UK face coverings discussion

[Bletchleyite]

I fully understand why some people feel justified in 'civil disobedience' in this matter.

Where we differ is is whether it's appropriate or not to call the remaining people 'sheep' for failing to disobey the law.

Yes, exactly. An individual can decide to break the law if they wish, provided they are accepting of the consequences should they be caught doing so. They may also find it appropriate to incite others to do so, though that is itself an offence in many cases, should they feel it is a bad law.

What is absolutely and totally wrong is to insult people who simply abide by it, whatever their reason for doing so.

I could have reported the post, of course, but I think the wider point is worth making on the Forum because it's part of the overall discussion rather than just someone posting an insulting post on its own.

I do, however, think that many people don’t question the motives behind the laws imposed by the government and just accept them as “for the greater good”, which isn’t a good attitude.

Some of us do believe that the mask law, and indeed other laws relating to COVID-19, are indeed for that reason. Some others believe it is all a conspiracy. I suspect you are in the minority here, and there is nothing wrong with the principle of seeing good in others unless proven otherwise, which is a good, positive life philosophy.

 

[AdamWW]

Yes, exactly. An individual can decide to break the law if they wish, provided they are accepting of the consequences should they be caught doing so. They may also find it appropriate to incite others to do so, though that is itself an offence in many cases, should they feel it is a bad law.

What is absolutely and totally wrong is to insult people who simply abide by it, whatever their reason for doing so.

I could have reported the post, of course, but I think the wider point is worth making on the Forum because it's part of the overall discussion rather than just someone posting an insulting post on its own.

Some of us do believe that the mask law, and indeed other laws relating to COVID-19, are indeed for that reason. Some others believe it is all a conspiracy. I suspect you are in the minority here, and there is nothing wrong with the principle of seeing good in others unless proven otherwise, which is a good, positive life philosophy.

Fully agree,

While we're at it, anyone using the term 'sheep' might want to distinguish those who wear a mask but keep fiddling with it, pulling it down, etc., and the ones who do their best to wear it correctly so that any benefit it brings isn't outweighed by risks added by not using it properly.

 

[trebor79]

That's your opinion, not mine. The word "law" is debateable, since the requirement hasn't been voted on by my democratically elected representative in the House of Commons or in the House of Lords. Welcome to North Korea.

Whether you like it or not, it is the law. Are people also "sheep" for wearing seatbelts, as I suspect most people wear those because they are legally mandated to and don't think about why?

You suspect wrong. It's patently obvious that if you don't wear a seatbelt and are in a collision, the risk of death or horrific injury is much, much higher.
Also a seatbelt protects you, the wearer. A bit of cloth across your face protects nobody, and in all likelihood just serves as a vector for transferring pathogens all over the place.

In any case, the law is written (whether by design or through incompetence) such that if you declare yourself to be exempt then you are exempt. I have given up with even my token effort to comply (everything I've tried either requires constant readjustment to prevent it slipping off my nose, or makes my face horribly itchy - I genuinely believe I'm doing more harm than good as well as it causing me personal issues) and will declare my exemption if challenged. Thus far I have not been challenged.

 

[birchesgreen]

Apart from anything else, if people are following the law for a reasoned fear of punishment, how does that make them "sheep"?

Exactly, some people might be able to shrug off a £100 fine but not me!

 

[AdamWW]

A bit of cloth across your face protects nobody,.

Just as we don't appear to have strong evidence for face coverings helping, neither do we have strong evidence that they don't. (The risk due to people fiddling with them may be outweighed by the gains from wearing them - we don't know)

That might be good reason for not introducing a law requiring them. It doesn't make a statement that they protect nobody correct.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exactly, some people might be able to shrug off a £100 fine but not me!

Indeed. It doesn't matter, though, why you're complying to the law, complying to the law is the simple default and should not render someone the target of insults.

 

[trebor79]

Just as we don't appear to have strong evidence for face coverings helping, neither do we have strong evidence that they don't. (The risk due to people fiddling with them may be outweighed by the gains from wearing them - we don't know)

That might be good reason for not introducing a law requiring them. It doesn't make a statement that they protect nobody correct.

