UK face coverings discussion

[LAX54]

Something that really turns my stomach is seeing masks worn just below the nose. It looks so unhygienic, and people will keep touching the top of them right by their nostrils, then returning their hands to their phone or whatever. I've never noticed before how ugly noses are anyway, but seeing them poking out over the top of a mask is just gross.

and also as such, makes the mask useless ! (as are the disposable ones being used for the 4th and 5th time, after being in a pocket / purse etc)

 

[trainophile]

I wonder how well the disposable ones stand up to the sort of wet weather we are currently having. I imagine they would quickly turn to a pulpy mush.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No surprise that Mumsnet is very pro-lockdown!

Given that Mumsnet is mostly populated by stay-at-home mums whose lavish lifestyle is funded by their rich husband, or stay-at-home single mums whose rather less lavish lifestyle is funded by the taxpayer (so basically their life is very secure), this is not surprising. Most other mums don't have the time to spend half their life on forums or Facebook.

 

[DB]

Given that Mumsnet is mostly populated by stay-at-home mums whose lavish lifestyle is funded by their rich husband, or stay-at-home single mums whose rather less lavish lifestyle is funded by the taxpayer (so basically their life is very secure), this is not surprising. Most other mums don't have the time to spend half their life on forums or Facebook.

Indeed, and these are also the types of people (along with the retired) who complete Yougov surveys and similar, hence the views shown by those may well not be representative of the general population.

 

[AM9]

That doesn't answer the question though, does it?

That doesn't matter, the White House will change which hopefully will change some attitudes, just as it did with Downing Street. Overall, compliance is still much higher than was expected in the UK despite a hotch potch of layered restrictions.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Oct 2020 ==

Treat them like mushrooms: keep them in the dark and feed them dung.

Whereas social media platforms such as RUK seem to attract plenty of voiciferous libertarian views. Neither extreme group is right or wrong.

 

[35B]

About right. And it "empowers" the Karen types, and some bully-boy types too, to go round with a bee in their bonnet about masks. I suppose it stops them doing other undesirable things like panic buying!

And, yet again, the language of denigration reappears.

 

[Richard Scott]

And, yet again, the language of denigration reappears.

And you criticise those who have views against these measures but no proposals as to how to move on. As has been pointed out this isn't a one horse race where virus is only thing that matters, there are numerous missed cancer screenings, numerous people who've lost jobs and their businesses but apparently that doesn't matter as long as we carry on ensuring virus is eliminated.

 

[DB]

That doesn't matter, the White House will change which hopefully will change some attitudes, just as it did with Downing Street. Overall, compliance is still much higher than was expected in the UK despite a hotch potch of layered restrictions.

And yet again you dodge the question. You strongly implied that Trump wouldn't have got it if he and his entourage had routinely worn masks - but you have presented no evidence at all for this. You seem to be regarding 'compliance' as something good in its own right, irrespective of whether it actually has any positive effects (it certainly has negative ones, such as those of us who can't wear masks now being treated as the new lepers).

 

[bramling]

And, yet again, the language of denigration reappears.

It isn't denigration, it's reality.

Of the subsets I alluded to, we have one subset who have irrationally latched on to masks, which strangely were only a fraction as popular before the law was changed. And another subset who seem to want to go round stirring up trouble - which is what my place is now experiencing at work. A lot of this is either bullying, or "it's not fair I'm having to wear a mask against my will and you're not".

The worst of it is it's still the case that most mask users are not using them correctly, in one or more ways.

 

[KevinTurvey]

I went into Waterstones today, which has a coffee shop in the middle of the upper floor.

Vast majority of customers browsing books were wearing masks.
Not a single customer in the seated area was wearing a mask.

I am amazed at the double standards. Yet, why are we constantly threatened with fines of up to £6400 for standing maskless even on a deserted, windswept platform?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The idea is to wear except where you can't. You clearly can't if drinking coffee.

 

[birchesgreen]

The idea is to wear except where you can't. You clearly can't if drinking coffee.

Yes i tried once, terrible mess.

