UK face coverings discussion

[sheff1]

On another point, I walked through the town centre yesterday and the maskivist notices in shop windows do seem to be ramping up - not only does there now seem to be more of them, but they are increasingly peremptory in their demands - e.g. Masks MUST be worn in this shop, or one shops with a blue and white 'Face masks must be worn' sign of the type seen in areas with machine tools and the like. Of course, I didn't see any which mentioned exemptions.

A number of shops round here have this type of notice. I refuse to enter any of them, even though I can and do wear a face covering. One of the shops (a bakers) ceased trading this week, they had another notice saying only one member of a household could enter "to ensure social distancing". Obviously their closure will not be down to my boycott, but there are 3 other bakers in the High St & another 5 mins walk away, all of which seem to be thriving, so it seems others voted with their feet as well.

 

[bramling]

But if the medical evidence is strong (ha!) about masks protecting others, who is the more likely superspreader?
The person wearing one for 30 mins or the person NOT wearing one, for 8+ hours on a shift at work, in proximity to hundreds of people?
Whether it gets uncomfortable is not relevant to the issue of whether face-coverings actually work in slowing transmission. If you truly believe they do, it makes the shop-worker exemption utterly ridiculous!

Has anyone got to the bottom of *why* the exemptions actually exist for shop / transport staff? Not that I’m complaining, but it would be interesting to know the a actual reason.

A couple of hours ago I popped into a (fairly empty) Tesco Extra. The only member of staff wearing a mask was the security, and of the few customers in there only one wearing a mask. Obviously time of day may have been a factor. This is in south-east England for the record, so fits with the theory about north versus south.

 

[Huntergreed]

I was in Preston, Blackpool and Carlisle today on the streets. Plenty of street-mask wearing which fits with the north-south divide on masks, and I got quite a few dirty looks and asked once for an “exemption certificate” (didn’t happen once down in London). I do think the north south divide is becoming even more apparent. Even in trivial things, like in station/onboard announcements (in the south, it was along the lines of “please wear a face covering, and remember some people may not be able to” or “you must wear a face covering, unless you are exempt”, whereas up here in the North it seems to just be “You must wear a face covering”, no exemptions mentioned.

I also find it interesting that the signs in shops with a harsh tone have increased, saw a few “you must wear a face covering to enter this shop”. There seems to be one going around in Blackpool, “don’t make us ask, wear a face mask”, which I don’t agree with the tone of for the likes of exemptions.

 

[bramling]

I was in Preston, Blackpool and Carlisle today on the streets. Plenty of street-mask wearing which fits with the north-south divide on masks, and I got quite a few dirty looks and asked once for an “exemption certificate” (didn’t happen once down in London). I do think the north south divide is becoming even more apparent. Even in trivial things, like in station/onboard announcements (in the south, it was along the lines of “please wear a face covering, and remember some people may not be able to” or “you must wear a face covering, unless you are exempt”, whereas up here in the North it seems to just be “You must wear a face covering”, no exemptions mentioned.

I also find it interesting that the signs in shops with a harsh tone have increased, saw a few “you must wear a face covering to enter this shop”. There seems to be one going around in Blackpool, “don’t make us ask, wear a face mask”, which I don’t agree with the tone of for the likes of exemptions.

There seem to be such notices appearing in shops down south too. Where we’re staying now we went for a walk up the high street and I couldn’t help noticing a few quite threatening notices, including a couple where people with exemptions should remain at the door and staff will come and you will be served at the doorway. Lovely! My home town seems to be similar.

We have certainly been keeping a mental note of such shops, who won’t be seeing our business going forward.

Tesco do seem to be taking the lead for most chilled and pleasant experience, which to be fair has tended to be the case right through (though there’s one security at my local Tesco Metro who seems to be the exception to the rule).

 

[sheff1]

I was in Preston, Blackpool and Carlisle today on the streets. Plenty of street-mask wearing which fits with the north-south divide on masks, and I got quite a few dirty looks ...

I was in Preston on Saturday and didn't notice that much mask wearing in the street.

