UK face coverings discussion

[MikeWM]

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.

I've seen a number of people on Twitter complaining about having less success. Indeed, this is the first case I've heard of where they have accepted exemptions - well done

(Personally I haven't tried - I find Apple stores irritating at the best of times).

 

[DB]

I've seen a number of people on Twitter complaining about having less success. Indeed, this is the first case I've heard of where they have accepted exemptions - well done

(Personally I haven't tried - I find Apple stores irritating at the best of times).

Apple stores are there primarily for hipsters and kids to go and drool over the latest shiny toy which they can't really afford (but might get on credit anyway). I rarely go in them, but on the few occasions I've had to for work I have found the "geniuses" to be pretty lacking in relevant basic knowledge of anything.

 

[island]

I almost exclusively buy Apple stuff online, though on that particular occasion I needed a repair which they could do on the spot in an hour, the alternative being to post my phone off to them with a 5 working day turnaround...

 

[VauxhallandI]

Apple stores are there primarily for hipsters and kids to go and drool over the latest shiny toy which they can't really afford (but might get on credit anyway). I rarely go in them, but on the few occasions I've had to for work I have found the "geniuses" to be pretty lacking in relevant basic knowledge of anything.

Im neither a hipster nor a kid but even in normal times I find Apple stores annoying and all this appointment stuff is just a no no for me!

 

[initiation]

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 am completely against government forced compulsory wearing of face coverings but would be fine if certain private shops or venues wanted to mandate it themselves (with exemptions). In the same way some restaurants have a dress code - we can choose to avoid them and those who do want to wear them can 'feel' safer.

If the compulsion was dropped by government, wearing would drop very rapidly. It is self reinforcing as they are one of the most visible reminders that we are 'in the middle of a pandemic'.

You only have to look at Wales which had masks much later than England - a supermarket I was in on the border never had more than 25% wearing them even in the week before being introduced.

Unfortunately I can't see them being dropped before April.

 

[packermac]

I guess those opposed to masks will be unhappy but the CDC is now saying that masks protect both the wearer and those around them. I guess other health authorities may follow.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.

www.cdc.gov

"Experimental and epidemiological data support community masking to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. The prevention benefit of masking is derived from the combination of source control and personal protection for the mask wearer. The relationship between source control and personal protection is likely complementary and possibly synergistic, so that individual benefit increases with increasing community mask use. Further research is needed to expand the evidence base for the protective effect of cloth masks and in particular to identify the combinations of materials that maximize both their blocking and filtering effectiveness, as well as fit, comfort, durability, and consumer appeal. Adopting universal masking policies can help avert future lockdowns, especially if combined with other non-pharmaceutical interventions such as social distancing, hand hygiene, and adequate ventilation".

 

[trainophile]

So sad seeing the 11/11 Remembrance service at Westminster Abbey this morning, with everyone wearing masks. I hate them with a vengeance now.

Haven't been out for eight days. Mainly because I detest wearing them so much.

 

[MikeWM]

I guess those opposed to masks will be unhappy but the CDC is now saying that masks protect both the wearer and those around them. I guess other health authorities may follow.

You can't disentangle the politics in the USA from the science, unfortunately. Given the head of the CDC seems to think that a mask is better at protecting you than a vaccine, which I'd imagine even the most pro-mask person would raise an eyebrow at, then I'm not sure we need to pay them too much attention.

Adopting universal masking policies can help avert future lockdowns, especially if combined with other non-pharmaceutical interventions such as social distancing, hand hygiene, and adequate ventilation".

That's worked well in Europe, hasn't it?

 

[DB]

I guess those opposed to masks will be unhappy but the CDC is now saying that masks protect both the wearer and those around them. I guess other health authorities may follow.
"Experimental and epidemiological data support community masking to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. The prevention benefit of masking is derived from the combination of source control and personal protection for the mask wearer. The relationship between source control and personal protection is likely complementary and possibly synergistic, so that individual benefit increases with increasing community mask use. Further research is needed to expand the evidence base for the protective effect of cloth masks and in particular to identify the combinations of materials that maximize both their blocking and filtering effectiveness, as well as fit, comfort, durability, and consumer appeal. Adopting universal masking policies can help avert future lockdowns, especially if combined with other non-pharmaceutical interventions such as social distancing, hand hygiene, and adequate ventilation".

So where's the evidence then? It does seem that these bodies think that they can just state something and that will make it true. They would never have got away with this before - they would have had to back it up with solid evidence.

 

[big_rig]

So where's the evidence then? It does seem that these bodies think that they can just state something and that will make it true. They would never have got away with this before - they would have had to back it up with solid evidence.

As usual, the evidence is 'limited to observational and epidemiological studies,' whatever that means (a nice way of saying not science, effectively).

As far as I can tell the 'evidence' on this page is limited to:

• Youtube videos of mask fabric stretched over a 'cough machine' recorded on a phone;
• Something about a hairdressers salon;
• Something about people in China where there is basically zero covid;
• Something about people in Thailand where there is basically zero covid;
• An observation that covid doesn't seem to spread much on planes;
• Debunked and withdrawn 'studies' analysing covid rates in places after they introduced mask rules.

