UK face coverings discussion

[greyman42]

Police apology over Sainsbury's face mask exemption demand

From the BBC News Website, Sunday 8 November 2020. Quite an appropriate day to publish this, whilst thinking of those who fought for our freedoms etc.



Cut it, paste it, print it, carry a copy around. Flypost it next to every poster saying otherwise. Read it out to every train guard abusing train PA to say anything otherwise etc.

I don't believe for one second that the officer "misinterpreted the guidance". He simply decided that he was going to impose his own law on the member of public and his senior officers should demand to know why.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I don't believe for one second that the officer "misinterpreted the guidance". He simply decided that he was going to impose his own law on the member of public and his senior officers should demand to know why.

His senior officers may well be of the same attitude. Unfortunately the officer/s met someone who (presumably) avoided putting themselves in line for a 'public order' offence by shouting, remonstrating or struggling, had video footage of the behaviour, and knew how to complain effectively.

A few news stories do not give a true picture but the behaviour of some very senior police officers at the time of the April lockdown (drone footage of dog-walkers, roadblocks with no legal basis, social media shaming of individuals, looking into shopping bags etc.) paint a picture to me of a police force just itching to be given draconian powers.

 

[Richard Scott]

I don't believe for one second that the officer "misinterpreted the guidance". He simply decided that he was going to impose his own law on the member of public and his senior officers should demand to know why.

I agree, their quote of often changing legislation is not one they can rely on here as that hasn't changed and been clear from the start. Sounds like they decided they had an easy target and they were going to impose their own version of the law and got caught out.

 

[furlong]

I agree, their quote of often changing legislation is not one they can rely on here as that hasn't changed and been clear from the start.

What I think has been less clear (or deliberately obfuscated?) but is being revealed through responses to legal challenges to the regulations, is that the government seems to expect the regulations to be interpreted on the ground in a way that is fully compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Or in other words, if I've understood this correctly, it is the government's position that every "relevant person" (including police) considers a person's rights under the various articles of the ECHR before taking action under the regulations - this would amount to a 'reasonable excuse' (as the regulations contain only a non-exhaustive list).

 

[duncanp]

Police apology over Sainsbury's face mask exemption demand

From the BBC News Website, Sunday 8 November 2020. Quite an appropriate day to publish this, whilst thinking of those who fought for our freedoms etc.



Cut it, paste it, print it, carry a copy around. Flypost it next to every poster saying otherwise. Read it out to every train guard abusing train PA to say anything otherwise etc.

I live just down the road from Oldbury, and this doesn't surprise me.

You can have all the exemption cards or sunflower lanyards you like, but if you get a tin pot little Hitler of a police officer/store security guard/train conductor who likes to bully people or make himself look big, it won't make any difference.

Police forces, shops and train companies really need to train their staff on the mask laws, and take disciplinary action against staff who abuse their customers.

But there is more chance of Donald Trump winning the US presidential election than that happening.

 

[jumble]

Well, given we have masks AND lockdown anyway, I'd have zero qualms about ditching masks

Seems there is little chance of catching covid on the tube or bus...

London's transport network tests negative for Covid-19

Imperial College London scientists checked the Underground and buses for evidence of coronavirus.

www.bbc.co.uk

Funny that considering that around 10% of tube /bus travellers do not wear masks

 

[Richard Scott]

Funny that considering that around 10% of tube /bus travellers do not wear masks

Not really, just goes to show that masks are likely to be ineffective.

 

[jumble]

Not really, just goes to show that masks are likely to be ineffective.

Exactly my point to the Maskevists

 

[DB]

Exactly my point to the Maskevists

Don't think you will ever win that one! Masks have become like a religion now for a sizeable minority.

Their answer always seems to be that the solution is higher compliance / masks in more places, and the more masks don't work the more convinced they become that more masks are the answer!

 

[MikeWM]

Here's my graph of the day



Now, I'm not saying masks are necessarily making things worse, but...