I have never worn a mask in a street anywhere and have not noticed any dirty looks .... there again, I don't really pay much attention to the facial expressions of other pedestrians so may have had 100's of such looks, all of which will have been wasted.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Sep 2020 ==

If there is a north-south divide (haven't been down south for months so can't judge for myself) that may well explain why the majority of 'problem' areas are in the north ....... The number of positive tests does seem to have increased since face coverings became mandatory in shops etc which is rather at odds with the claims on here and elsewhere that mask wearing significantly reduces the chances of infection.

 

[yorkie]

.... north-south divide on masks....

I think it may be more that people tend to be perhaps a bit more authoritarian, and a bit less relaxed about what other people are doing, in the north of England, compared to London.

Masks are incredibly divisive (possibly more so than Brexit!) and it tends to be primarily on authoritarian vs libertarian lines; the way it's been mandated and the way people are being mistreated exacerbates the problem.

That said, there's a bit of an older people vs younger thing too (though you get the opposite effect within a secondary school i.e. the younger students are more likely to wear face coverings than older ones; but that may be because a Year 7 is more likely to be influenced by parents/grandparents than, say, a Year 11?), and again that fits with the London vs the north comparison, as the population of London tends to be a bit younger than the north.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think it may be more that people tend to be perhaps a bit more authoritarian, and a bit less relaxed about what other people are doing, in the north of England, compared to London.

I think that may be an oversimplification. Certainly it's true that the expectation of privacy (i.e. minding your own business) is very high in crammed-in London, and much lower in Northern cities, and even lower than that in Northern rural areas. That is largely down to how crammed-in it is down South - you can only get the space you need on the Tube by pretending others don't exist, whereas people chatting to strangers on trains and buses in the North is not entirely unusual. Therefore there is no big cultural barrier to "excuse me, have you forgotten your mask?" up north in the way there is down south.

Masks are incredibly divisive (possibly more so than Brexit!) and it tends to be primarily on authoritarian vs libertarian lines; the way it's been mandated and the way people are being mistreated exacerbates the problem.

I find this interesting, as I wouldn't generally consider myself authoritarian, though I am in favour of simple systems with few exceptions needed in situations where authority is needed, because it makes things easier for everyone - for me, I know what I am supposed to do, and for the Police (or ticket inspectors, or whatever) they know what they have to enforce. For me I think this is more that I don't like awkwardness and inconsistency, though, rather than that I would rather everyone behaved perfectly. So if I needed a mask exemption I would far rather have an exemption certificate I could show in the manner of a Blue Badge than have an awkward conversation each time. Indeed, the "one number to remember" on gatherings actually does seem a good idea, I just think 6 is too low as it will cause a number of families issues (including Matt Hancock himself!), I'd have gone with 10.

The reason for being in favour of masks so far from my point of view is again not authoritarian, but is because I think we should genuinely trial anything that might work - anything at all, no taboos - because we are in a seriously bad position. Along similar lines I am in favour of "challenge trials" and would volunteer myself. I'd even love to trial herd immunity though I don't know how that could be done on a self contained basis[1]. I am however moving away from that favour of masks because the numbers are suggesting they are not working or at least are not making any difference.

The reason I favour legislation is the same as anything else in that context, such as speed limits and other driver conduct rules - masks are to protect others, and so legislation and enforcement is appropriate because people generally make bad choices when the choice relates to protecting others - i.e. we are not as a population altruistic enough (the Swedes seem to be different). I oppose, and would continue to oppose, any legislation specifically aimed at protecting me, e.g. I would oppose mandatory shielding.

[1] I suppose France and Spain, unless they lock down, are trialling it, so we can watch their figures!

 

[yorkie]

....I find this interesting, as I wouldn't generally consider myself authoritarian,....

Not dramatically so, but I'd definitely say you come across as more authoritarian than libertarian

I think what issues like lockdown, masks etc have done is exacerbate what were previously almost undetectable differences in opinion between people whose views are in the centre ground; people who are very slightly authoritarian versus very slightly libertarian would hitherto have found very little - if anything - to disagree over in that area, but now suddenly find themselves having opposing views regarding incredibly divisive matters such as mandatory mask wearing.