Clicking on many of the citations tells the usual story: 'this paper has not been peer reviewed and should not be used for..blah blah..'

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.

www.cdc.gov

Scientific Brief: Community Use of Cloth Masks to Control the Spread of SARS-CoV-2​

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Adopting universal masking policies can help avert future lockdowns, especially if combined with other non-pharmaceutical interventions such as social distancing, hand hygiene, and adequate ventilation".

But none of these measures have been shown to work.

Reasons/evidence to the contrary done to death here, and on other threads

Oh and btw, I never believe anything that comes out of the CDC

 

[35B]

As usual, the evidence is 'limited to observational and epidemiological studies,' whatever that means (a nice way of saying not science, effectively).

As far as I can tell the 'evidence' on this page is limited to:

• Youtube videos of mask fabric stretched over a 'cough machine' recorded on a phone;
• Something about a hairdressers salon;
• Something about people in China where there is basically zero covid;
• Something about people in Thailand where there is basically zero covid;
• An observation that covid doesn't seem to spread much on planes;
• Debunked and withdrawn 'studies' analysing covid rates in places after they introduced mask rules.

Clicking on many of the citations tells the usual story: 'this paper has not been peer reviewed and should not be used for..blah blah..'

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.

www.cdc.gov

You seem not to mention ref. 35 in that study, which does show an effect.

 

[DB]

You seem not to mention ref. 35 in that study, which does show an effect.

Does it?

e.g. statements like this:

Service members who reported taking preventive measures had a lower infection rate than did those who did not report taking these measures (e.g., wearing a face covering, 55.8% versus 80.8%; avoiding common areas, 53.8% versus 67.5%; and observing social distancing, 54.7% versus 70.0%, respectively).

Do not make it clear what actually might have been responsible for any observed difference. e.g. if those who were wearing masks were also avoiding going near other people so far as possible that wouldn't really prove anything about masks specifically (or indeed any other the other aspects).

 

[DustyBin]

You can't disentangle the politics in the USA from the science, unfortunately. Given the head of the CDC seems to think that a mask is better at protecting you than a vaccine, which I'd imagine even the most pro-mask person would raise an eyebrow at, then I'm not sure we need to pay them too much attention.

Agreed, I think this is highly politicised to be honest. The timing seems rather too much of a coincidence!

 

[DB]

Agreed, I think this is highly politicised to be honest. The timing seems rather too much of a coincidence!

Wonder whether they had an alternative version prepared for if Trump had won?

 

[DustyBin]

Wonder whether they had an alternative version prepared for if Trump had won?

 

[greyman42]

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:

So has your union rep accepted that you are correct and pointed this out to management? If not i think you need a new union rep.

 

[Scotrail12]

Kinda fed up with constant reminders about face coverings, a guy from the ScotRail control room just came on the PA and started rambling about them which I found condescending given that we've been doing this for like 5 months now!

 

[big_rig]

You seem not to mention ref. 35 in that study, which does show an effect.

My sincere apologies for missing out one reference to another non-peer reviewed 'report' which has self-described limitations, and which the same as the rest shows no benefit at all in terms of protecting others by wearing a face covering Would you care the engage on the scientific rigour of the rest, though?

 

[35B]

My sincere apologies for missing out one reference to another non-peer reviewed 'report' which has self-described limitations, and which the same as the rest shows no benefit at all in terms of protecting others by wearing a face covering Would you care the engage on the scientific rigour of the rest, though?

Personally, I have an open mind and do not regard them as the be all and end all. Unlike some, I accept that observational studies are valid, and that conclusions may be drawn from them. What I questioned, on a very cursory read of the linked article, was a list of studies that supported your contention, and omitted the one that offered partial support for the use of masks. And, to answer the question from @DavidB, those figures show a material effect in favour of mask wearing of up to 30% reduction in incidence relative to those who did not wear masks - compared with c. 20% for the other two mitigations. That's enough to make me interested, even if it may be combined with other factors.

Wonder whether they had an alternative version prepared for if Trump had won?

I very much doubt it; as far as the institutions of government are concerned, Biden has not won and Transition has not started.

 

[big_rig]

Personally, I have an open mind and do not regard them as the be all and end all. Unlike some, I accept that observational studies are valid, and that conclusions may be drawn from them. What I questioned, on a very cursory read of the linked article, was a list of studies that supported your contention, and omitted the one that offered partial support for the use of masks. And, to answer the question from @DavidB, those figures show a material effect in favour of mask wearing of up to 30% reduction in incidence relative to those who did not wear masks - compared with c. 20% for the other two mitigations. That's enough to make me interested, even if it may be combined with other factors.

I very much doubt it; as far as the institutions of government are concerned, Biden has not won and Transition has not started.

