UK face coverings discussion

[Bletchleyite]

I assumed it was in case you fell awkwardly (a la cycle helmets).

If the helmets don’t provide effective protection, why do the other instructors ask people to wear them?! There’s definitely an interesting parallel with masks there...

They don't provide useful protection when instructing, because if you're stood on the floor you shouldn't be in a position where you could fall awkwardly.

On an artificial wall they are indeed worn by climbers to protect against an awkward fall, which in my observation mostly happens just after reaching the ground - the climber often doesn't regain their footing properly, stumbles forward and bangs their head on the wall. However I find it hypocritical to ask people to wear one without doing so myself.

 

[43066]

They don't provide useful protection when instructing, because if you're stood on the floor you shouldn't be in a position where you could fall awkwardly.

On an artificial wall they are indeed worn by climbers to protect against an awkward fall, which in my observation mostly happens just after reaching the ground - the climber often doesn't regain their footing properly, stumbles forward and bangs their head on the wall. However I find it hypocritical to ask people to wear one without doing so myself.

Understood. The knowledge I displayed there shows how often I go climbing!

 

[Richard Scott]

Understood. The knowledge I displayed there shows how often I go climbing!

I understood that part of the reason for helmets was in case of falling objects? What can fall from a climber is another matter unless their phone has gone up with them?

 

[43066]

I understood that part of the reason for helmets was in case of falling objects? What can fall from a climber is another matter unless their phone has gone up with them?

You’re asking the wrong person, I’m afraid!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I understood that part of the reason for helmets was in case of falling objects? What can fall from a climber is another matter unless their phone has gone up with them?

On natural rock yes, but things shouldn't be falling from artificial walls. But this is getting a bit OT now, I was just using it as a parallel to Police wearing (or not wearing) masks

 

[AM9]

It does seem bizarre that you can go round a Supermarket, and whilst customers mostly wear a mask, the employees do not, was round the Co-Op today, must have been about 10 to 15 customers, and maybe a few more than that staffwise, a few on checkouts, and the rest stocking shelves etc, non of them wearing a mask, or even keeping a distance ! it's not only the Co-Op of course !

Meanwhile after the off-topic excursion about climbing wall instructors' helmets, the reason why shop employees don't always wear masks/visors is the same as why some members of the public don't, - they may have an exemption.

 

[43066]

Meanwhile after the off-topic excursion about climbing wall instructors' helmets, the reason why shop employees don't always wear masks/visors is the same as why some members of the public don't, - they may have an exemption.

Wrong again (it’s becoming a habit)

Shop staff are legally exempt.

 

[A Challenge]

Meanwhile after the off-topic excursion about climbing wall instructors' helmets, the reason why shop employees don't always wear masks/visors is the same as why some members of the public don't, - they may have an exemption.

They do have an exemption - albeit just being an employee not a medical one

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Same in my town, especially with the small shops. Meanwhile the local paper is reporting business down, but doesn’t mention masks! Clearly these shops don’t want business.

Having said that, it’s a difficult line for them to tread, as local Facebook is full of mask shaming. No doubt there would be hell to play if Karen enters a shop to spend her furlough money or while away her furlough time and snaps a picture of someone not wearing a mask, it would be all over Facebook like a shot and the shop concerned would be shamed.

I bet Mark Zuckerberg will be delighted in the irony that his platform might be used to shame shops that allow people to show their...errm... Face


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Sep 2020 ==

Amazingly the police in London around Saturday's protest were wearing masks. But for some weird reason, they were back to normal and not wearing them the following day.

Because they knew the proceedings were being live-streamed on YouTube by multiple individuals, with an audience worldwide?

 

[LAX54]

Meanwhile after the off-topic excursion about climbing wall instructors' helmets, the reason why shop employees don't always wear masks/visors is the same as why some members of the public don't, - they may have an exemption.

No, Shop workers are all 'exempt' there is no requirement for them to wear masks / visors etc , so they don't !

 

[talldave]

Shop workers can't be exempt from a requirement that doesn't exist!

 

[westv]

Thanks, looks pretty much in line with rest of the UK, if not slightly better so not having masks definitely not encouraging greater spread.

Interesting. Any mask enthusiasts prepared to speculate why there doesn't appear to be any difference between Wales and England/Scotland?

 

[scotrail158713]

Shop workers can't be exempt from a requirement that doesn't exist!

Slightly confused at this. There’s a requirement for people in shops to wear face coverings, unless they are exempt - of which working in a shop appears to be one.

 

[DB]

No, Shop workers are all 'exempt' there is no requirement for them to wear masks / visors etc , so they don't !

When the mask rule came in the staff in the local Tesco were mostly wearing masks (clearly voluntarily) the first time I went in. The following week most of them werent, and since then I don't think I've seen any at all wearing them!

 

[trainophile]

Most people on my today’s trains don’t seem to be wearing them properly. Ear hangings and chin ornaments appear to be the order of the day now. They really might as well scrap the rule.

 

[MikeWM]

The ONS death figures for the past 6 weeks or so show flu and pneumonia deaths are back around the long-term average. (Covid deaths, by comparison, are continuing to wither away - now below 1.5% of total).

There are a lot of variables in play, of course, but *if* masks (and anti-social distancing, and the rest of the restrictions we still have in place) were actually doing something to stop the spread of respiratory diseases, it seems fair to assume that these should be down on average. As they are not, you could well argue the current restrictions are shown to be entirely useless and therefore should be lifted immediately.

(We are starting to again see an above-average number of overall deaths, however, as deaths from things such as heart disease and diabetes - causes the ONS describe as 'conditions which can become fatal if not treated in time' - remain above average. The start of the health fallout from lockdown?)

