UK face coverings discussion

[Richard Scott]

Should it be a criminal offence for people not to cough into a handkerchief in public?

Should it be a criminal offence to go outdoors and not quarantine when you have symptoms of flu (or any other illness?)

Shouldn't have said that, give some people ideas.

 

[DustyBin]

Look at someone speaking with a light behind them and you will change your mind. Pretty much everyone spits slightly while talking, they don't know they are doing it.

I don’t doubt it but spitting slightly when talking normally is different to emitting large droplets or coughing/sneezing on people; again we could do with some proper research but the viral load argument seems to be concerned with the latter.

In regard to masks becoming normalised, there is a danger that people begin to view others, and even the very air we breathe as being somehow dirty and a threat. That’s not healthy and I’m quite uncomfortable with the thought it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In regard to masks becoming normalised, there is a danger that people begin to view others, and even the very air we breathe as being somehow dirty and a threat. That’s not healthy and I’m quite uncomfortable with the thought it.

Someone with a symptomatic respiratory disease is a threat. Flu can kill you.

 

[DB]

Someone with a symptomatic respiratory disease is a threat. Flu can kill you.

Well hide away in a cocoon of cotton wool then!

This situation is developing into a sort of collective phobia of other people.

 

[43066]

Someone with a symptomatic respiratory disease is a threat. Flu can kill you.

So, are you saying you hibernate every winter, because you’re terrified of flu?

And can you answer my questions above?

 

[island]

The point is that it is not legally compliant -they are obliged to mention exemptions, and that poster doesn't.

It would be rather nice if they did (it is a horrible poster), but I'm not sure it is the law. The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Obligations Of Undertakings) (England) Regulations 2020 (as amended) regulation requires the mention of exemptions and excuses for anywhere that the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) Regulations 2020 apply - ie. shops, cinemas, hotels, pubs, etc. etc. - but public transport has its own regulation, which isn't mentioned here.

That doesn't discount that there may be some other random SI that requires it for transport too, but I haven't yet encountered it.

You are correct; public transport providers are not (for whatever reason) obliged to mention exemptions.

 

[Richard Scott]

Someone with a symptomatic respiratory disease is a threat. Flu can kill you.

So can a car accident but many of us take that risk every day. We can take precautions as we can with viruses like washing hands but at which point do the precautions become over the top and of little benefit? This is where the mask issue comes in.

 

[Bikeman78]

Are you sure about that?



We do need to get away from the emotive talk about safety etc. In this context. A taxi driver who is under 45 is far more likely to die in a car crash than they are of Covid so refusing to carry mask-less passengers while still being prepared to drive a car around to earn a living is irrational.

The way taxis are driven in Cardiff, I'm far more likely to get hit by one than die of Covid. One benefit of the virus is that the number of taxis on the road has plummeted leaving me nice empty bus lanes to cycle along.

 

[bramling]

The way taxis are driven in Cardiff, I'm far more likely to get hit by one than die of Covid. One benefit of the virus is that the number of taxis on the road has plummeted leaving me nice empty bus lanes to cycle along.

Same in my town - we don’t now have badly driven taxis swarming around all day and (especially) in the evening. One rare positive thing.

 

[Bantamzen]

Most of Asia thinks they work for symptomatic infections, i.e. to stop you sniffing, coughing and snotting virus all over people. I don't think that is in very much dispute; it's similar to catching your coughs in a handkerchief.

They do indeed think that, but as others have asked do they actually stop spread?

It may well also be worth pointing out that in some far Eastern countries, taking time off work is seen as socially unacceptable, so it may be that masks are at least part worn to give then impression of reducing spread risks when people have symptoms. I follow quite a few people who have moved to Japan on YouTube, and they often talk about this culture and how it is seen as a way to avoid taking time off sick. They also talk about the crippling effect such a work culture can have on mental health. That's for another thread, but shows why you can't just point to the east and say "well they do it".

Someone with a symptomatic respiratory disease is a threat. Flu can kill you.

I know this only too well. But I don't recall there ever being a time when people called for the kind of measures for influenza that we see this year for covid. Given that the global estimate for IFR is rapidly approaching that of the worse strains of influenza, maybe it is time to rethink the whole mask mandation.