I see. So why are properly made medical masks made to proper standards, the (very competent already) users trained in their use and proper hygiene measures enforced for fitting and removing? Is all of that just for fun? The NHS could save a fortune just by cutting up a few old tee-shirts!
What about during the PPE shortage crisis? Why did we have to wait for all the proper kit to come in from abroad when we could have just told the doctors to use random bits of cloth they've found at home. Cos, you know, that's just as good as properly specified and manufacture kit, right?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I see. So why are properly made medical masks made to proper standards, the (very competent already) users trained in their use and proper hygiene measures enforced for fitting and removing? Is all of that just for fun? The NHS could save a fortune just by cutting up a few old tee-shirts!
What about during the PPE shortage crisis? Why did we have to wait for all the proper kit to come in from abroad when we could have just told the doctors to use random bits of cloth they've found at home. Cos, you know, that's just as good as properly specified and manufacture kit, right?

Nobody is saying that they are.

 

[AdamWW]

I see. So why are properly made medical masks made to proper standards, the (very competent already) users trained in their use and proper hygiene measures enforced for fitting and removing? Is all of that just for fun? The NHS could save a fortune just by cutting up a few old tee-shirts!
What about during the PPE shortage crisis? Why did we have to wait for all the proper kit to come in from abroad when we could have just told the doctors to use random bits of cloth they've found at home. Cos, you know, that's just as good as properly specified and manufacture kit, right?

No. Of course not.

That's just silly.

But that doesn't mean that home made face coverings don't reduce transmission from an infected individual, either.

We don't have to reduce it to zero for it to be worth doing, and if they play their part in keeping infection levels from spiralling upwards then even a modest benefit ultimately has a huge reward.

 

[43066]

Whether you like it or not, it is the law. Are people also "sheep" for wearing seatbelts, as I suspect most people wear those because they are legally mandated to and don't think about why? Or is everyone driving on the motorway at 70mph a "sheep"? Or anyone who pays their train fare?

But most people, if pressed, could point to perfectly good reasons underpinning the requirement to wear seatbelts, to have speed limits etc. That’s much more difficult to do in the case of masks.

Unthinkingly doing something you disagree with “because that’s what I’ve been told to do” does smack of a herd mentality. I have a lot more respect for someone who decides not to wear a mask then for someone who blindly follows the law, but wears one incorrectly, in any case.

Even if you believe masks do make a difference (and that’s all it is - a belief) it’s possible to fully comply with the letter of the law by wearing a crash helmet, a mask with an outlet valve, or a loose fitting bandanna - potentially doing more harm than good. Therefore I’d suggest this law is unfit for purpose in terms of its own objectives.

 

[43066]

While we're at it, anyone using the term 'sheep' might want to distinguish those who wear a mask but keep fiddling with it, pulling it down, etc., and the ones who do their best to wear it correctly so that any benefit it brings isn't outweighed by risks added by not using it properly.

I agree with you there.

 

[A Challenge]

Unthinkingly doing something you disagree with “because that’s what I’ve been told to do” does smack of a herd mentality.

That's no better than calling people sheep for obeying the law - people obeying the law doesn't mean they want to or think it helps - I was the only person in the takeaway who was required to wear a mask when I was last in there, being the only customer as everyone else had to wait outside, and there is no room for the serving staff to social distance, unlike me who was kept two metres away from the counter by a row of chairs. For reference, I removed my mask while I was waiting outside between paying and getting my order.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unthinkingly doing something you disagree with “because that’s what I’ve been told to do” does smack of a herd mentality. I have a lot more respect for someone who decides not to wear a mask then for someone who blindly follows the law, but wears one incorrectly, in any case.

Yes, probably so. However, what we should all do is consider the ethos of the law, and wear a suitable mask properly unless exempt.

Criticising the law is perfectly valid. What isn't valid is throwing personal insults at people who comply to it.

