UK face coverings discussion

[Huntergreed]

I’m convinced popularity in masks is starting to dwindle. Compliance is falling slowly, and people are starting to get sick of them constantly expanding where they are needed.

Surely once we get to 0 deaths (which isn’t really that far off) I don’t think they can justify it whatsoever.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’m convinced popularity in masks is starting to dwindle. Compliance is falling slowly, and people are starting to get sick of them constantly expanding where they are needed.

Surely once we get to 0 deaths (which isn’t really that far off) I don’t think they can justify it whatsoever.

Certainly with the shift in measurement (which I don't agree with - the old figure was wrong but so is this one - the only accurate one is what's on the death certificate) we are getting much lower death figures. I wonder what the rationale for this was - to make people less scared of schools reopening, perhaps?

 

[midland1]

Just went into Greggs only 1 in 4 with masks on, was going to put mine on but seeing the others I left my Class 25 mask in my pocket!

 

[trebor79]

My observation of mask wearing over the last week has seen a massive drop in compliance, and I'd say 90% are now not wearing them properly, and 50% not wearing them at all.

Compliance in shops I've been in seems to be near 100%, although a fair proportion not wearing them properly.

 

[AdamWW]

It's pointless to wear a mask in a supermarket to protect against something that apparently needs 15 minutes of sub 1m contact to pass on. Gradually the public are realising this. Oh, and I also noticed that all the staff in Sainsbury's aren't dead either after 6 months of not wearing masks.

Not sure where you got that from.

Obviously it's not binary (< 15 minutes you are safe, >15 minutes you suddenly become infected) but isn't the guideline > 15 minutes within 2 metres, nor 1?

(Which isn't to say that I at all convinced that masks in a supermarket do more good than harm).

 

[birchesgreen]

Its not an exact science, you could stand next to an infected person for hours and be fine. A few minutes and catch it. Its just more or less risky.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not sure where you got that from.

Obviously it's not binary (< 15 minutes you are safe, >15 minutes you suddenly become infected) but isn't the guideline > 15 minutes within 2 metres, nor 1?

(Which isn't to say that I at all convinced that masks in a supermarket do more good than harm).

Track and trace use:
Within 2m for 15 minutes or more
Within 1m for any period of time other than fleeting (e.g. walking past), e.g. a quick chat
Possibly also being in a closed environment like a car

Of course it's not actually binary, but just like 4am on Saturday was the deadline for getting back from France you have to draw a line somewhere.

 

[MikeWM]

I'm slightly suspicious when those who are the most against masks, are the ones reporting that nobody is wearing them

I'm not sure that's entirely correct - I'd like to be reporting that nobody is wearing them, but sadly I can't. My last post on the subject was bemoaning a teenage couple both wearing one, outside in the street, in the middle of the night... Previously I've mentioned how compliance in supermarkets here seems to be effectively 100%.

For anyone interested, I had no issues last night going to the cinema. There was 100% *non-compliance*, but that's because I was the only person in the screen... That's a bit concerning though - attendance seemed fairly reasonable in the week between the cinema re-opening and masks becoming required.

 

[Bletchleyite]

For anyone interested, I had no issues last night going to the cinema. There was 100% *non-compliance*, but that's because I was the only person in the screen... That's a bit concerning though - attendance seemed fairly reasonable in the week between the cinema re-opening and masks becoming required.

Wearing will kill cinemas. The sensible approach is that you wear one while walking around the cinema, but the seating is booked to be 2m distanced (except from the same household) and so you can remove it when you sit down. It's not like it's busy.

 

[NorthOxonian]

Wearing will kill cinemas. The sensible approach is that you wear one while walking around the cinema, but the seating is booked to be 2m distanced (except from the same household) and so you can remove it when you sit down. It's not like it's busy.

I believe that's what they're doing in the snooker, where they're trialling having a live audience. And I can't see much difference between watching an indoor sporting event and watching a film.

 

[MikeWM]

Wearing will kill cinemas. The sensible approach is that you wear one while walking around the cinema, but the seating is booked to be 2m distanced (except from the same household) and so you can remove it when you sit down. It's not like it's busy.

For obvious reasons, they seem to be interpreting the 'take it off for food and drink' part quite liberally, so I guess they're hoping more people will buy the overpriced food and drink and try to make it last for the whole film I suppose it is just about possible that this could be enough to keep them going for a while.

But yes, I can't imagine the cinema chains being happy about this. I know that Cineworld and Odeon management (not sure about the other chains) resisted quite strong front-of-house staff campaigns to implement exactly what you suggest - only for the Government to make even stricter measures law shortly after they reopened.

