UK face coverings discussion

[87electric]

A useful learning experience about how different countries look to achieve the same sort of end by way of slightly different laws? Then lead onto a discussion about different approaches?

Some people's Covid Science is different to other people's Covid Science. Covid itself has only one Science. Humans are irrational.

 

[johnnychips]

One of our students, who is in the cadets, brought in some military-style gas mask to show us just before all this started. I will be interested to see what he turns up in on 1st September.

I was on a bus today and two middle-aged Goths got on. She wore a black mask with pink lips painted on, but he wore a leather mask with metal spikes sticking out everywhere - at least 40. Now if Boris mandated that type of mask, I would ditch any opposition immediately. ‘Cool’ is an understatement. (Ignoring the manslaughter charge if he trips and gets someone in the jugular).

 

[Mojo]

The reduction is presently tailing off. If a requirement made the curve steeper, that would be evidence enough for now.

Given how many locations in France it is mandatory to wear a mask, then surely based upon this it is mask wearing that is causing the spike?

 

[AM9]

Given how many locations in France it is mandatory to wear a mask, then surely based upon this it is mask wearing that is causing the spike?

Ah, another correlation is causation claim.

 

[DB]

Ah, another correlation is causation claim.

Masks may or may not be the cause or a contributory factor, but we can be pretty sure that once a government has mandated masks they will make a point of ignoring and not investigating any downsides!

 

[AM9]

Masks may or may not be the cause or a contributory factor, but we can be pretty sure that once a government has mandated masks they will make a point of ignoring and not investigating any downsides!

That's your opinion to which you are entitled, but as I indicated, Mojo's post seemed to assume a cause from mere correlation.

 

[DB]

That's your opinion to which you are entitled, but as I indicated, Mojo's post seemed to assume a cause from mere correlation.

It's rather more than an opinion, given that there is absolutely nothing in the way of monitoring of their effectiveness, or any stated benchmark as to when they will no longer be required.

 

[AM9]

It's rather more than an opinion, given that there is absolutely nothing in the way of monitoring of their effectiveness, or any stated benchmark as to when they will no longer be required.

No, "... we can be pretty sure ...", it is not fact. But carry on ranting as you wish.

 

[DB]

No, "... we can be pretty sure ...", it is not fact. But carry on ranting as you wish.

Ah, so anyone disagreeing with you is 'ranting', are they? Typical of the abuse which I expect from mask enthusiasts!

If we can't be pretty sure, please do explain why there is no monitoring and no benchmarks, then! Because before the illogical madness which has swept through governments this year, any measure this stringent would have had clear monitoring to check its effectiveness, and a definied benchmark to determine when it was no longer required. Yet there is nothing - why do you think this might be? Can you point to anything which demonstrates that the government isn't ignoring and not investigating any downsides?

 

[Mojo]

That's your opinion to which you are entitled, but as I indicated, Mojo's post seemed to assume a cause from mere correlation.

Ah, another correlation is causation claim.

Not at all. Another poster suggested that we do a trial - make everyone wear masks in a small city for a month and if numbers go down
then they obviously work!

I’m just putting forward the counter argument that the country of France has done this and seen the number of positive tests increase

 

[Bantamzen]

Not at all. Another poster suggested that we do a trial - make everyone wear masks in a small city for a month and if numbers go down
then they obviously work!

I’m just putting forward the counter argument that the country of France has done this and seen the number of positive tests increase

In all honesty we probably don't even need to do that. Just ask health professionals why they are trained in how to use masks to protect patients, and what mitigations are in place to ensure that they don't just become viral collectors for contact distribution. Then we consider how likely it is that these procedures would be followed by hundreds of millions of people, and draw a conclusion from there.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

No, "... we can be pretty sure ...", it is not fact. But carry on ranting as you wish.

So;
We wear face coverings to protect other people.
A low grade face covering (as worn by virtually all of the public) offers no protection to the wearer.
I can be pretty sure (actually 100% certain) that I do not have the disease.
Ergo there is no benefit in me wearing a face covering if I go shopping.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can be pretty sure (actually 100% certain) that I do not have the disease.

How? Have you had a test then self-isolated fully since then?

 

[Baxenden Bank]

How? Have you had a test then self-isolated fully since then?

A test would be irrelevent. I haven't left the house for 7 / 10 / 14 days (delete to whatever the rule currently is) so have effectively quarantined.
Unless it has blown in through the open window or Tesco home delivery has transferred it to me, I simply haven't got it, but if I had it is no longer significant to even the most vulnerable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A test would be irrelevent. I haven't left the house for 7 / 10 / 14 days (delete to whatever the rule currently is) so have effectively quarantined.
Unless it has blown in through the open window or Tesco home delivery has transferred it to me, I simply haven't got it, but if I had it is no longer significant to even the most vulnerable.

Ah. So if you did go shopping, the first time you did so there would indeed be no benefit. But unless you isolated again, the risk would increase due to that shopping trip so next time, if it was within however-many days, there may be (albeit a small one).