Let's not beat about the bush: what we are seeing now, especially the incidents in Australia, Madrid, on the Easyjet plane, etc, are deeply divisive matters which can evoke strong reactions in people. This is a major change to our society and, given overly authoritarian regimes are not generally favoured in civilised countries, this is a big thing.

 

[43066]

Therefore there is no big cultural barrier to "excuse me, have you forgotten your mask?" up north in the way there is down south.

That really wouldn’t be an appropriate question for anyone to ask (even a police officer), as it implies that the only reason for not wearing a mask is because you’ve forgotten it, whereas you might be simply be exempt.

The reason for being in favour of masks so far from my point of view is again not authoritarian, but is because I think we should genuinely trial anything that might work - anything at all, no taboos - because we are in a seriously bad position.

But it is authoritarian to suggest that they should be mandated when the evidence that they make any positive difference is weak/non existent. It’s becoming increasingly obvious that they make no real difference*, but there is zero chance of the government removing the requirement to wear them any time soon, because that would require admitting they’ve got something wrong.

*Of course the government has known this all along. I’m convinced real reason for masks being mandated is to keep the population afraid. Keeping the population terrified of the virus justifies the gross over reaction to the situation, and provides a convenient distraction from their ongoing incompetence.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not dramatically so, but I'd definitely say you come across as more authoritarian than libertarian

I think my views are quite strongly split between restrictions on things that affect only the individual (which I vehemently oppose, things like cycle helmet law for example, noting that even though I strongly oppose law on the matter I do now wear one myself) and restrictions on things where the individual would adversely affect others (which I'm strongly in favour of, e.g. stricter road traffic law and enforcement). So in that regard there are things I'm strongly libertarian on, and there are things I'm strongly authoritarian on. As masks are believed (if they do anything) to protect others from the wearer, I guess that's why I come down on that side. If the law was to wear a valved N95 to protect yourself only, I'd be strongly opposed and might even not comply.

But then my politics are odd - this is yet another representation of how I'm left on some things (e.g. on having a strong provision of public services in all areas and setting taxes at a level to fund them properly), and right on others (e.g. it's very important to exercise personal responsibility as far as you can before falling on a state safety net). Basically "we'll help you as long as you at least tried to help yourself".

I think what issues like lockdown, masks etc have done is exacerbate what were previously almost undetectable differences in opinion between people whose views are in the centre ground: people who are very slightly authoritarian vs very slightly libertarian would hitherto have found very little - if anything - to disagree over, but suddenly find themselves on opposing views regarding incredibly divisive matters such as mandatory mask wearing.

Yes, quite possibly so.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Sep 2020 ==

That really wouldn’t be an appropriate question for anyone to ask (even a police officer), as it implies that the only reason for not wearing a mask is because you’ve forgotten it, whereas you might be simply be exempt.

I note your location being London

I'm not debating whether it's appropriate to ask that, we did that a few weeks ago. The point I'm making is that the lack of inhibition over engaging with strangers in conversation in the North means there's no barrier to asking that if you were so minded, whereas in London (and the associated parts of the SE) you mind your own business - not just regarding masks, regarding anything.

But it is authoritarian to suggest that they should be mandated when the evidence that they make any positive difference is weak/non existent. It’s becoming increasingly obvious that they make no real difference*, but there is zero chance of the government removing the requirement to wear them any time soon, because that would require admitting they’ve got something wrong.

I'd shorten that - it's authoritarian to mandate them. The evidence part is not really relevant to whether it's authoritarian or not.

 

[kristiang85]

Not Britain, but this is completely OTT (even as someone who isn't anti mask) :

BBC News - WestJet cancels flight because of mask dispute with child

WestJet cancels flight because of mask dispute with child

All passengers were told to get off the WestJet flight as a young girl was not wearing her mask.

www.bbc.co.uk

A Canadian flight was cancelled and police were called because a child was not wearing a mask.

Safwan Choudhry says WestJet wanted his 19-month-old to wear a mask, but the baby girl would not stop crying.

