UK face coverings discussion

[RomeoCharlie71]

It seems, usefully, that most refuseniks are not quite as brazen (or too stupid) as to lie stating they have an exemption when they don't have one. Or perhaps they prefer to try to make a point. Either way, refusal of travel (for the entire day, so they have to find another way home) is a great way of teaching a lesson that this sort of arrogance won't be accepted.

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were just talking about chucking anyone off who wasn't wearing a face covering - not a refusenik or someone who failed the attitude test (i.e. being an obnoxious pest).

 

[DB]

I could accept a guard choosing not to engage. However, to me it is the best outcome. The person potentially posing a hazard to other passengers is off, and they get a harsh lesson by having to take a long walk.

You have no evidence that they were 'posing a hazard'. Firstly they'd need to have actually had the virus, and chances are they didn't, then they'd have had to pass it to someone else.

You really should think of moving to China, you know - their approach to this sort of thing would be far more in tune with your views!

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Back on the topic of face coverings, a quick look on Twitter reveals:



I'm sorry, but I don't give a toss if you don't feel safe. I'm only concerned if you are safe - and that's down to you I'm afraid, by following the physical distancing and personal hygiene recommendations.
------------------------------

Were they posing a hazard to other passengers pre-mandate, or.... ?

Oh, and how would you know if they were exempt or not, given that proof of exemption is not required?

I don't feel safe when there is a group of male teenagers on the bus being teenagerish, I don't feel safe when there are schoolkids running about screaming and throwing stuff, I don't feel safe when grannies park their trollies in the aisle, unnattended. What if the driver brakes suddenly, what if there is a fire!!!!! Do I twit my concerns to the world at large expecting a sympathetic response and immediate action? No.

These hysterical social media 'campaigners', living a permanently offended life, need to calm down and deal with life. The alternative is a nervous breakdown or high blood pressure.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were just talking about chucking anyone off who wasn't wearing a face covering - not a refusenik or someone who failed the attitude test (i.e. being an obnoxious pest).

I was referring to the French example given - fined, then asked to wear one, then chucked off. Similarly with fares it'd be those who refused to pay who would be in receipt of the boot.

 

[NorthOxonian]

I was referring to the French example given - fined, then asked to wear one, then chucked off. Similarly with fares it'd be those who refused to pay who would be in receipt of the boot.

Even though I don't agree with the regulations, I agree with you here. If we're going to have rules, they can't just be toothless - otherwise what's the point?

 

[DB]

Even though I don't agree with the regulations, I agree with you here. If we're going to have rules, they can't just be toothless - otherwise what's the point?

The point is often to be seen do be doing something and /or to make people feel "safe". Whether the rules actually achieve anything, or are even realistically enforceable, is of minor importance!

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I was referring to the French example given - fined, then asked to wear one, then chucked off. Similarly with fares it'd be those who refused to pay who would be in receipt of the boot.

In England, we go by the rule of law, not the rule of who is the biggest bully. Fine them, increase the fine, arrest them, prosecute them. That is the law and nothing else. An authorised person may use reasonable force to remove someone. They then have a duty of care for that person. That is the law, not simply abandoning someone in the middle of nowhere. It's not like the wild west - drive them to the town boundary sheriff and make sure they don't come back!

 

[Cowley]

I’m going to have to do a temporary lock on this thread for a bit for everyone to leave the face covering battle ground and to cool off a bit.
It’s not really going anywhere at the moment and seems to have been creating quite a lot of anger on all sides today (well not just today obviously).
And relax...

 

[Jamiescott1]

I find it amusing / worrying that the 2 surveys I've seen which show footfall in shops down since masks were introduced have both concluded that this is because people need to get used to masks (not that people are avoiding shops because they don't like masks)

 

[Richard Scott]

I find it amusing / worrying that the 2 surveys I've seen which show footfall in shops down since masks were introduced have both concluded that this is because people need to get used to masks (not that people are avoiding shops because they don't like masks)

I've got used to wearing one for a short period of time in situations where it suits me. As I don't have to go into shops except for essentials I don't bother. So no browsing leading to spontaneous purchases. If need something often buy on line rather than have hassle of going into a shop.

