regularly misrepresents the law.

He's a libertarian so I doubt that a lot.

 

[Smidster]

Not in the slightest, remember 3 weeks ago the government made it 'safe' so there's nothing to worry about anymore, we should be seeing record numbers!

I'm not serious, by the way

Of course you are looking at the bit of a single stat that you believe confirms your view and ignoring any other explanation.

The bigger problem that traders in central London are having is that the vast majority of people are still working at home so there is nowhere near as much traffic into London and that has really not changed over the past three weeks. Whatever the rules on masks it is no shock that trade hasn't picked up in areas that are dependent on business people if the business people haven't gone back to the office.

Might masks have an impact at the margin - yes...but that can run in both directions.

I am also not at all comfortable with massive fines being handed out - Really won't do much for community cohesion.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The bigger problem that traders in central London are having is that the vast majority of people are still working at home so there is nowhere near as much traffic into London and that has really not changed over the past three weeks.

That isn't going to change to the extent it was. Owners of such businesses will need to consider moving them - if you worked from home you might consider popping out to a cafe for lunch. I would if there was one anywhere near me!

 

[AdamWW]

On the day it was announced that masks would be compulsory on public transport in England, Grant Shapps was interviewed, and said something very firmly along the lines of "there's no evidence it does much, but it'll make people feel better".

Which interview was this?

It doesn't really seem compatible what he is reported as saying when he made the announcement that they would be compulsory:

"With more people using transport the evidence suggests wearing face coverings offers some - albeit limited - protection against the spread for the virus."

I've looked through several different news articles from that day and can't find anything where he says the introduction is just to reassure people.

 

[talldave]

Which interview was this?

It directly contradicts what he is reported as saying when he made the announcement that they would be compulsory:

"With more people using transport the evidence suggests wearing face coverings offers some - albeit limited - protection against the spread for the virus."

To which the next question should have been - "what evidence?"...

 

[DB]

Yes. It is then open to the person issued the fine to either pay it or wait to be prosecuted, and have their day in court. The court may well ask them to provide evidence of their exemption. What that evidence might consist of will depend on the exemption claimed.

There is nothing in the legislation about proof being required, and some of the valid reasons are non-medical.

So if someone says that wearing a mask causes them severe distress, what is the court going to do? The criminal standard of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt', and that would be pretty much impossible to reach in this case.

 

[MikeWM]

He's a libertarian so I doubt that a lot.

His impression of one is becoming increasingly less convincing, given he has been responsible for introducing the most authoritarian measures ever in peacetime (and in many respects moreso even than in wartime), and doesn't appear to be in any particular rush to remove them again.

At this point, saying this is like saying Tony Blair is a pacifist.

 

[jumble]

That would work if the purpose of a mask was to protect the individual. It's not; it's to protect everyone from the individual. Therefore it is legislated and I support that (I oppose legislation to protect the individual e.g. any proposal re bicycle helmets). It's for others, not you. If it was to be optional, it'd have to be based on asking everyone around you if they were happy with you not wearing one, and if only one was not then you wear, but that's just too complex.

It is optional in Wales, Sweden and Holland and my understanding is that no one asks anyone anything
I would like to understand why whatever evidence there is that masks may be effective and will not cause other problems is not enough to convince the Scientists or the government in Wales , Sweden or Holland

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-theres-no-solid-evidence-coverings-work.html

'Face masks in public places are not necessary, based on all the current evidence,' said Coen Berends, spokesman for the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment. 'There is no benefit and there may even be negative impact

My only real conclusions are ask 10 different scientists and you will get 10 different answers and I believe as others do on this forum that the government are mandating this to make the scared feel more confident and to make masks the norm so no one feels ridiculed as happened at the start of the pandemic

I speak as someone who is healthy and does not hesitate to go to pubs and restaurants and travel on the crowded tubes

 

[HSTEd]

He's a libertarian so I doubt that a lot.

He may have been once, but now his brush with death has turned him rather authoritarian in outlook.

 

[bramling]

Has anyone actually been fined the existing maximum amount? It's silly posturing by the government and quite ludicrous when you consider that if you kill someone by drink driving the fine can be less.

Smacks of desperation to be honest, from a government which increasingly seems to have “lost it”.