 

[43066]

That's no better than calling people sheep for obeying the law - people obeying the law doesn't mean they want to or think it helps - I was the only person in the takeaway who was required to wear a mask when I was last in there, being the only customer as everyone else had to wait outside, and there is no room for the serving staff to social distance, unlike me who was kept two metres away from the counter by a row of chairs. For reference, I removed my mask while I was waiting outside between paying and getting my order.

I suppose the point there is that you could have worn a mask with an outlet valve, thus doing more harm than someone not wearing one at all, yet you would have been acting perfectly lawfully and they could face a fixed penalty.

Doesn’t that just expose how stupid this requirement is?

 

[trebor79]

No. Of course not.

That's just silly.

But that doesn't mean that home made face coverings don't reduce transmission from an infected individual, either.

We don't have to reduce it to zero for it to be worth doing, and if they play their part in keeping infection levels from spiralling upwards then even a modest benefit ultimately has a huge reward.

But if there's no evidence they do any good then the risk of transmission due to people fiddling with unhygienic bits of cloth over their faces and failing to use them properly introduces more risk.
And infection levels were not "spiralling upwards" when the mask mandate was introduced. In fact they were steadily reducing but now appear to be steadily increasing. Can you not admit that it might just be possible that face coverings are useless in the context of preventing COVID transmission in shops, and the associated hygiene issues that they introduce are causing their own problems?

 

[bramling]

Indeed. It doesn't matter, though, why you're complying to the law, complying to the law is the simple default and should not render someone the target of insults.

And, likewise, someone genuinely exempt and thus complying with the law should be able to go shopping without some vigilante coming up to them and asking “have you forgotten your mask, mate?”.

 

[AdamWW]

But if there's no evidence they do any good then the risk of transmission due to people fiddling with unhygienic bits of cloth over their faces and failing to use them properly introduces more risk.
And infection levels were not "spiralling upwards" when the mask mandate was introduced. In fact they were steadily reducing but now appear to be steadily increasing. Can you not admit that it might just be possible that face coverings are useless in the context of preventing COVID transmission in shops, and the associated hygiene issues that they introduce are causing their own problems?

Yes I can readily admit they might be useless. I don't know the answer.

Let's say there is no evidence that they do any good (I haven't read up on this but it looks as if any evidence is weak). There is also a theoretical risk from people fiddling with them, but again no hard evidence.

But we cannot say with confidence that the risks from using them badly outweigh any benefits because we just don't know. There is no good reason to put the benefits in the "we just don't know" box and the risks in the "definitely a problem" one.

And no levels weren't spiralling upwards (I'm trying to avoid the term exponential growth because I think some people don't understand it). That's not the point. The point is that due to the way a disease spreads, a small measure that makes the difference between one person infecting 1.1 people and 0.9 people can have a massive impact.

So if masks do have a small beneficial effect, that might be enough for them to be worthwhile.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And, likewise, someone genuinely exempt and thus complying with the law should be able to go shopping without some vigilante coming up to them and asking “have you forgotten your mask, mate?”.

That, while also undesirable, is preferable to any form of insult being cast, provided "I'm exempt" is accepted without question. It's insulting people for complying to the law I have a big issue with, not questioning whether the law is sensible or misguided or whether it has other issues such as the one you outline above.

 

[AdamWW]

It's insulting people for complying to the law I have a big issue with, not questioning whether the law is sensible or misguided or whether it has other issues such as the one you outline above.

Quite.

It essentially comes down to "You don't agree with me so you must be stupid."

 

[43066]

Yes, probably so. However, what we should all do is consider the ethos of the law, and wear a suitable mask properly unless exempt.

Putting the spirit of the law to one side, surely you would agree that a law which can be complied with to the letter - in a manner which actually does the *opposite* to what that law is intended to achieve - is a very bad law?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Putting the spirit of the law to one side, surely you would agree that a law which can be complied with to the letter - in a manner which actually does the *opposite* to what that law is intended to achieve - is a very bad law?