 

[DustyBin]

Someone with a symptomatic respiratory disease is a threat. Flu can kill you.

I think it’s already been covered but many everyday things can kill you. We can’t eliminate all risk, it’s part of life.

 

[35B]

And yet the long established worldwide scientific consensus, up until this pandemic, was that they don’t make a material difference?

Coughing into a handkerchief may be good manners, but is there any evidence that it’s better then coughing into your hand? Or just not directly coughing over other people?

Should it be a criminal offence for people not to cough into a handkerchief in public?

Should it be a criminal offence to go outdoors and not quarantine when you have symptoms of flu (or any other illness?)

Scientific consensus seems to have moved quite rapidly this year, on a number of fronts. That is typical of crises, where the need to respond drives rapid change. Therefore, the relevance of previous consensus is debatable.

I regard the case for masks as logical, with them suppressing the spread of droplets and therefore of the virus. The question to me is of degree.

I think it’s already been covered but many everyday things can kill you. We can’t eliminate all risk, it’s part of life.

Indeed. But it’s generally considered reasonable and ethical to try both to minimise the risks we pose to others and to avoid inducing fear of those risks in others. I see little of that quid pro quo in comments like these.

 

[DustyBin]

Scientific consensus seems to have moved quite rapidly this year, on a number of fronts. That is typical of crises, where the need to respond drives rapid change. Therefore, the relevance of previous consensus is debatable.

I regard the case for masks as logical, with them suppressing the spread of droplets and therefore of the virus. The question to me is of degree.

Scientific consensus has indeed moved quite rapidly this year, mainly as a result of political pressure if the WHO are to be believed....

I’m actually going to agree with you in so far as it seems logical. Covering your mouth and nose must be of some benefit right? Except the coverings people are using don’t filter out viral particles as they’re basically too small (I wouldn’t have known that prior to mask wearing being mandated). Or they’re not fitted properly. And, most importantly in my opinion, people inevitably don’t follow the correct protocol in regard to mask hygiene potentially leading to an increase in transmission of the virus, along with other pathogens. It’s a classic case of the theory (or logic) not matching the reality. I was open to the idea of mask wearing initially, however unpleasant I find them, for the same reason as you. My view changed when I started to research their effectiveness; I’m simply following the science(!).

Indeed. But it’s generally considered reasonable and ethical to try both to minimise the risks we pose to others and to avoid inducing fear of those risks in others. I see little of that quid pro quo in comments like these.

We are trying to minimise the risks by asking people to self isolate and respect social distancing where possible. We could go further by providing vulnerable people with proper PPE that’s proven to be effective but nobody seems to want to talk about that. I don’t generally use analogies, but we minimise risk on our roads by having laws which drivers are expected to obey. We haven’t however lowered the national speed limit to 30mph to reduce the risk further. It seems some people would like to do the equivalent in regard to reducing the risk from respiratory infections, ignoring the unintended consequences.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So, are you saying you hibernate every winter, because you’re terrified of flu?

Why does everything in here have to be absolute?

No, clearly not. However, sensible and minor precautions to avoid spreading flu seem a good idea to me. I'm not saying have a lockdown, I'm not even saying stay at home. I'm just saying if you actually have a cold/flu and you know you do, wear a mask if you can't stay at home. I don't see what's wrong with that. It seems a great idea to me.

This is getting ideological, and it is really, really grossly unhelpful that it is.

And can you answer my questions above?

These?

Coughing into a handkerchief may be good manners, but is there any evidence that it’s better then coughing into your hand? Or just not directly coughing over other people?

Should it be a criminal offence for people not to cough into a handkerchief in public?

Should it be a criminal offence to go outdoors and not quarantine when you have symptoms of flu (or any other illness?)

1. I don't know.
2. and 3. It shouldn't need to be a criminal offence; people should consider others. This is about a culture change to the more altruistic approach of the Asian countries. This is nothing new - remember "coughs and sneezes spread diseases; catch your germs in a handkerchief" - that's years old.

 

[big_rig]

The thing that is wrong with wanting people to do this is (start masking up from now until the end of time for the common cold) that there is literally no evidence that it makes any difference at all. Evidence is not defined as thinking 'oh they do that in Asia, how quaint and polite, we should too.' Science (upon which we supposedly base policy and make laws) is about making a hypothesis, deriving a logical prediction from it, applying skepticism and proving whether or not the idea is valid through experimentation and analysis (and then the job of policy comes in which is to decide whether the benefits make the action worthwhile). Mask promoters are stuck at step 1.