 

[Justin Smith]

Do not let anyone tell you the imposition of face masks led to a reduction in either the death rate or the infection rate :

 

[trebor79]

It seems, usefully, that most refuseniks are not quite as brazen (or too stupid) as to lie stating they have an exemption when they don't have one. Or perhaps they prefer to try to make a point. Either way, refusal of travel (for the entire day, so they have to find another way home) is a great way of teaching a lesson that this sort of arrogance won't be accepted.

I've never even been asked why my face is nude. I think the only way a refusenik would be "caught" would be to hold a placard saying "I concientiously object to wearing a face covering"

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've never even been asked why my face is nude. I think the only way a refusenik would be "caught" would be to hold a placard saying "I concientiously object to wearing a face covering"

I've not seen it in many places, but I noted near the start that motorway services had staff on the door handing them out for free (they now seem to be chargeable) and they wouldn't ask why but would ask if you wanted one, which opens such a conversation.

 

[Richard Scott]

I've not seen it in many places, but I noted near the start that motorway services had staff on the door handing them out for free (they now seem to be chargeable) and they wouldn't ask why but would ask if you wanted one, which opens such a conversation.

A motorway service on M6 were handing them out last Friday.

 

[Smidster]

Do not let anyone tell you the imposition of face masks led to a reduction in either the death rate or the infection rate :

Correlation does not mean causation.

You have to remember that at a similar time as masking we also had a general easing of the lockdown - pubs & restaurants were open etc all of which increase the number of interactions between people and will increase transmission. I can't tell you what the numbers would have been without the current rules but it is lazy and wrong to just look at one number in isolation and ignore wider factors.

I also really don't understand the people saying "this is the Government wanting to keep you scared and instill fear" Do you really think the Government want a society where people are scared to leave their houses and the economy goes down the tubes? Last time I checked economic depression and millions in the unemployment line were not good news for either the public finances or the Governments (of whatever colour) re-election prospects. They are doing it because they genuinely believe it might make some impact - and lets all hope that is right.

 

[jtuk]

Do not let anyone tell you the imposition of face masks led to a reduction in either the death rate or the infection rate :

While I'd like to say that one of those graphs implies mask wearing increases cases, you cannot use anything that lists just raw numbers of cases without normalising it against tests. Of course, that doesn't show masks doing anything to decrease cases, but be careful when posting graphs

 

[Richard Scott]

Correlation does not mean causation.

You have to remember that at a similar time as masking we also had a general easing of the lockdown - pubs & restaurants were open etc all of which increase the number of interactions between people and will increase transmission. I can't tell you what the numbers would have been without the current rules but it is lazy and wrong to just look at one number in isolation and ignore wider factors.

I also really don't understand the people saying "this is the Government wanting to keep you scared and instill fear" Do you really think the Government want a society where people are scared to leave their houses and the economy goes down the tubes? Last time I checked economic depression and millions in the unemployment line were not good news for either the public finances or the Governments (of whatever colour) re-election prospects. They are doing it because they genuinely believe it might make some impact - and lets all hope that is right.

I'm not keen on belief politics, would rather the Government concentrated on running the country using some factual evidence.

 

[Justin Smith]

While I'd like to say that one of those graphs implies mask wearing increases cases, you cannot use anything that lists just raw numbers of cases without normalising it against tests. Of course, that doesn't show masks doing anything to decrease cases, but be careful when posting graphs

That is the stats. I would be the first to admit that "the infection rate" is a much misunderstood term, it depends on how many tests are being done. But it doesn't stop the WHO and every single government tracking it like it was a gospel and, in fact, introducing draconian edicts from it, like face coverings and quarantines..... It would not be acceptable to only use "the infection rate" to promote pessimistic conclusions, but not the opposite !
Am I being cynical, but if the infection rate had dropped after the face coverings edict the government (and all the pro mask brigade) would be the first to equate the two.