 

[DB]

to make masks the norm so no one feels ridiculed as happened at the start of the pandemic

Did it? I didn't see any evidence of that happening.

 

[Reliablebeam]

Smacks of desperation to be honest, from a government which increasingly seems to have “lost it”.

I get the very strong impression that this government responds to any criticism by doubling down on its stupidity. They've worked out this trick also works when something embarrassing needs deflecting. What a shambles.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I get the very strong impression that this government responds to any criticism by doubling down on its stupidity. They've worked out this trick also works when something embarrassing needs deflecting. What a shambles.

If what the UK is now doing was vastly out of line with other countries I might agree, but it's not. The sort of measures we are taking are the norm.

 

[DB]

If what the UK is now doing was vastly out of line with other countries I might agree, but it's not. The sort of measures we are taking are the norm.

They are all following like sheep because they don't want the social media warriors screaming that they aren't doing enough.

Some nations do seem more susceptible to this than others, both in terms of having more social media warrior types and in terms of weak leaders who just follow the herd. Of course the warrior types have in many cases been created by the initial government policy of spreading fear, and now the government are in a loop of regularly introducing more restrictions to try to calm the paranoid.

There is absolutely no evidence that the path being followed is any more effective than what Sweden has done in terms of the virus - but it does cause the massive social and economic problems which Sweden has largely avoided.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

If what the UK is now doing was vastly out of line with other countries I might agree, but it's not. The sort of measures we are taking are the norm.

These measures are in common with other countries, yes.
All that proves is that politicians are capable of herd mentality, even when measures are not based on scientific evidence.
New Zealand’s PM is now calling for elections to be suspended, on the basis of just 18 new infections. Lunacy!

 

[Darandio]

I've looked through several different news articles from that day and can't find anything where he says the introduction is just to reassure people.

Me neither. It seems it's quite acceptable to provide a soundbite without evidence to rubbish the use of masks, but if you were to do the same thing the other way you would have 5-6 members jumping all over you demanding a direct link.

 

[DB]

Me neither. It seems it's quite acceptable to provide a soundbite without evidence to rubbish the use of masks, but if you were to do the same thing the other way you would have 5-6 members jumping all over you demanding a direct link.

How else do you explain the sudden move from 'masks don't help much / at all' to 'everyone needs to wear masks' - the evidence didn't suddenly change.

 

[Darandio]

How else do you explain the sudden move from 'masks don't help much / at all' to 'everyone needs to wear masks' - the evidence didn't suddenly change.

Well no. But i'm more interested if people are making up quotes to suit their argument. Did Shapps say that or not?

 

[MikeWM]

How else do you explain the sudden move from 'masks don't help much / at all' to 'everyone needs to wear masks' - the evidence didn't suddenly change.

There was a clearly coordinated effort from the government, the media, the WHO, and the 'scientists' (eg. the Royal Society) to pretend that it had, however - which in many respects is the most dispiriting thing about all of this.

 

[AdamWW]

Me neither. It seems it's quite acceptable to provide a soundbite without evidence to rubbish the use of masks, but if you were to do the same thing the other way you would have 5-6 members jumping all over you demanding a direct link.

Yes I was thinking something along those lines.

There was a clearly coordinated effort from the government, the media, the WHO, and the 'scientists' (eg. the Royal Society) to pretend that it had, however - which in many respects is the most dispiriting thing about all of this.

That is quite an accusation.

I know there has been mention of evidence that the WHO had been put under pressure to change their policy.

Where is the evidence that scientists in the UK, (or even 'scientists' as you seem to prefer to call them - why?) decided to lie?

The masks issue is quite a contentious one, but I don't think you have to assume some conspiracy to explain why any government might decide that on balance wearing masks is better than not even if they didn't previously take that view.
Even if there is no change in evidence, other things have changed such as increased numbers on public transport.

(OK not relevant to supermarkets, but we were talking about the announcement making them compulsory on public transport)

 

[island]

There is nothing in the legislation about proof being required, and some of the valid reasons are non-medical.

So if someone says that wearing a mask causes them severe distress, what is the court going to do? The criminal standard of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt', and that would be pretty much impossible to reach in this case.