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Slightly confused at this. There’s a requirement for people in shops to wear face coverings, unless they are exempt - of which working in a shop appears to be one.

"If" mask wearing is to be mandated in shops, then shop staff should wear masks to protect their customers.

Otherwise, the whole thing is nonsense.

I have to wear a mask at work to protect patients

 

[DB]

"If" mask wearing is to be mandated in shops, then shop staff should wear masks to protect their customers.

Otherwise, the whole thing is nonsense.

I have to wear a mask at work to protect patients

I think it rather demonstrates that the purpose was to be seen to be doing something - if the government actually thought it made any real difference they wouldn't have excluded shop staff / rail staff / police, etc.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

I think it rather demonstrates that the purpose was to be seen to be doing something - if the government actually thought it made any real difference they wouldn't have excluded shop staff / rail staff / police, etc.

Indeed

Now they have "done something" - and the evidence clearly demonstrates that wearing a mask does not prevent the spread of coronavirus, they need to "do something else" and realise that wearing a mask is ridiculous in anywhere otherwise than a controlled clinical setting

 

[MikeWM]

I see Google's landing page today (both for US and UK) has a nice little graphic saying 'Wear a mask. Help prevent the spread of COVID-19'.

Do remember there are always good alternatives to preventing the spread of Google.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I see Google's landing page today (both for US and UK) has a nice little graphic saying 'Wear a mask. Help prevent the spread of COVID-19'.

Do remember there are always good alternatives to preventing the spread of Google.

DuckDuckGo is my search engine of choice.

 

[MikeWM]

DuckDuckGo is my search engine of choice.

Me too; a couple of years ago their results seemed significantly inferior but nowadays they're pretty good in my experience. (Unfortunately I occasionally still end up at Google by accident as we use Chrome at work).

 

[DB]

I see Google's landing page today (both for US and UK) has a nice little graphic saying 'Wear a mask. Help prevent the spread of COVID-19'.

Do remember there are always good alternatives to preventing the spread of Google.

You forgot to mention that there's a 'Learn more' link too, which when clicked gives tells you 'Wear a mask. Save lives'.

How useful!

 

[BJames]

Almost forgot. Went through Coal Drops Yard the other day (in King's Cross area) and walked past a Diesel shop. This sign was in the window.

So not only wear face mask (no mention of exemptions but not surprised anymore) but also wear gloves?? Please. What good is that going to do??

 

[Scrotnig]

Almost forgot. Went through Coal Drops Yard the other day (in King's Cross area) and walked past a Diesel shop. This sign was in the window.View attachment 83020
So not only wear face mask (no mention of exemptions but not surprised anymore) but also wear gloves?? Please. What good is that going to do??

I've started to see more and more 'Facebook Furlough' types demanding everyone wears gloves, so expect this to be the next government mandate.

 

[Bantamzen]

I've started to see more and more 'Facebook Furlough' types demanding everyone wears gloves, so expect this to be the next government mandate.

Frankly if the government listened to the Karens on this one, expect serious pushback from medical experts. The jury may still be considering the case of masks as an effective means of reducing spread vs / ineffective to a hazard, but gloves will almost certain bring them out in force.

 

[adc82140]

I will downright refuse to wear gloves and would happily have my day in court to challenge any ruling such as this. The cabinet, unfortunately has a low enough average IQ to be taken in.

Fortunately I have also seen signs on shops that say "gloves must be removed"

 

[DB]

Frankly if the government listened to the Karens on this one, expect serious pushback from medical experts. The jury may still be considering the case of masks as an effective means of reducing spread vs / ineffective to a hazard, but gloves will almost certain bring them out in force.

Gloves would certainly be counter-productive because if they get contaminated there's no easy way to clean them. I expect the "logic" applied by those in favour is that they are worn in medical settings - completely missing the point that they are put on to perform a single specific task and removed and properly disposed of immeditely afterwards.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Almost forgot. Went through Coal Drops Yard the other day (in King's Cross area) and walked past a Diesel shop. This sign was in the window.
View attachment 83020
So not only wear face mask (no mention of exemptions but not surprised anymore) but also wear gloves?? Please. What good is that going to do??

Gloves should not be worn, as they are far less effective than sanitising hands. Might be worth reporting that to the local public health authority to have them show up and correct them.

Gloves only have value if you have a pack on you and change them (correctly) between each separate thing you touch.

Frankly if the government listened to the Karens on this one, expect serious pushback from medical experts. The jury may still be considering the case of masks as an effective means of reducing spread vs / ineffective to a hazard, but gloves will almost certain bring them out in force.

Agreed. I am in favour of masks, but gloves are worse than useless unless changed between touching each individual thing, so you need a box, not a pair. They also are not more effective than handwashing/sanitising as the virus does not go through the unbroken skin (in either direction).

 

[Bantamzen]

Gloves would certainly be counter-productive because if they get contaminated there's no easy way to clean them. I expect the "logic" applied by those in favour is that they are worn in medical settings - completely missing the point that they are put on to perform a single specific task and removed and properly disposed of immeditely afterwards.

Funnily enough the same is said of masks, but don't tell anyone....

Agreed. I am in favour of masks, but gloves are worse than useless unless changed between touching each individual thing, so you need a box, not a pair. They also are not more effective than handwashing/sanitising as the virus does not go through the unbroken skin (in either direction).

I'm fairly sure recently you were not in favour of them, at least in principle, but were happy to comply with whatever instructions the Circus.... erm, I mean government gave you?