The airline says the issue was not with the infant, who is below the age required to wear a mask, but with Mr Choudhry's three-year-old.

Tuesday morning's Flight 652 from Calgary to Toronto was stopped, and all passengers were ordered to disembark.

"It's unlike anything I have ever witnessed, let alone experienced," Mr Choudhry told the BBC.

Mr Choudhry told the BBC his oldest daughter, who is three, was eating a snack before take-off when flight attendants approached them asking that both their children wear a mask. He said he and his wife were masked.

He said he asked if his daughter could finish her snack, but that they said they had a "zero tolerance policy" and would not close the airplane door without her wearing a mask. Mr Choudhry said he agreed to put one on immediately.

"Most children you have to kind of ease them into it, which is a code word for let me get the iPad out," he told the BBC.

He says the three-year-old did put on a mask, after some fussing.

"But my younger one had a very difficult time, she was basically hysterical."

Mr Choudhry says she was so upset she vomited.

He says WestJet was aggressive, and told them that because his youngest daughter was not wearing a mask, and was too upset to wear a mask, the whole family would have to leave.

He says they told them that if they did not leave, they could be arrested, charged and receive prison time.

Mr Choudhry says he and his wife were respectful. They ultimately agreed to leave.

He later learned that according to Canadian transportation policy, only children over two are required to wear a mask, and thus his 19-month-old did not have to put one on.

What does WestJet say?
WestJet disputes that the three-year-old put a mask on.

The airline said in a statement: "Due to non-compliance of the parents to place a mask on their older child who is over the age of two, our crew informed the adults of the regulations we are required to follow.

"Our crew requested the presence of the authorities after the guests refused to comply with Transport Canada's interim order and subsequently refused to deplane the aircraft."

A video taken with Mr Choudhry's phone shows his older daughter wearing a mask on the plane, after police arrived on board.

He says while some passengers were very irritated with his family, "overwhelmingly" people on the plane supported them. Many spoke up in defence of the family, as their youngest cried, he says.

That was when flight staff called police, he says. They de-boarded the plane, and the flight was eventually cancelled and rebooked for the next day.

"Due to the rapid escalation of the situation on board, our crew felt uncomfortable to operate and the flight was subsequently cancelled," WestJet said.

In a video, a police officer explains to them that while the mask issue with the eldest was "resolved", "the behaviour of the other passengers left the rest of the crew feeling unsafe".

Some passengers can be heard in video of the incident heckling the police and air crew.

The officer later confirms that when he arrived, the oldest child was wearing a mask.

Police did not file any charges.

 

[Cowley]

If the law was to wear a valved N95 to protect yourself only, I'd be strongly opposed and might even not comply.

I was trying to work out in my mind whether if things had been that way around (ie you wear the mask for your own safety rather than supposedly the safety of others) if all of this would have less divisive because it would be down to you taking the risk?
Unfortunately I don’t think it would have been though because the non mask wearer would probably still be seen as deliberately spreading the virus.

 

[Bantamzen]

*

Not Britain, but this is completely OTT (even as someone who isn't anti mask) :

BBC News - WestJet cancels flight because of mask dispute with child

WestJet cancels flight because of mask dispute with child

All passengers were told to get off the WestJet flight as a young girl was not wearing her mask.

www.bbc.co.uk

I was just going to post about this, truly shocking and evidence just how utterly stupid humanity has become....

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was trying to work out in my mind whether if things had been that way around (ie you wear the mask for your own safety rather than supposedly the safety of others) if all of this would have less divisive because it would be down to you taking the risk?
Unfortunately I don’t think it would have been though because the non mask wearer would probably still be seen as deliberately spreading the virus.

In March when there was a genuine concern about the NHS being overwhelmed, I did see a lot of comments about it being irresponsible to go cycling because it was higher risk of injury than going for a walk.

 

[43066]

I'm not debating whether it's appropriate to ask that, we did that a few weeks ago. The point I'm making is that the lack of inhibition over engaging with strangers in conversation in the North means there's no barrier to asking that if you were so minded, whereas in London (and the associated parts of the SE) you mind your own business.