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Ah. So if you did go shopping, the first time you did so there would indeed be no benefit. But unless you isolated again, the risk would increase due to that shopping trip so next time, if it was within however-many days, there may be (albeit a small one).

Yes, I was trying to highlight the futility of blanket 'everyone must wear a face covering' rules.

Setting aside the legal exemptions, there are others, like those of us rarely leaving the home.

As I understand it, the self-isolation period (to see if symptoms show) is seven days, so anyone who leaves the house every 8 days could be quite reasonably be assumed uninfectious, at least until they have had the opportunity to come into contact with an infected person (very low anyway) and for them to then develop enough virus to start exhaling infected droplets themselves. What is the minimum time from contact to becoming infectious. How much leeway do I have after leaving the house? The whole of today? tomorrow? the remainder of the weekend?

I see spurts of activity for the duration of the epidemic - seven days at home then three days outside. Just enough for a short break in Scotland.

 

[Huntergreed]

I see there’s been a primary school near Milton Keynes mandated masks (must be masks, not just face coverings) for all children aged 5 or over and all adults, no exemptions whatsoever:

Primary school head becomes Britain's first to make pupils wear masks or visors when term new starts in September - and tells parents face-coverings are 'not acceptable'.

A primary school headmaster has become the first in the country to make children wear face masks when they start the new term next month - and has warned coverings won't be enough.

All pupils above the age of five will be forced to cover their faces, according to the edict sent out by Warren Harrison, chief executive officer of the Premier Academy's Eaton Mill Primary School.


But the plan goes against government guidelines which state children under the age of 11 do not have to wear masks.

The newsletter - which was signed off with 'Stay safe, mask up and stay classy', states: 'All staff, children, parents, carers and visitors must don a mask when on site or they will not be allowed access.

'Face coverings are not acceptable. We recommend the N95 or surgical masks.


'Once in their bubbles, children and those members of staff in close contact with children will change from a mask to a named shield which will be supplied by the school. Anyone may however stay in a mask if they prefer.

'Reception aged children will not be mandated to wear a mask or face shield, however we would encourage you to encourage them to do so at the current time.

'When moving around the school, masks or shields must be worn - e.g visiting the toilets.

'When not in the classroom, masks may be removed for eating purposes and when outside the building during the bubble's daily walks. All cross bubble contact between children and staff and staff and staff will need all parties to don a mask.

'At dismissal time all shields should be left on desks with water bottles so that they can be cleaned efficiently.

'Children will be dismissed in masks to adults wearing masks.'

It went on to ask pupils and staff to try and maintain two metre distance and said face shields would be provided by the school...

(Full article at:https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....ool-head-Britains-make-pupils-wear-masks.html)

I think this is so, so wrong and my children would be getting pulled out of this school immediately. It’s clear the headteacher is an authoritarian with absolutely no grasp of the reality of this situation and the issues with what he’s just done.

 

[BJames]

I see there’s been a primary school near Milton Keynes mandated masks (must be masks, not just face coverings) for all children aged 5 or over and all adults, no exemptions whatsoever:



(Full article at:https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....ool-head-Britains-make-pupils-wear-masks.html)

I think this is so, so wrong and my children would be getting pulled out of this school immediately. It’s clear the headteacher is an authoritarian with absolutely no grasp of the reality of this situation and the issues with what he’s just done.

This is firstly unacceptable but secondly it's going to end up getting rescinded at some point. His point may have been justifiable if it had been 11+ but to expect it from 5 year olds and above when they don't even need to wear them on transport or in other settings is unnecessary.

Also - N95 masks are needed by the NHS hence why the government is telling people explicitly not to use them! They won't be happy to see this.

Edit: I've just read the full article. That man is "not known for holding back with his views"... but going against government guidance whilst explicitly criticising them is not good for him. I hope common sense prevails and he is told that this won't be allowed. Fortunately, the comments section is filled mainly with people saying he's a lunatic and this is complete nonsense, with each comment getting a lot of upvotes.

 

[Bantamzen]

I see there’s been a primary school near Milton Keynes mandated masks (must be masks, not just face coverings) for all children aged 5 or over and all adults, no exemptions whatsoever:



(Full article at:https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....ool-head-Britains-make-pupils-wear-masks.html)

I think this is so, so wrong and my children would be getting pulled out of this school immediately. It’s clear the headteacher is an authoritarian with absolutely no grasp of the reality of this situation and the issues with what he’s just done.

Not only that, but he is mandating a level of coverings beyond government guidelines. I wouldn't just be pulling my children from this school, I would be lobbying for him to be sacked with immediate effect.

Meanwhile, oop in t'grim North it is noticeable that mask wearing is starting to, well wear thin. More and more people are not wearing them in shops, and even our local Co-op has added a PA message asking people to b tolerant of people not wearing them.