 

[DustyBin]

Why does everything in here have to be absolute?

No, clearly not. However, sensible and minor precautions to avoid spreading flu seem a good idea to me. I'm not saying have a lockdown, I'm not even saying stay at home. I'm just saying if you actually have a cold/flu and you know you do, wear a mask if you can't stay at home. I don't see what's wrong with that. It seems a great idea to me.

This is getting ideological, and it is really, really grossly unhelpful that it is.



These?



1. I don't know.
2. and 3. It shouldn't need to be a criminal offence; people should consider others. This is about a culture change to the more altruistic approach of the Asian countries. This is nothing new - remember "coughs and sneezes spread diseases; catch your germs in a handkerchief" - that's years old.

I don’t actually disagree with the point(s) you’re making here, believe it or not!

I say that with the following caveat as I also agree with this:

The thing that is wrong with wanting people to do this is (start masking up from now until the end of time for the common cold) that there is literally no evidence that it makes any difference at all. Evidence is not defined as thinking 'oh they do that in Asia, how quaint and polite, we should too.' Science (upon which we supposedly base policy and make laws) is about making a hypothesis, deriving a logical prediction from it, applying skepticism and proving whether or not the idea is valid through experimentation and analysis (and then the job of policy comes in which is to decide whether the benefits make the action worthwhile). Mask promoters are stuck at step 1.

 

[MikeWM]

In regard to masks becoming normalised, there is a danger that people begin to view others, and even the very air we breathe as being somehow dirty and a threat. That’s not healthy and I’m quite uncomfortable with the thought it.

This is one of my main concerns about all of this - not just masks, but they are the most visible symbol.

At some point the virus will have faded away into obscurity, but the months of psychological conditioning we're enduring that tells us continually that all other human beings are dirty and dangerous *just by existing normally* has the potential to cause the total breaking of society as we know it. It is incredibly dangerous.

 

[35B]

This is one of my main concerns about all of this - not just masks, but they are the most visible symbol.

At some point the virus will have faded away into obscurity, but the months of psychological conditioning we're enduring that tells us continually that all other human beings are dirty and dangerous *just by existing normally* has the potential to cause the total breaking of society as we know it. It is incredibly dangerous.

I agree. And I would also choose to wear a mask in current circumstances even if it weren't compulsory.

 

[bramling]

This is one of my main concerns about all of this - not just masks, but they are the most visible symbol.

At some point the virus will have faded away into obscurity, but the months of psychological conditioning we're enduring that tells us continually that all other human beings are dirty and dangerous *just by existing normally* has the potential to cause the total breaking of society as we know it. It is incredibly dangerous.

Agreed very much. Some of the behaviours aspects of this are likely to become entrenched if not managed very carefully, in particular the way some people now feel they have the right to challenge behaviours or make up their own versions of how life should be and cajole others into doing as they are told.

We all need to take steps to put a stop to this, or life is going to continue to be rather unpleasant.

In short, some people will need to be out back in their box. In some cases it would be nice for that box to be locked permanently!

 

[35B]

Agreed very much. Some of the behaviours aspects of this are likely to become entrenched if not managed very carefully, in particular the way some people now feel they have the right to challenge behaviours or make up their own versions of how life should be and cajole others into doing as they are told.

We all need to take steps to put a stop to this, or life is going to continue to be rather unpleasant.

People have always tended to try to enforce socially acceptable behaviours to a degree; the mask enforcement you so dislike is just a particular flavour of that. It is no different to my asking someone not to vape when sat next to me or, where law doesn't specifically come into it, my wife "asking" a bunch of louts to moderate their language because she doesn't want the kids to hear it. And like any social enforcement, some of it will be reasonable, and some of it overdone.

But, personally, I'd rather that people enforced social norms than left it to "the authorities".

 

[DB]

People have always tended to try to enforce socially acceptable behaviours to a degree; the mask enforcement you so dislike is just a particular flavour of that. It is no different to my asking someone not to vape when sat next to me

It's very different - assuming ou are referring to a location wher vaping isn't allowed, they have no justification. You can have no idea whether or not somebody has a valid reason not to wear a mask.