Yes, I believe the law has been badly drafted, and should include more useful detail on (a) what constitutes a mask (in particular, valved masks need to be strictly prohibited as they are worse than wearing nothing; anyone using one of those for normal work purposes needs to be maintaining full 2m distancing), and (b) the correct wearing of one.

 

[AdamWW]

Putting the spirit of the law to one side, surely you would agree that a law which can be complied with to the letter - in a manner which actually does the *opposite* to what that law is intended to achieve - is a very bad law?

Depends what you mean by "bad law".

I'd say it means that the law has been badly drafted.

It doesn't mean that the overall aim of the law is itself bad.

(E.g if the seatbelt law had been written so that you could comply with it by wearing a belt on your trousers....)

 

[bramling]

Putting the spirit of the law to one side, surely you would agree that a law which can be complied with to the letter - in a manner which actually does the *opposite* to what that law is intended to achieve - is a very bad law?

Only if that law was actually intended to have a particular outcome in the first place. If the objective of this law is simply to be seen to do something then it doesn’t matter if it has negative consequences so long as people comply! That’s a rather concerning insight into the mentality of this government.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Only if that law was actually intended to have a particular outcome in the first place. If the objective of this law is simply to be seen to do something then it doesn’t matter if it has negative consequences so long as people comply! That’s a rather concerning insight into the mentality of this government.

In your opinion. Mine is that there is considerable and increasing evidence that they do provide some protection of others (not of the wearer to any considerable extent) provided they are used as an additional measure and not to substitute for 2m distancing.

 

[island]

It's a fixed penalty so not a criminal conviction. The way the law has been written, if you say you're exempt then you are exempt. It's on the state to prove that your aren't, which is impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt, if it came to that (which it won't).

That may be so, but as I said, I do not want to create emotional stress for myself. Therefore I am minimally complying when I have to go into a location where masks are required, but for the most part avoiding any such locations.

 

[43066]

Only if that law was actually intended to have a particular outcome in the first place. If the objective of this law is simply to be seen to do something then it doesn’t matter if it has negative consequences so long as people comply! That’s a rather concerning insight into the mentality of this government.

That’s the point I was driving at, really. This particular law is so poor that incompetence alone cannot be behind it. It’s clear that the government does not believe in the efficacy of the laws it is passing. Frankly DC’s grubby finger prints are all over this.

It’s a combination of wanting to be seen to be doing something, and the (misguided) belief that dystopian sight everyone wearing masks in many public settings will somehow make people feel safer, and encourage them to venture out and start spending money again.

provided they are used as an additional measure and not to substitute for 2m distancing.

That’s another point. Initially the justification for mandating masks on public transport was couched as a substitute for social distancing, it settings where it is physically impossible. Yet what we now seem to have ended up with is social distancing + masks? Surely that’s the worst of all worlds.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That’s another point. Initially the justification for mandating masks on public transport was couched as a substitute for social distancing, it settings where it is physically impossible. Yet what we now seem to have ended up with is social distancing + masks? Surely that’s the worst of all worlds.

Depends on the aim.

 

[DB]

In your opinion. Mine is that there is considerable and increasing evidence that they do provide some protection of others (not of the wearer to any considerable extent) provided they are used as an additional measure and not to substitute for 2m distancing.

Let's see this 'considerable and increasing evidence' then! (note - the many studies based on medical settings are not relevant as too many things are different for comparisons to be valid).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Let's see this 'considerable and increasing evidence' then! (note - the many studies based on medical settings are not relevant as too many things are different for comparisons to be valid).

Type "effectiveness of face masks against COVID19" into Google and the world is your oyster.

You can't just decide that the ones that don't agree with you aren't valid. (Well, you can, but it damages the credibility of your argument if you do).

 

[DB]

Yet what we now seem to have ended up with is social distancing + masks? Surely that’s the worst of all worlds.

That seems to be the theory (and the official message being given out), but in reality it appears that the masks make people feel 'safe' so they don't bother with the distancing so much (or at all).