 

[adc82140]

This man is mad. He needs to be removed from his position. Encouraging reception aged children to wear masks is not only against government guidelines, it is also dangerous. In this academy era, I hope local authorities still have the power to step in.

 

[yorkie]

I hope that Warren Harrison is removed from his position; it sounds to me that he appears to be acting irresponsibly and his actions are not consistent with the behaviour of someone who is fit to be a Headteacher. This is a matter of deep concern.

He does not appear to be putting the needs of children first, he is contradicting the relevant guidelines, and he is infringing on the rights of employees.

If I worked there, I'd be discussing this matter with my Union and I would be making it clear that I would not be wearing a mask at school, and if that meant they terminated my employment, so be it, and I would discuss the matter with my Union regarding obtaining appropriate compensation.

I trust that he will be prevented from carrying out these actions and will be forced to backtrack. I look forward to seeing this happen.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It’s clear the headteacher is an authoritarian with absolutely no grasp of the reality of this situation and the issues with what he’s just done.

He hits the local rag every now and then when the news day is quiet. He really does come across as a bit of a Harry Potter-land nutter, to be honest. He'd never get away with what he does if it was a local authority school - his rants are certainly an advertisement against academisation.

As to the issue of masks I'm undecided. I think it may be appropriate if schools can't do distancing, but much more in older children than primary because it's not clear primary children are even transmitting it, whereas 14 year olds are basically physically adults and will be transmitting it just the same as a 19 year old at work in the sandwich factory even if they don't get symptoms.

As for his criticism of the Government, that in itself will be popular around there, it's very much a working class, Labour voting area where the school is located.

 

[scotrail158713]

I see there’s been a primary school near Milton Keynes mandated masks (must be masks, not just face coverings) for all children aged 5 or over and all adults, no exemptions whatsoever:



(Full article at:https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....ool-head-Britains-make-pupils-wear-masks.html)

I think this is so, so wrong and my children would be getting pulled out of this school immediately. It’s clear the headteacher is an authoritarian with absolutely no grasp of the reality of this situation and the issues with what he’s just done.

It’s madness. Hopefully common sense prevails and this decision is reversed.

Fortunately, the comments section is filled mainly with people saying he's a lunatic and this is complete nonsense, with each comment getting a lot of upvotes.

That’s reassuring to know. The kind of people who usually post comments on online articles strike me as the kind of people who would be completely for this idea. Glad to know that the world hasn’t gone completely mad.

 

[Yew]

That’s reassuring to know. The kind of people who usually post comments on online articles strike me as the kind of people who would be completely for this idea. Glad to know that the world hasn’t gone completely mad.

It could be the Algorithmic Gods, but it does seem like I'm seeing more criticism of things like this now?

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

As to the issue of masks I'm undecided. I think it may be appropriate if schools can't do distancing, but much more in older children than primary because it's not clear primary children are even transmitting it, whereas 14 year olds are basically physically adults and will be transmitting it just the same as a 19 year old at work in the sandwich factory even if they don't get symptoms.

Remember face coverings are not a direct replacement for distancing. That line seems to have been lost over the past few weeks.

Sturgeon seems keen on the idea, and I really do hope there's no difference in numbers if she mandates them, because I genuinely feel sorry for the kids if they have to wear them for 6+ hours a day.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Remember face coverings are not a direct replacement for distancing.

They aren't, but they are a mitigation which allows 2m to be reduced to 1m+ (there are others too).

 

[trebor79]

They aren't, but they are a mitigation which allows 2m to be reduced to 1m+ (there are others too).

Nonsense. These are completely arbitrary measures - there is after all little evidence face coverings work at all, let alone enable a relaxation of other measures. If we were "following the science" all countries would have the same measures, not this mishmash, even within the UK.
I'm close to openly rebelling against the nonsense, rather than alternating between paying lip service so that I don't feel like the odd one out, and living with dermatitis and steamed up glasses from wearing a covering.
To clarify, I am exempt but sometimes choose to live with the consequences of wearing when I judge them to be less unpleasant than those of not wearing. That calculus changes depending upon who I'm with and how I feel on the day.

 

[Ken H]

Nonsense. These are completely arbitrary measures - there is after all little evidence face coverings work at all, let alone enable a relaxation of other measures. If we were "following the science" all countries would have the same measures, not this mishmash, even within the UK.
I'm close to openly rebelling against the nonsense, rather than alternating between paying lip service and exempting myself.

They may work (I think not) but they deffo wont work if (a) they dont cover the nose, (b) the wearer keeps fiddling with it and (c) they are not replaced every hour and the user washes their hands after handling the mask, and disposes of it properly.

 

[trebor79]

Forgot to say also that if we were "following the science" the WHO would not have been pressured into sort-of-but-not-really recommending face coverings.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

They aren't, but they are a mitigation which allows 2m to be reduced to 1m+ (there are others too).

And face coverings will still make little to no difference because the pupils are not distanced at all.