 

[island]

The idea is to wear except where you can't. You clearly can't if drinking coffee.

Under English law you are excused from wearing a face covering if it is reasonably necessary to eat or drink. (Section 4 (1) (e), Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) Regulations 2020)

If you have finished your beverage, it would seem that you are meant to put it back on. And that’s before we consider the bag of worms of whether it is ever reasonably necessary to drink an expensive latte at Costa

(Thankfully nobody enforces this absurd nonsense to the letter.)

 

[Skimpot flyer]

The whole Trump entourage travels around without any face coverings, so it only took one of them to contract the infection to pass it on to others. I assume that their highly visible practice of not wearing them was part of Trump's macho libertarian language that has now bitten him back.

Even the most pro-mask contributors on here do not claim that face coverings give such protection as to render the wearer unable to contract coronavirus.
Many claim the viral load may be reduced by the wearing of a mask, and thus the infected person may have less chance of dying. So the implied assertion that none of Trump’s entourage or the man himself would have got the virus if they’d worn masks is flawed, especially as we don’t know just how or from which person Trump got infected.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Oct 2020 ==

I went into Waterstones today, which has a coffee shop in the middle of the upper floor.

Vast majority of customers browsing books were wearing masks.
Not a single customer in the seated area was wearing a mask.

I am amazed at the double standards. Yet, why are we constantly threatened with fines of up to £6400 for standing maskless even on a deserted, windswept platform?

I think the phrase you’re looking for is ‘I’m amazed at the absurdity of different rules being in play for people who are in the same space, breathing the same air, but undertaking different activities’.
More amazing still is that people not only fail to recognise that this is mental, but they actually get confrontational with people who aren’t following an illogical process !

 

[AM9]

Even the most pro-mask contributors on here do not claim that face coverings give such protection as to render the wearer unable to contract coronavirus.
Many claim the viral load may be reduced by the wearing of a mask, and thus the infected person may have less chance of dying. So the implied assertion that none of Trump’s entourage or the man himself would have got the virus if they’d worn masks is flawed, especially as we don’t know just how or from which person Trump got infected. ...

That's exactly what I'm saying. The whole Trump operation at the White House was disregarding expert advice about wearing face coverings, yet only last weekend, there were close groups of his top team hugging, speaking closely in tight groups in a rose garden reception (I think it was the event where he rolled out his nomination for the Supreme Court. Since that event, many of those engaging in such abuse of the rules (no doubt egged on by their leader) have tested positive including the man himself. So contrary to your assertion that I was claiming that wearing of face coverings protects the wearer, I am saying thst this cluster of cases merely reinforces the claims of coverings reducing the viral load to the extent that there are less new cases where the recommendations are adhered to.

 

[DB]

That's exactly what I'm saying. The whole Trump operation at the White House was disregarding expert advice about wearing face coverings, yet only last weekend, there were close groups of his top team hugging, speaking closely in tight groups in a rose garden reception (I think it was the event where he rolled out his nomination for the Supreme Court. Since that event, many of those engaging in such abuse of the rules (no doubt egged on by their leader) have tested positive including the man himself. So contrary to your assertion that I was claiming that wearing of face coverings protects the wearer, I am saying thst this cluster of cases merely reinforces the claims of coverings reducing the viral load to the extent that there are less new cases where the recommendations are adhered to.

It reinforces nothing - you cannot know whether wearing masks would have made any difference at all.

 

[Richard Scott]

That's exactly what I'm saying. The whole Trump operation at the White House was disregarding expert advice about wearing face coverings, yet only last weekend, there were close groups of his top team hugging, speaking closely in tight groups in a rose garden reception (I think it was the event where he rolled out his nomination for the Supreme Court. Since that event, many of those engaging in such abuse of the rules (no doubt egged on by their leader) have tested positive including the man himself. So contrary to your assertion that I was claiming that wearing of face coverings protects the wearer, I am saying thst this cluster of cases merely reinforces the claims of coverings reducing the viral load to the extent that there are less new cases where the recommendations are adhered to.

I'd love to know who all these experts are. It's one of the most overused phrases recently. Fed up with hearing "an expert says....".

