UK face coverings discussion

[greyman42]

If anyone is going around "lamping" people in the event of querying mask non-wearing, rather than just saying "none of your business" or "I'm exempt", then they are not nice people and deserve the prosecution for assault they would be in receipt of as a result. Maybe it would teach them a useful lesson.

It is not under any circumstance other than necessary self defence acceptable to "lamp" someone - no matter how offensive what they say is.

I agree with you that they are not nice people if they are "lamping" people, but neither are the people going around sticking their noses into other peoples business and asking for trouble.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Aug 2020 ==

York city centre has signs up encouraging this, but almost no-one is going to take any notice of this request, except when moving between nearby shops.

I wonder if this is because York is extremely busy at the minute with visitors and staycationers.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Well played, sir.

I feel a bit guilty now

 

[Justin Smith]

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.

Not at all, the situation with NZ and AUS is totally different from the UK's, they have a very low exposure to Covid, meaning :

1 - they have a chance to suppress it (though it will keep popping up now and again).

2 - they are very vulnerable to Covid. If it goes rampant over there like it has over here (and in Spain etc) they will get a death toll of around 500 per million. We have already been through it, that is why our death toll has dropped right off. The latter is not really much to do with social distancing and even less to do with face masks.
Time will prove me right I feel, more evidence here.

 

[packermac]

Not at all, the situation with NZ and AUS is totally different from the UK's, they have a very low exposure to Covid, meaning :

1 - they have a chance to suppress it (though it will keep popping up now and again).

2 - they are very vulnerable to Covid. If it goes rampant over there like it has over here (and in Spain etc) they will get a death toll of around 500 per million. We have already been through it, that is why our death toll has dropped right off. The latter is not really much to do with social distancing and even less to do with face masks.
Time will prove me right I feel, more evidence here.

So you regard a blog as evidence?

 

[AdamWW]

So you regard a blog as evidence?

And a blog which plays the usual game of reporting comments along the lines of "There is a risk of infections rising" as if they were "There absolutely definitely will be an increase" and then criticising experts because their 'predictions' didn't come true.

Back to masks, I don't find wearing a mask itself too much a bother (I appreciate that's not true for everyone and I'm not suggesting it is), but I do find trying to handle them properly (sanitise hands before and after touching them) a real faff, and I'm still probably not doing it right anyway.

I don't get the impression that many people are even trying - which is understandable, but does rather give me the impression they are doing more harm than good.

 

[HSTEd]

I don't get the impression that many people are even trying - which is understandable, but does rather give me the impression they are doing more harm than good.

We are being compelled to wear masks, not to engage in some elaborate 'decontamination' procedure.

 

[Yew]

We are being compelled to wear masks, not to engage in some elaborate 'decontamination' procedure.

Don't give Boris any ideas now!

 

[AdamWW]

We are being compelled to wear masks, not to engage in some elaborate 'decontamination' procedure.

Hence my comment that it's understandable.

But, having been compelled to wear a mask, I'd rather that it didn't increase my risk of infection.

 

[Justin Smith]

So you regard a blog as evidence?

Which blog are you referring to ? Or do you mean death rate graphs which are not explained by what we're told by the government ? The same government which told us that "this virus was indiscriminate" ? TBH what surprises me is that anyone believes a word they say......

 

[adc82140]

I've just had someone turn up at work wearing a beekeepers hat. I'm sure the holes in the net are bigger than covid droplets, but in the eyes of the law it's a face covering.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've just had someone turn up at work wearing a beekeepers hat. I'm sure the holes in the net are bigger than covid droplets, but in the eyes of the law it's a face covering.

Personally I would chuck them out for taking the mick. Wear one or don't but this sort of thing is contemptible in the extreme.

 

[adc82140]

I don't think they are taking the mick. They seem to genuinely believe that it's effective.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think they are taking the mick. They seem to genuinely believe that it's effective.

Genuinely? If so I would inform them that it is not effective while chucking them out.

If you're exempt, fine, don't wear anything, but that is very close to the level of wilfully taking the mick which I would not find acceptable if it were my business.

 

[DB]

Genuinely? If so I would inform them that it is not effective while chucking them out.

If you're exempt, fine, don't wear anything, but that is very close to the level of wilfully taking the mick which I would not find acceptable if it were my business.

You have completely missed the point that it counts as a face covering according to the rules.

Whether they are taking the piss or genuinely believe that it works is irrelvant.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You have completely missed the point that it counts as a face covering according to the rules.

Whether they are taking the piss or genuinely believe that it works is irrelvant.

Businesses and other controllers of private land are, as in any area, at liberty to have rules stricter than the law. This is another aspect that seems to pass many Forum users by in many contexts.

It is legal for a male not to wear a shirt in public. However, just try getting into a pub in a seaside town without one.

Smoking is legal in a private residence. But if you light up in my house you are going to be out pretty quickly.

 

[adc82140]

It's a public building (NHS). They are complying with the law. This is my point. Either mandate surgical masks and provide them free of charge to households, or don't bother at all with this charade.

 

[DB]

Businesses and other controllers of private land are, as in any area, at liberty to have rules stricter than the law. This is another aspect that seems to pass many Forum users by in many contexts.

It is legal for a male not to wear a shirt in public. However, just try getting into a pub in a seaside town without one.

Smoking is legal in a private residence. But if you light up in my house you are going to be out pretty quickly.

So you think that they should write their own mask rules which are different to the government ones, and then try to enforce them? That's certainly going to do wonders for their popularity with customers!