Just for a thought experiment, imagine if the red was 'masks' and the black 'no masks'. I suspect those keen on masks would be posting graphs like this everywhere, pointing out how well they work and how disgraceful it was that we weren't mandating them.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

I live just down the road from Oldbury, and this doesn't surprise me.

You can have all the exemption cards or sunflower lanyards you like, but if you get a tin pot little Hitler of a police officer/store security guard/train conductor who likes to bully people or make himself look big, it won't make any difference.

Police forces, shops and train companies really need to train their staff on the mask laws, and take disciplinary action against staff who abuse their customers.

But there is more chance of Donald Trump winning the US presidential election than that happening.

I’d like to think that if I were in this guy’s position, and my polite pointing out that I do not need to show proof was not accepted, I would ask them politely to arrest me, convey me to the police station, and charge me. Obviously, when they looked up the specifics of the law, and realised no offence was committed, ask a lawyer to sue for wrongful arrest.
But it’s too much hassle. And plod know this grrrr

 

[DB]

I’d like to think that if I were in this guy’s position, and my polite pointing out that I do not need to show proof was not accepted, I would ask them politely to arrest me, convey me to the police station, and charge me. Obviously, when they looked up the specifics of the law, and realised no offence was committed, ask a lawyer to sue for wrongful arrest.
But it’s too much hassle. And plod know this grrrr

And they've always got the favourite public order offences to fall back on, which can be used and abused in many circumstances.

 

[Jaden_emerald]

I’d like to think that if I were in this guy’s position, and my polite pointing out that I do not need to show proof was not accepted, I would ask them politely to arrest me, convey me to the police station, and charge me. Obviously, when they looked up the specifics of the law, and realised no offence was committed, ask a lawyer to sue for wrongful arrest.
But it’s too much hassle. And plod know this grrrr

I honestly would go this far even if it meant delaying my return home from the UK visit.

 

[The Ham]

Here's my graph of the day

View attachment 85664

Now, I'm not saying masks are necessarily making things worse, but...

Just for a thought experiment, imagine if the red was 'masks' and the black 'no masks'. I suspect those keen on masks would be posting graphs like this everywhere, pointing out how well they work and how disgraceful it was that we weren't mandating them.

Of course the question is, when did masks in each of those countries become required? As if it's after cases start to rise then they are already likely to see it continue to rise.

However there's likely to be other influencing factors. For instance how urban are the countries, as if you look at Cornwall and Bristol then you see very different numbers of cases. Even at a much smaller scale the village where I live (9,000 people) is 50/100,000 the nearby smallish town (40,000 people) nearby has areas where it's got 200/100,000.

As I've said before the evidence either way is going to be weak, especially given that wearing masks can lead to some taking bigger risks than they should.

 

[DB]

Of course the question is, when did masks in each of those countries become required? As if it's after cases start to rise then they are already likely to see it continue to rise.

However there's likely to be other influencing factors. For instance how urban are the countries, as if you look at Cornwall and Bristol then you see very different numbers of cases. Even at a much smaller scale the village where I live (9,000 people) is 50/100,000 the nearby smallish town (40,000 people) nearby has areas where it's got 200/100,000.

As I've said before the evidence either way is going to be weak, especially given that wearing masks can lead to some taking bigger risks than they should.

But as pointed out many times, it's down to those proposing that something is true to demonstrate that it's true, not to others to demonstrate that it's false.

As regards evidence being 'weak' - I would go further and say that in real-world observations the evidence for masks having a beneficial effect is zero - there is, so far as I'm aware, not a single case where the trajectory of infections has been slowed as a result of a mask mandate. And before someone comes up with the argument that this might be because the line was about to steepen and masks stop it, that's not tenable either - it might be a possibility if there was only a single example, but there are loads and none of them show this, and it's simply not credible that all of those lines were about to steepen at the exact time when masks were mandated, or that the effect of masks was such as to cause a line which was about to steepen to continue on the precise trajectory it was on previously.