But, personally, I'd rather that people enforced social norms than left it to "the authorities".

So you approve of vigilantism. Not something which many of us on here would agree with.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So you approve of vigilantism. Not something which many of us on here would agree with.

There's vigilanteism and there's vigilanteism. Does anyone seriously object to someone getting a sharp look and a tut for dropping litter or for smoking on the bus?

Masks of course are more complex because the Government screwed up by not providing an exemption process.

 

[35B]

It's very different - assuming ou are referring to a location wher vaping isn't allowed, they have no justification. You can have no idea whether or not somebody has a valid reason not to wear a mask.

So you approve of vigilantism. Not something which many of us on here would agree with.

No, I don't approve of vigilantism. I also dislike the intolerance of some who try to enforce mask wearing and try to make mask restrictions far more robust than the government has enacted in law.

However, I also regard society as something where people interact based on a variety of social norms and our conduct is moderated by consideration for others in both directions, not one where our conduct is individuals is only subject to the restriction of those laws that we agree with, and only by those explicitly charged with enforcing them.

 

[43066]

This is getting ideological, and it is really, really grossly unhelpful that it is.

Yes. There’s no evidence masks work, but you’re in favour of them being mandatory anyway. It’s almost like it’s a religious belief.

1. I don't know.
2. and 3. It shouldn't need to be a criminal offence; people should consider others. This is about a culture change to the more altruistic approach of the Asian countries. This is nothing new - remember "coughs and sneezes spread diseases; catch your germs in a handkerchief" - that's years old.

If the answer to 1 is “I don’t know” the answer to 2 and 3 should be “no”, not “it shouldn’t need to be”.

 

[trebor79]

Yes. There’s no evidence masks work, but you’re in favour of them being mandatory anyway. It’s almost like it’s a religious belief.

A lot of the stuff around COVID is getting like that, very polarised opinions and some people with a strong belief in masks, lockdowns and that £10k summary fines for "illegal" gatherings are somehow right and proportionate rather than a gross misuse of Fixed Penalty Notices. But start to question WHY those people believe what they do and you get a lot of wishy washy stuff about "everyone needing to make sacrifices" and a sense that it's what the government has decided so I don't need to think for myself.
A bit like challenging devout Christians "because it says so in the bible and I won't consider another position because that isn't what the bible says".

 

[DB]

A bit like challenging devout Christians "because it says so in the bible and I won't consider another position because that isn't what the bible says".

It's actually worse than that - it's usually possible to find a passage in the bible which can be used to claim justification for either side of the argument! We only see one side in what the government puts out.

 

[yorkie]

Masks of course are more complex because the Government screwed up by not providing an exemption process.

In other words, you want to place a big burden on doctors, as well as forcing people with hidden disabilities to wear something highly visible as a label.

Well, you are entitled to have that opinion (though reading it gives me a very unpleasant feeling) but I strongly disagree with it.

 

[WelshBluebird]

This is one of my main concerns about all of this - not just masks, but they are the most visible symbol.

At some point the virus will have faded away into obscurity, but the months of psychological conditioning we're enduring that tells us continually that all other human beings are dirty and dangerous *just by existing normally* has the potential to cause the total breaking of society as we know it. It is incredibly dangerous.

All I can say is that if it makes people think twice before dragging themselves into the office when there are coughing and sneezing everywhere and makes managers more conscious to the idea that maybe ill people shouldn't be spreading an illness around the office, then that certainly isn't a bad thing!!

Certainly people aren't dirty or dangerous just by existing. But if you are ill with a contagious illness, then at the very least you should consider that in how you deal with other people whilst you are ill.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In other words, you want to place a big burden on doctors, as well as forcing people with hidden disabilities to wear something highly visible as a label.

They are already wearing a label by not wearing a mask in a place where the law requires one to be worn unless exempt. At least with a lanyard or similar, that label is then definitely not "the law doesn't apply to me".

It's really very similar to a Blue Badge, yet people have no issues with that scheme.

 

[221129]

Masks of course are more complex because the Government screwed up by not providing an exemption process.

Except there is an exemption process. You just dont agree with it. There is a difference.