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's a public building (NHS). They are complying with the law.

In a hospital I absolutely would challenge that were I staff (offering a disposable mask to replace it, or asking for it to be removed if exempt). It's dangerous, just like wearing a valved mask, because it will cause risk compensation - exempt people who don't wear one need to be particularly careful about distancing, whereas someone who wears something they believe to work that definitely won't may fail to do so.

So you think that they should write their own mask rules which are different to the government ones, and then try to enforce them? That's certainly going to do wonders for their popularity with customers!

It'll go well with the customers they want - customers who put the effort in to comply with the spirit of the law by choosing a face covering that is not worse than nothing.

If I was running a business, a non-exempt customer who took the approach of the person quoted is business I do not want. It'll upset the genuine customers and it'll annoy me.

No need to write a policy. If you own a business, out means out. It's wholly at the business owner's discretion unless it infringes a protected characteristic.

 

[adc82140]

We have no power to challenge it. We can advise, but not insist. The law states that face coverings are to be worn in hospitals. This is a face covering.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We have no power to challenge it. We can advise, but not insist. The law states that face coverings are to be worn in hospitals. This is a face covering.

I'd definitely be talking to my Union, then. That person would be putting you at risk unnecessarily which is wholly unacceptable.

For certain aspects of the NHS, where it's a private business operating under contract, they can make a tighter policy. For instance my dentist (which is mostly private but does some NHS work) insists that unless there's a good reason you wear the disposable surgical mask they provide until in the chair, not your own. They come and meet you in the car park to provide it.

 

[Yew]

I'd definitely be talking to my Union, then. That person would be putting you at risk unnecessarily which is wholly unacceptable.

I still think you vastly overestimate the risks posed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I still think you vastly overestimate the risks posed.

You're entitled to that view, but in my view people shouldn't be taking the mick in this sort of manner and I find it somewhat beyond contempt that they do. They are being asked to do it for a reason (you don't agree with it, but I do), and spending 30 seconds thinking about that reason and about why a beekeeper's mask is worse than useless is hardly too much to ask.

If anyone wants to make a statement, there are plenty of masks on the market with "I'm only wearing this because the Government told me", or "This muzzle is stupid" or any one of a million different silly slogans. Provided the message was not profane, disgusting or sexually explicit (yes, there are some that are) I would serve someone with one of those masks on, as it's still a mask, even if it's making a statement that they'd rather not wear it.

 

[adc82140]

I'd definitely be talking to my Union, then. That person would be putting you at risk unnecessarily which is wholly unacceptable.

For certain aspects of the NHS, where it's a private business operating under contract, they can make a tighter policy. For instance my dentist (which is mostly private but does some NHS work) insists that unless there's a good reason you wear the disposable surgical mask they provide until in the chair, not your own. They come and meet you in the car park to provide it.

The union cannot challenge the laws of the land. Their purpose is to challenge unfair actions from management. In this situation, management are just as powerless to effect a change.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The union cannot challenge the laws of the land. Their purpose is to challenge unfair actions from management. In this situation, management are just as powerless to effect a change.

The law does not prohibit requiring in excess of the law, only requiring less than it, or breaching protected characteristics.

I don't get why so many people on this Forum find that so difficult to grasp. It comes up near enough every time a TOC does something they don't like.

 

[adc82140]

I think the NHS is required to follow the letter of the law as it is a directly controlled entity of government.

 

[stuartl]

S

I think the NHS is required to follow the letter of the law as it is a directly controlled entity of government.

Some interesting research here

Researchers created a test to determine which masks are the least effective | CNN

Schools are reopening, amusement parks are welcoming back visitors, and outdoor dining is the new way to eat out. But despite the signs that life is returning back to normal, the coronavirus pandemic has gone nowhere.

edition.cnn.com

 

[Yew]

You're entitled to that view, but in my view people shouldn't be taking the mick in this sort of manner and I find it somewhat beyond contempt that they do. They are being asked to do it for a reason (you don't agree with it, but I do), and spending 30 seconds thinking about that reason and about why a beekeeper's mask is worse than useless is hardly too much to ask.

If anyone wants to make a statement, there are plenty of masks on the market with "I'm only wearing this because the Government told me", or "This muzzle is stupid" or any one of a million different silly slogans. Provided the message was not profane, disgusting or sexually explicit (yes, there are some that are) I would serve someone with one of those masks on, as it's still a mask, even if it's making a statement that they'd rather not wear it.

Oh, so how many cases would have been stopped if this person was wearing a surgical mask?

 

[Skimpot flyer]

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.

How likely is it that the cinemas will be checking - during the movie - whether people are still wearing a covering?
You can hardly run pre-film messaging, imploring people to switch off mobiles (or put them on silent), so as to not ruin other people’s enjoyment of the movie.... then switch on torches or put the house lights up, to check compliance on face coverings !!!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oh, so how many cases would have been stopped if this person was wearing a surgical mask?

I have no idea any more than you do. My opinion is that the figure is nonzero, and that is widely shared including by the WHO.

 

[Yew]

Some interesting research here

Researchers created a test to determine which masks are the least effective | CNN

Schools are reopening, amusement parks are welcoming back visitors, and outdoor dining is the new way to eat out. But despite the signs that life is returning back to normal, the coronavirus pandemic has gone nowhere.

edition.cnn.com

The thing to remember is that we don't have about droplet mass transfer, we care about actual resultant infections. I say this as someone with a Ph.D in droplet mass transfer, who as used similar lasers and high-speed cameras in research applications.