 

[philosopher]

As regards evidence being 'weak' - I would go further and say that in real-world observations the evidence for masks having a beneficial effect is zero - there is, so far as I'm aware, not a single case where the trajectory of infections has been slowed as a result of a mask mandate. And before someone comes up with the argument that this might be because the line was about to steepen and masks stop it, that's not tenable either - it might be a possibility if there was only a single example, but there are loads and none of them show this, and it's simply not credible that all of those lines were about to steepen at the exact time when masks were mandated, or that the effect of masks was such as to cause a line which was about to steepen to continue on the precise trajectory it was on previously.

From what I have seen, all the studies saying they help seem to come from lab based studies of whether they impede droplets of certain sizes. I have yet to see one study of their effectiveness in real world situations which takes into account how people actually use them. To be fair it may be that is not possible to run a real world study of their effectiveness.

 

[MikeWM]

Of course the question is, when did masks in each of those countries become required? As if it's after cases start to rise then they are already likely to see it continue to rise.

However there's likely to be other influencing factors. For instance how urban are the countries, as if you look at Cornwall and Bristol then you see very different numbers of cases. Even at a much smaller scale the village where I live (9,000 people) is 50/100,000 the nearby smallish town (40,000 people) nearby has areas where it's got 200/100,000.

As I've said before the evidence either way is going to be weak, especially given that wearing masks can lead to some taking bigger risks than they should.

I've recently posted graphs for the UK here and France here - you can see that in both cases the shops etc. mandate came at pretty much the lowest point for infections, and they've been on the up ever since.

Personally, I agree that despite all the graphs, there probably isn't a major negative effect from mask-wearing - I have consistently claimed the effect is probably minimal either way.

My point was that if the graph was the other way around, there would be a *lot* of people claiming correlation means causation, and loudly demanding we should wear masks in the countries that hadn't mandated them. Of course, people like Joe Biden are doing that anyway

 

[trainophile]

Will be interesting to see if, once vaccinations start being dished out, "I'm vaccinated" will be as acceptable a reason for not wearing a mask as "I'm exempt".

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Face coverings were made mandatory as of yesterday at all Royal Mail sites, including distribution centres, where lots of agency staff are used. For many of my colleagues, this will be their first experience of having to wear one for extended periods, and the policy is going down like a lead balloon in my office.
I had a heated argument with my union rep when the news broke last week. He said that exemptions ‘would be recognised’ but only if proof was provided. I pointed out that this would be over and above what the law of the land required when using public transport. He then tried to argue that wearing of PPE was mandatory under Health & Safety legislation - so I had to point him to https://www.hse.gov.uk/coronavirus/ppe-face-masks/face-coverings-and-face-masks.htm
which states:

Face coverings are not classed as personal protective equipment (PPE) because:

• there is currently no need to conform to a manufacturing standard
• they do not provide protection for work risks such as dust and spray

 

[Bantamzen]

Will be interesting to see if, once vaccinations start being dished out, "I'm vaccinated" will be as acceptable a reason for not wearing a mask as "I'm exempt".

Once again, vaccinations will be targeted to the very most vulnerable and those that care for them for the foreseeable future. Any relaxation of masks will not connect directly to having been vaccinated or not, more likely as the vaccine starts to roll out to these vulnerable then rules / guidance can change to allow for the removal of the mandate as the risk of hospitalisations & deaths reduce.

 

[Pete_uk]

I wonder:
-how many people will keep wearing masks once the requirement is dropped;
-how many people will still try and shame those who aren't wearing masks any more, and;
-how many places will keep the requirement for a mask to be worn.