 

[35B]

And you criticise those who have views against these measures but no proposals as to how to move on. As has been pointed out this isn't a one horse race where virus is only thing that matters, there are numerous missed cancer screenings, numerous people who've lost jobs and their businesses but apparently that doesn't matter as long as we carry on ensuring virus is eliminated.

I agree, it is a multi faceted challenge where mask wearing is but one dimension of a much larger puzzle.

I am quite willing to agree to disagree over mask wearing. But when the debate descends to deriding “Karens”, and other straw man techniques, I suspect less a reasonable debate over the right approach and more deliberate denigration and belittling of those who disagree.

 

[bramling]

That's exactly what I'm saying. The whole Trump operation at the White House was disregarding expert advice about wearing face coverings, yet only last weekend, there were close groups of his top team hugging, speaking closely in tight groups in a rose garden reception (I think it was the event where he rolled out his nomination for the Supreme Court. Since that event, many of those engaging in such abuse of the rules (no doubt egged on by their leader) have tested positive including the man himself. So contrary to your assertion that I was claiming that wearing of face coverings protects the wearer, I am saying thst this cluster of cases merely reinforces the claims of coverings reducing the viral load to the extent that there are less new cases where the recommendations are adhered to.

We assume that Trump and his team were / are actually bothered about getting Covid. *If* the next few days goes well, then he will come out all triumphant.

I must admit I'm increasingly worn down to the view that we're trying to drain the ocean with many of the control measures, and if it's going to spread then it's going to spread.

 

[Markdvdman]

I was sent a youtube link with scientific studies proving masks are utterly pointless and truly should not be used. Would post it here but I suspect it would not be allowed! It is eye opening!

I of course do wear masks on public transport, and in shops but it is tough on a long rail journey I tell you!

 

[Skimpot flyer]

That's exactly what I'm saying. The whole Trump operation at the White House was disregarding expert advice about wearing face coverings, yet only last weekend, there were close groups of his top team hugging, speaking closely in tight groups in a rose garden reception (I think it was the event where he rolled out his nomination for the Supreme Court. Since that event, many of those engaging in such abuse of the rules (no doubt egged on by their leader) have tested positive including the man himself. So contrary to your assertion that I was claiming that wearing of face coverings protects the wearer, I am saying thst this cluster of cases merely reinforces the claims of coverings reducing the viral load to the extent that there are less new cases where the recommendations are adhered to.

Two things wrong with this post.
You are not seriously suggesting that if the behaviours in bold were happening whilst masks were being worn, the virus wouldn’t have spread at all??
Getting the virus, even with a reduced viral load (for which there is no evidence) would still result in a positive test for all those affected.

 

[trebor79]

Got told off by a shelf stacker in Sainsbury's yesterday, because I had poked my nose out if my mask as my glasses were completely fogging up.
She was quite rude "It needs to cover your nose", no excuse me or anything. So I just took the damn thing off, explained I couldn't see but was doing my best and that if it wasn't acceptable to her then I'm exempt.
Some protestation about fines so I suggested she call the police and carried on with my shopping.
Really annoyed me.

 

[duncanp]

Got told off by a shelf stacker in Sainsbury's yesterday, because I had poked my nose out if my mask as my glasses were completely fogging up.
She was quite rude "It needs to cover your nose", no excuse me or anything. So I just took the damn thing off, explained I couldn't see but was doing my best and that if it wasn't acceptable to her then I'm exempt.
Some protestation about fines so I suggested she call the police and carried on with my shopping.
Really annoyed me.

This is what annoys me about masks, and all the other restrictions associated with COVID-19.

It gives the tin pot little hitlers and control freaks an excuse to boss people around just to make themselves feel important.

Who the hell does that shelf stacker think she is?

If I were you, I would shop somewhere else, so that the store in question loses custom and becomes unprofitable, and then hopefully that shelf stacker will be right at the front of the queue to collect a P45.

 

[island]

If I were you, I would shop somewhere else, so that the store in question loses custom and becomes unprofitable, and then hopefully that shelf stacker will be right at the front of the queue to collect a P45.