 

[Smidster]

I'm not keen on belief politics, would rather the Government concentrated on running the country using some factual evidence.

Sorry for not being more explicit in saying that it is a belief based on the current scientific consensus - It isn't Bozo and Hancock blindly coming up with ideas and praying.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

I predicted a drop in footfall. Some on here thought I was mad...

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

Sorry for not being more explicit in saying that it is a belief based on the current scientific consensus - It isn't Bozo and Hancock blindly coming up with ideas and praying.

Where is this scientific consensus regarding face coverings?

 

[westv]

Some people clearly have too much time on their hands.
Hull Trains illustrated their new fare offer on twitter the other day with a stock photo showing two people travelling on a train.
Someone decided to complain that they weren't wearing face coverings in it. .

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Some people clearly have too much time on their hands.
Hull Trains illustrated their new fare offer on twitter the other day with a stock photo showing two people travelling on a train.
Someone decided to complain that they weren't wearing face coverings in it. .

To paraphrase an 80s hit...
‘Am I living in a box?
Am I living in a smartphone box?’

 

[talldave]

I predicted a drop in footfall. Some on here thought I was mad...

It was blindingly obvious, as was the fact it's pointless and ineffective.

 

[Bantamzen]

That is the stats. I would be the first to admit that "the infection rate" is a much misunderstood term, it depends on how many tests are being done. But it doesn't stop the WHO and every single government tracking it like it was a gospel and, in fact, introducing draconian edicts from it, like face coverings and quarantines..... It would not be acceptable to only use "the infection rate" to promote pessimistic conclusions, but not the opposite !
Am I being cynical, but if the infection rate had dropped after the face coverings edict the government (and all the pro mask brigade) would be the first to equate the two.

I've mentioned it in another thread, but it is now proving unhelpful that the media / public / governments & it seems the WHO focusing in on one measure or another (and sometimes changing focus halfway through). In order to fully understand the overall impact the infection rates need to be lined up with testing, which in turn need to be lined up with symptomatic cases, hospitalisation & mortality rates. Because as we are seeing in many countries, positive rates are rising as testing increases, but hospitalisation & mortality rates are reducing.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

Well, some good news on face coverings, at least:

UK 'not considering' mandatory face coverings in workplaces

The UK government is not considering making face coverings mandatory in workplaces, after France took the step on Tuesday, the health secretary has said.

Matt Hancock said the current evidence from NHS Test and Trace was that people were largely catching the virus when meeting another household, usually in one of their homes.

He told BBC Breakfast that while the government was "constantly looking at the scientific evidence", the amount of people catching Covid-19 in workplaces was "relatively low".

Then again, not the first time the UK Government have made u-turns.

 

[Bantamzen]

Well, some good news on face coverings, at least:



Then again, not the first time the UK Government have made u-turns.

Although ironically one area they highlight as a higher risk, i.e. households, are not being asked to wear them (and nor should they). However I hope that statement isn't a precursor to some daft idea that households can only mix if they all mask up?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Although ironically one area they highlight as a higher risk, i.e. households, are not being asked to wear them (and nor should they). However I hope that statement isn't a precursor to some daft idea that households can only mix if they all mask up?

The problem with that is that it's unenforceable, and unenforceable laws aren't great because you get poor compliance.

 

[Bantamzen]

The problem with that is that it's unenforceable, and unenforceable laws aren't great because you get poor compliance.

Which is one reason why I'd be against it, in fact I'd be 100% non-compliant! However with this government, something being unenforceable might not put them off.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which is one reason why I'd be against it, in fact I'd be 100% non-compliant! However with this government, something being unenforceable might not put them off.

If the issue is people meeting at home and totally disregarding distancing etc, it might actually pay off to encourage them into pubs etc instead where that can be managed more effectively.