On that last point, once the requirement is dropped I won't carry my snood thong around so if I'm not allowed into a shop I'll spend it elsewhere.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Coronavirus: Reusable copper face mask advert banned over 'destroying germs' claim

The Advertising Standards Authority says the advert was misleading as it implied the mask had a protective benefit for the wearer.

news.sky.com

"An advert for a reusable copper face mask has been banned for making misleading claims about the protection it provides.

The Easylife Group Ltd advert appeared in The Sun newspaper on 19 June, claiming the masks, infused with copper wire, provide "protection against bacteria and viruses".

The Advertising Standards Authority said the advert was misleading because it implied the mask had a protective benefit for the wearer.

However, Public Health England has said wearing a face mask does not protect the wearer but may protect others around them."


My bolding

 

[Skimpot flyer]

I wonder:
-how many people will keep wearing masks once the requirement is dropped;
-how many people will still try and shame those who aren't wearing masks any more, and;
-how many places will keep the requirement for a mask to be worn.

On that last point, once the requirement is dropped I won't carry my snood thong around so if I'm not allowed into a shop I'll spend it elsewhere.

I would be extremely surprised if the percentage of those choosing to wear a face covering, when not mandatory, is even close to 50%.
Mind you, with the constant barrage of subliminal messaging via tv, radio, newspapers and digital bus shelters, who knows?

 

[LowLevel]

On a frosty morning as I discovered the other week at work at some horrible time they do have their advantages - less bulky than a scarf but they keep your face warm!

 

[island]

I wonder:
-how many people will keep wearing masks once the requirement is dropped;
-how many people will still try and shame those who aren't wearing masks any more, and;
-how many places will keep the requirement for a mask to be worn.

On that last point, once the requirement is dropped I won't carry my snood thong around so if I'm not allowed into a shop I'll spend it elsewhere.

I can readily see some premises making masks a condition of entry after they are no longer legally mandatory. A few places such as Merlin theme parks had required them to be worn in parts of the parks from reopening on 4th July.

Hopefully if shops and businesses continue requiring them and others do not, market competition will quickly win out in favour of the non-mask shops.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

I can readily see some premises making masks a condition of entry after they are no longer legally mandatory. A few places such as Merlin theme parks had required them to be worn in parts of the parks from reopening on 4th July.

Hopefully if shops and businesses continue requiring them and others do not, market competition will quickly win out in favour of the non-mask shops.

I suspect the theme parks were forced to make wearing face coverings a requirement of entry under ‘Covid secure’ guidelines.
They must have suspected, surely, that it would deter a (unknown) segment of potential visitors? I guess they took the view that some income is better than remaining shut

 

[DB]

I suspect the theme parks were forced to make wearing face coverings a requirement of entry under ‘Covid secure’ guidelines.
They must have suspected, surely, that it would deter a (unknown) segment of potential visitors? I guess they took the view that some income is better than remaining shut

Possibly also related to the point that the group which is most pro-mask seems to be women in their 30s - exactly the group who will have kids at the theme park age,

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Possibly also related to the point that the group which is most pro-mask seems to be women in their 30s - exactly the group who will have kids at the theme park age,

So they mask up, and do the same to their kids, because they want to feel ‘safe’... while putting them on rides designed to scare the ***t out of them !
Didn’t a teenager die after falling from a uk theme park ride a couple of years ago?

 

[MikeWM]

I can readily see some premises making masks a condition of entry after they are no longer legally mandatory. A few places such as Merlin theme parks had required them to be worn in parts of the parks from reopening on 4th July.

Disney and Apple stores were requiring them from the day they reopened on 15th June. They didn't appear to recognise or allow any exemptions, either, even after they were established in law once they were required in all shops on 24th July.

 

[island]

Disney and Apple stores were requiring them from the day they reopened on 15th June. They didn't appear to recognise or allow any exemptions, either, even after they were established in law once they were required in all shops on 24th July.

I was able to successfully verbally declare an exemption at an Apple store in August, although I had to do so three or four times over the course of the transaction as I was passed between staff members.