 

[Bletchleyite]

For obvious reasons, they seem to be interpreting the 'take it off for food and drink' part quite liberally, so I guess they're hoping more people will buy the overpriced food and drink and try to make it last for the whole film

The overpriced food and drink is something people shout about a lot, but in fact some of the chains (Cineworld certainly) do explicitly allow you to take your own, you don't have to smuggle it. The only thing they don't generally allow is smelly hot food e.g. McD's. My Dad usually goes at lunchtime and takes sandwiches!

 

[island]

I believe that's what they're doing in the snooker, where they're trialling having a live audience. And I can't see much difference between watching an indoor sporting event and watching a film.

The only difference is that the law is an ass. Cinemas are on the list for mandatory mask-wearing and sports venues are not.

Sadly for the cinemas, they won’t be getting any of my business whilst the nonsense requirements persist. I would begrudgingly accept the suggested approach of Bletchleyite above (wear one to enter and whilst walking around, remove whilst sat down) but what we have is too much, and I am not going to eat a bag of popcorn one piece at a time for two hours either.

 

[NorthOxonian]

The only difference is that the law is an ass. Cinemas are on the list for mandatory mask-wearing and sports venues are not.

Oh I know - just saying that it's illogical. Though I probably shouldn't say that too much, perhaps Matt Hancock reads these threads and will make masks mandatory in all parts of sports venues next!

 

[Bletchleyite]

The only difference is that the law is an ass. Cinemas are on the list for mandatory mask-wearing and sports venues are not.

For now. It's likely legislation will be amended if the trials are successful.

I would expect "mandatory in indoor parts of sports venues".

 

[MikeWM]

The overpriced food and drink is something people shout about a lot, but in fact some of the chains (Cineworld certainly) do explicitly allow you to take your own, you don't have to smuggle it. The only thing they don't generally allow is smelly hot food e.g. McD's. My Dad usually goes at lunchtime and takes sandwiches!

Indeed - Cineworld changed their rules on this a while back (about 8-10 years ago or thereabouts). Fairly sure all the major chains allow this now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed - Cineworld changed their rules on this a while back (about 8-10 years ago or thereabouts). Fairly sure all the major chains allow this now.

I'd suspect it is probably relating to increased (awareness of) allergies etc, so it's easier to blanket-allow than have lots of pointless arguments.

Can't take your own alcohol in, but that's true of all licensed establishments and is a condition of the licence in most cases. Though I'm sure if you really wanted to you could add vodka etc to a bottle of Coke and take that in.

 

[island]

Vue is similar, no hot food or alcohol but anything else is fair game.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Not only our government which has taken leave of its senses then...

Is the virus now regarded as nocturnal?

Well, bats are, so perhaps it is
(assuming it is still assumed that the virus transferred from bats)

I though this nonsensical, Italy had similar instructions for those dining indoors, with different distancing at different times of day.

 

[Justin Smith]

I’m convinced popularity in masks is starting to dwindle. Compliance is falling slowly, and people are starting to get sick of them constantly expanding where they are needed.

Surely once we get to 0 deaths (which isn’t really that far off) I don’t think they can justify it whatsoever.

We shouldn't need to get to no deaths before ditching face mask compulsion. One of the many reasons I am very angry about this face covering edict* is when it was introduced Matt Hancock just said it'd be "for the foreseeable future", which is meaningless. There was no built in objective measure (reasonable or otherwise) of when they'd no longer be required, e.g. when deaths get down to 10 a day. I have no respect for Hancock anyway, I can remember when, at one of those early Covid briefings, he bought up the case of that 13 year old who very tragically (but very exceptionally) died. I was screaming at the radio I was so angry. That **** should never have bought that up, he was just trying to scare everyone to "stay at home" (more of "this virus is indiscriminate" rubbish) but at the same time giving millions of parents huge amounts of unnecessary worry. He is a scumbag.

It may be a long time before we get to zero deaths anyway, maybe never.

* I don't comply anyway, I wear a snood pulled up over my mouth (only) anyway. Nobody has challenged me on it and I don't expect them to.

 

[adc82140]

You're complying equally as much as the mask nose danglers, so I wouldn't worry.

 

[jumble]

We shouldn't need to get to no deaths before ditching face mask compulsion. One of the many reasons I am very angry about this face covering edict* is when it was introduced Matt Hancock just said it'd be "for the foreseeable future", which is meaningless. There was no built in objective measure (reasonable or otherwise) of when they'd no longer be required, e.g. when deaths get down to 10 a day. I have no respect for Hancock anyway, I can remember when, at one of those early Covid briefings, he bought up the case of that 13 year old who very tragically (but very exceptionally) died in hospital. I was screaming at the radio, that **** should never have bought that up, he's just trying to scare everyone (more of "this virus is indiscriminate" rubbish) but at the same time giving millions of parents unnecessary worry. He is a scumbag.

It may be a long time before we get to zero deaths anyway, maybe never.

* I don't comply anyway, I wear a snood pulled up over my mouth (only) anyway. Nobody has challenged me on it and I don't expect them to.