Whilst I do agree with the sentiment, the suggestion that the loss of one person’s custom will make a supermarket unprofitable is quite the reach.

 

[duncanp]

Whilst I do agree with the sentiment, the suggestion that the loss of one person’s custom will make a supermarket unprofitable is quite the reach.

True, but if that is how the shelf stacker treats one customer, how does she treat other customers who don't follow the rules about masks, silly one way systems, hand sanitising, and all other tiresome restrictions which make shopping in a store a right pain in the a**e?

A complaint to the store manager would certainly be appopriate in the situation, as I understand most stores have told their staff it is not their job to enforce the face covering rules.

 

[trebor79]

A complaint to the store manager would certainly be appopriate in the situation, as I understand most stores have told their staff it is not their job to enforce the face covering rules.

I am going to send a complaint when I get time, or at least ask what their policy on enforcement is. I will probably suggest that badgering exempt people who are doing their best to wear a mask is likely to have the opposite result to the one they want or expect.
Takes the p too as I witnessed various staff members taking theirs off to have a chat, one even idly swinging it round by the ear loops.

The thing that really annoys me about masks is that so many have been completely brainwashed to unquestioningly believe this disgusting unhygienic habit is somehow key to not passing germs around.

 

[birchesgreen]

So basically you broke the rules, got told about it and are now having a big whinge.

 

[trebor79]

So basically you broke the rules, got told about it and are now having a big whinge.

I guess I broke the rules in that my nose was uncovered. But surely it's more in spirit with what we are meant to do to have just the mouth covered if the alternstive is to go nude?
If I'm going to be hassled and treated like a schoolboy for doing my best I'll just give up and go nude. I'm not having a whinge more pointing out the unintended consequences of hassling people.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Oct 2020 ==

Covid: Things 'bumpy to Christmas and beyond' - PM

Boris Johnson says there is "hope" in fighting the virus, but it could be "a very tough winter".

www.bbc.co.uk

No quote because it's the photograph at the top of the article I want to comment upon.
Johnson and lackey photographed wearing masks in the open air.
This is exactly how the masks in shops mandate was telegraphed...

 

[Skimpot flyer]

I guess I broke the rules in that my nose was uncovered. But surely it's more in spirit with what we are meant to do to have just the mouth covered if the alternstive is to go nude?
If I'm going to be hassled and treated like a schoolboy for doing my best I'll just give up and go nude. I'm not having a whinge more pointing out the unintended consequences of hassling people.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Oct 2020 ==

Covid: Things 'bumpy to Christmas and beyond' - PM

Boris Johnson says there is "hope" in fighting the virus, but it could be "a very tough winter".

www.bbc.co.uk

No quote because it's the photograph at the top of the article I want to comment upon.
Johnson and lackey photographed wearing masks in the open air.
This is exactly how the masks in shops mandate was telegraphed...

Trebor79 you have my utmost respect for trying to wear a mask even though you are exempt, but I think you should just not wear one at all. The attitude of the shopworker in this case in disgusting. I see people on trains and tube who wear them around their chin or in the ‘nose exposed’ mode, and it annoys me. I have far more respect for people not wearing them at all; whether it’s because of exemption or a refusal to comply I care not. The stance of ‘I’ll wear the damn thing, but not properly’ is the act of a coward, especially when all they have to do if challenged is say ‘I am exempt’.
There will come a tipping point. If they try to introduce wearing masks outdoors then I for one will absolutely not comply with such a measure. The evidence they do any good is not forthcoming, and the practicalities involved when it’s pouring with rain are just reason for standing up and saying NO MORE !!

 

[VauxhallandI]

So basically you broke the rules, got told about it and are now having a big whinge.

I believe masks are used as an attempt to reduce risk, therefore a moment of un-nosing is a minor percentage change of a percentage chance.

When you apply the 100% effective 100% of the time logic then you get your response.

I am exempt but would love to wear one in the right situations but as shown it gets the same reaction so I won’t. Happy with your approach now?