The proof would be the evidence of the defendant, who would be questioned on the witness stand in court by the prosecution solicitor. Questions might include the cause of the distress, when the defendant started suffering the distress, the effect that wearing a mask has on him or her, when he or she realised that this was the case, and so on. The bench would then take a view based on the evidence as to whether they thought the defendant did in fact have an exemption.

If you think that the defendant can just turn up in court and say “sorry guv wearing a mask causes me severe distress” and the magistrates will say “ok so, very sorry, off you pop”, you are wide of the mark.

 

[DB]

The proof would be the evidence of the defendant, who would be questioned on the witness stand in court by the prosecution solicitor. Questions might include the cause of the distress, when the defendant started suffering the distress, the effect that wearing a mask has on him or her, when he or she realised that this was the case, and so on. The bench would then take a view based on the evidence as to whether they thought the defendant did in fact have an exemption.

If you think that the defendant can just turn up in court and say “sorry guv wearing a mask causes me severe distress” and the magistrates will say “ok so, very sorry, off you pop”, you are wide of the mark.

Afraid you are very wide of the mark - have you not read the legislation? Nowhere does it say tha any proof is required: the cause of the distress is wearing the mask, none other is specified as being required, When it started is irrelevant, because it's only applicable to the specific case in question, the effect is significant distress - no more is required by the law, so nothing further could be requested by the prosecution.

There is no way the CPS would take non-mask wearing to trial unless the defendant repeatedly claimed 'I am not except but I refuse to wear one' - the law is written in such a way that anyone claiming an exemption according to the specific reasons stated in the law has an exemption.

 

[farleigh]

The proof would be the evidence of the defendant, who would be questioned on the witness stand in court by the prosecution solicitor. Questions might include the cause of the distress, when the defendant started suffering the distress, the effect that wearing a mask has on him or her, when he or she realised that this was the case, and so on. The bench would then take a view based on the evidence as to whether they thought the defendant did in fact have an exemption.

If you think that the defendant can just turn up in court and say “sorry guv wearing a mask causes me severe distress” and the magistrates will say “ok so, very sorry, off you pop”, you are wide of the mark.

I think that scenario is highly unlikely. Have any cases proceeded in this way?

 

[farleigh]

Afraid you are very wide of the mark - have you not read the legislation? Nowhere does it say tha any proof is required: the cause of the distress is wearing the mask, none other is specified as being required, When it started is irrelevant, because it's only applicable to the specific case in question, the effect is significant distress - no more is required by the law, so nothing further could be requested by the prosecution.

There is no way the CPS would take non-mask wearing to trial unless the defendant repeatedly claimed 'I am not except but I refuse to wear one' - the law is written in such a way that anyone claiming an exemption according to the specific reasons stated in the law has an exemption.

This exactly.

 

[AlisonM]

Which interview was this?

It doesn't really seem compatible what he is reported as saying when he made the announcement that they would be compulsory:


I've looked through several different news articles from that day and can't find anything where he says the introduction is just to reassure people.

Perhaps this?

Defending the decision not to make face coverings mandatory on public transport until mid-June, Mr Shapps said the evidence of their benefits was "marginal" - and that so far the transport system had only been at 5% capacity.
He told the BBC the move was "not some panacea" but provided "some reassurance to passengers".
Mr Shapps said wearing face coverings in shops was not being made compulsory because people were less likely to be near to somebody else for a long period of time.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52930245

 

[Darandio]

Perhaps this?

Evidence, thankyou.

 

[AdamWW]

Perhaps this?

Defending the decision not to make face coverings mandatory on public transport until mid-June, Mr Shapps said the evidence of their benefits was "marginal" - and that so far the transport system had only been at 5% capacity.
He told the BBC the move was "not some panacea" but provided "some reassurance to passengers".
Mr Shapps said wearing face coverings in shops was not being made compulsory because people were less likely to be near to somebody else for a long period of time.

Coronavirus: Widen rules on where face coverings must be used, say UK doctors

The British Medical Association says coverings should be compulsory wherever distancing is impossible.

www.bbc.co.uk

Interesting.

A somewhat different message to the one he was giving the day before when he made the accouncement.

 

[AdamWW]

It seems to be generally acknowleged that this government makes considerable use of polling to find out what the reaction is to their policies.

This suggests to me that if the face mask policy is driven by political rather than scientific considerations, more people in the UK support them then are against them.