We will not get 0 deaths until we are sure that all deaths are properly attributed and we are a long way from that
Dont forget Get Covid, then get run over by a tram and killed in the next 28 days You died with Covid

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Or when everyone gets seasonal flu in the winter; they will have had Covid

 

[jtuk]

We shouldn't need to get to no deaths before ditching face mask compulsion. One of the many reasons I am very angry about this face covering edict* is when it was introduced Matt Hancock just said it'd be "for the foreseeable future", which is meaningless. There was no built in objective measure (reasonable or otherwise) of when they'd no longer be required, e.g. when deaths get down to 10 a day.

That was the main point of the letter I sent to my (ultra safe Tory) MP, i.e. there is no review date listed, to which I've only received a stock email response from one of his lackeys anyway. May have to escalate with the additional failures since then, honestly do feel they've done more damage to this country than anyone at this stage, and that includes nations we've been at war with

 

[Richard Scott]

We shouldn't need to get to no deaths before ditching face mask compulsion. One of the many reasons I am very angry about this face covering edict* is when it was introduced Matt Hancock just said it'd be "for the foreseeable future", which is meaningless. There was no built in objective measure (reasonable or otherwise) of when they'd no longer be required, e.g. when deaths get down to 10 a day. I have no respect for Hancock anyway, I can remember when, at one of those early Covid briefings, he bought up the case of that 13 year old who very tragically (but very exceptionally) died. I was screaming at the radio I was so angry. That **** should never have bought that up, he was just trying to scare everyone to "stay at home" (more of "this virus is indiscriminate" rubbish) but at the same time giving millions of parents huge amounts of unnecessary worry. He is a scumbag.

It may be a long time before we get to zero deaths anyway, maybe never.

* I don't comply anyway, I wear a snood pulled up over my mouth (only) anyway. Nobody has challenged me on it and I don't expect them to.

Currently seems everything is for foreseeable future as government has no exit plan for any of this. Suppose they're not alone, seems most of Europe in the same boat with constant moving goal posts.

 

[MikeWM]

Currently seems everything is for foreseeable future as government has no exit plan for any of this. Suppose they're not alone, seems most of Europe in the same boat with constant moving goal posts.

Indeed so. Mask-wearing is back in the Czech Republic, too.

So despite nothing particularly bad happening other than a 'Casedemic' (an excellent term borrowed from @FatEmperor on twitter) that'll be the UK, Ireland, France, Spain, Italy, Czechia, Norway (to some degree), and probably a lot I've missed, all going down the ever-increasing mask route in the last few weeks.

Great.

 

[Justin Smith]

That was the main point of the letter I sent to my (ultra safe Tory) MP, i.e. there is no review date listed, to which I've only received a stock email response from one of his lackeys anyway. May have to escalate with the additional failures since then, honestly do feel they've done more damage to this country than anyone at this stage, and that includes nations we've been at war with

The world is indeed going absolutely bonkers.

 

[Wuffle]

What do you think about the proposed pedestrianisation of Norwich city centre?

I was there yesterday the ongoing closures of roads and increased bus lanes will kill the remaining shops
It has 8 green councilors but is Labour controlled
When there is no money coming in perhaps there will be a rethink

As regards masks of those that do wear them they either put them under their chin, place them in their pockets or carry them around their wrists - pointless wearing one really

And if one is slightly deaf, like me, because of loud rock music in the seventies then you have to keep asking people to repeat themselves and of course not being able to see the mouth forming words makes it harder

 

[Journeyman]

What do you think about the proposed pedestrianisation of Norwich city centre?

Well played, sir.

 

[packermac]

It does sound like a lot of people do seem to make no risk assessment on their own health.
It is not all some conspiracy from Boris or Matt Hancock it is a global problem, unless of course you believe the world governments have actually managed to agree on a single issue for once and mandated mask wearing.
The UK seems to have been far laxer than lots of countries, I guess the anti maskers feel New Zealand have over reacted with their level 3 lockdown of Auckland based on four cases.
For the past 15 or 20 years (basically past 50) I have tried to avoid colds flu etc. When I lived in London if someone got on a train with an obvious heavy cold, cough etc and sat near me I would try to move elsewhere in the coach, or move coaches at the next station. I would always try and sit in the emptier coaches and in the winter months only in airline seats if I could as I regard them as lower risk than facing table seats. Often on the tube due to frequency I would get off and wait for the next train. If I was stewarding a mainline tour and one of my fellow stewards had a cold I would limit my contact with them on that tour.
In the street if someone is walking towards me coughing or sneezing I will look away and cover my own mouth and nose with a handkerchief.
It seems to have kept me healthier, so why would I not want to try to avoid catching this virus which at 68 puts me in the risk category and my wife already in the clinically vulnerable category at serious risk.
I would just expect others to show me the same respect as I hope I gave them if I knew I had a cold or flu.