So what of the other nonsense ‘studies’ and observations please? People on planes, some mask wrapped over a machine, something about Thailand where barely 3,000 people have recorded positive cases? Are these brilliant pieces of evidence? Can your open mind provide us with some guidance on each of the other points?

 

[kez19]

Kinda fed up with constant reminders about face coverings, a guy from the ScotRail control room just came on the PA and started rambling about them which I found condescending given that we've been doing this for like 5 months now!

That day to Glasgow was enough for me with Scotrail ... it’s your responsibility, you have to social distance, have a problem speak to one of the conductors etc.... authoritative and patronising at same time

 

[GRALISTAIR]

You can't disentangle the politics in the USA from the science, unfortunately. Given the head of the CDC seems to think that a mask is better at protecting you than a vaccine, which I'd imagine even the most pro-mask person would raise an eyebrow at, then I'm not sure we need to pay them too much attention.

Exactly sadly.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

So has your union rep accepted that you are correct and pointed this out to management? If not i think you need a new union rep.

The CWU are supporting Royal Mail’s new policy, which could have left staff with medical conditions with potentially nowhere to turn.

I asked if mandatory masks were being introduced under the legal framework or under an unagreed change to our terms and conditions? Both my manager and rep started to get nervous when I stated that under the Equality Act 2010 they cannot routinely ask for evidence of my condition.
Both the union and the management had to back down and agree to recognise, and permit, exemptions. But the creeping introduction of face coverings into more and more settings is, as a poster on here commented, becoming akin to the opening credits of TV’s ‘Dad’s Army’...

 

[island]

I asked if mandatory masks were being introduced under the legal framework or under an unagreed change to our terms and conditions? Both my manager and rep started to get nervous when I stated that under the Equality Act 2020 they cannot routinely ask for evidence of my condition.

And the fact that they accept references to nonexistent laws like that is further nonsense.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

And the fact that they accept references to nonexistent laws like that is further nonsense.

My typo, now corrected. Equality Act 2010 applies

 

[35B]

The CWU are supporting Royal Mail’s new policy, which could have left staff with medical conditions with potentially nowhere to turn.

I asked if mandatory masks were being introduced under the legal framework or under an unagreed change to our terms and conditions? Both my manager and rep started to get nervous when I stated that under the Equality Act 2010 they cannot routinely ask for evidence of my condition.
Both the union and the management had to back down and agree to recognise, and permit, exemptions. But the creeping introduction of face coverings into more and more settings is, as a poster on here commented, becoming akin to the opening credits of TV’s ‘Dad’s Army’...

So why does the Equalities Act 2010 mean they not ask whether you have a relevant condition? As I get any number of surveys asking intrusive questions about sensitive personal information from my employer and public bodies so that they can pursue their obligations under the Equalities Act, I’m struggling to understand why an employer cannot establish enough information to validate the need for an exemption, bearing in mind that they also have obligations under a variety of other laws to employees and others.

unless I’m missing something, the point about “routinely asking” about exemption details was in one of the enforcement clauses for the Covid regulations, so completely irrelevant to the legal position governing an employer vis-a-vis its employees.

 

[island]

They can’t routinely ask, but nothing in the Equality Act 2010 prevents them from asking once (although some people have in the past incorrectly cited sections regarding victimisation and harassment to support spurious claims that they never need to produce evidence of disability).. The GDPR then governs storage of the special category personal data.

 

[43066]

So why does the Equalities Act 2010 mean they not ask whether you have a relevant condition? As I get any number of surveys asking intrusive questions about sensitive personal information from my employer and public bodies so that they can pursue their obligations under the Equalities Act, I’m struggling to understand why an employer cannot establish enough information to validate the need for an exemption, bearing in mind that they also have obligations under a variety of other laws to employees and others.

unless I’m missing something, the point about “routinely asking” about exemption details was in one of the enforcement clauses for the Covid regulations, so completely irrelevant to the legal position governing an employer vis-a-vis its employees.

I can see that going well.

I can imagine the scenario where a manager badgers an employee to explain why they won’t wear a covering, and that employee finally turns round and tells them it’s because they were a victim of sexual assault, and then goes off long term sick with stress...

In the real world competent managers and HR departments will be aware that this is a tricky area and, in the vast majority of cases, this kind of thing will be dealt with by simply producing an exemption lanyard without needing to go into detail about what the reason might be.

 

[35B]

I can see that going well.

I can imagine the scenario where a manager badgers an employee to explain why they won’t wear a covering, and that employee finally turns round and tells them it’s because they were a victim of sexual assault, and then goes off long term sick with stress...

In the real world competent managers and HR departments will be aware that this is a tricky area and, in the vast majority of cases, this kind of thing will be dealt with by simply producing an exemption lanyard without needing to go into detail about what the reason might be.

I agree, competent organisations will be practical and sensitive about it, and should never push it too far. That means accepting "wearing a mask gives me panic attacks" (say), rather than going into the "why does that happen" - the reason for the panic attack is irrelevant to the need for an exemption.