Asking a question phrased like that seems quite provocative, especially after masks have been mandatory for weeks. Anyone still not wearing one is highly unlikely to be unaware of the requirements. Are people really doing that up north? I’d imagined it was more tutting and hard looks.

I'd shorten that - it's authoritarian to mandate them. The evidence part is not really relevant to whether it's authoritarian or not.

True, but at least if there was evidence they worked the government could point to that as a justification. As things stands it’s just being authoritarian for the sake of it (which isn’t something their core voter base tends to approve of).

 

[Cowley]

In March when there was a genuine concern about the NHS being overwhelmed, I did see a lot of comments about it being irresponsible to go cycling because it was higher risk of injury than going for a walk.

All of this has been a wonderful time for people that like to be outraged at other’s behaviour unfortunately.

 

[jumble]

*


I was just going to post about this, truly shocking and evidence just how utterly stupid humanity has become....

What is really stupid is that passengers in Canada are allowed to eat which the 3 year old was doing as the article says it is Westjets policy and not the regulations
I think that it is disgraceful for an organisation to take all the passangers money and then not deliver the service because of stupid policies
I do hope they go bust for mistreating customers who then vote with their feet.

• https://tc.canada.ca/en/ministerial-orders-interim-orders-directives-directions-response-letters/interim-order-respecting-certain-requirements-civil-aviation-due-covid-19-no-7
• 34 (1) Subject to subsections (2) to (4), a private operator or air carrier must require a person to wear a face mask at all times during the boarding process and during a flight that the private operator or air carrier operates when the person is two metres or less from another person.
• Marginal notexceptions — person
  (2) Subsection (1) does not apply
  • (a) when the only other persons who are two metres or less from the person are occupants of the person’s dwelling-house or other place that serves that purpose;
  • (b) when the safety of the person could be endangered by wearing a face mask;
  • (c) when the person is drinking, eating or taking oral medications;
  • (d) when a gate agent or a crew member authorizes the removal of the face mask to address unforeseen circumstances or the person’s special needs; or

 

[87electric]

I was trying to work out in my mind whether if things had been that way around (ie you wear the mask for your own safety rather than supposedly the safety of others) if all of this would have less divisive because it would be down to you taking the risk?
Unfortunately I don’t think it would have been though because the non mask wearer would probably still be seen as deliberately spreading the virus.

IMHO it was deliberately expressed as for the safety of others as it would impose guilt on the non wearer.
A clever psychological trick no doubt thought up by the Governments official Behavioural Insights Team, aka The Nudge Unit.

 

[greyman42]

Asking a question phrased like that seems quite provocative, especially after masks have been mandatory for weeks. Anyone still not wearing one is highly unlikely to be unaware of the requirements. Are people really doing that up north? I’d imagined it was more tutting and hard looks.

Quite the opposite for me. If i see people without a mask on i think good on you mate.

 

[MikeWM]

Quite the opposite for me. If i see people without a mask on i think good on you mate.

Me too. It is a rare sight in Ely though - even all the supermarket workers wear masks here (except for the occasional one wearing a visor)

 

[Islineclear3_1]

. I’m convinced real reason for masks being mandated is to keep the population afraid. Keeping the population terrified of the virus justifies the gross over reaction to the situation, and provides a convenient distraction from their ongoing incompetence.

Agreed and a fearful population is easier to manipulate and control

 

[43066]

Quite the opposite for me. If i see people without a mask on i think good on you mate.

Likewise .

 

[Huntergreed]

Sturgeon just made it mandatory for workers in hospitality to wear a face covering

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sturgeon just made it mandatory for workers in hospitality to wear a face covering

I've seen very few not doing anyway, other than hotel check in staff behind a screen.

 

[MikeWM]

Sturgeon just made it mandatory for workers in hospitality to wear a face covering

The French/Spanish/English/Scottish approach to evidence.

- 'Every time we make more people wear masks, the number of infections goes up.'
- 'Ah, the solution to that is clearly to make even more people wear masks.'

Repeat ad infinitum.

We're living through an age of irrationality.

 

[Ianno87]

No-one should be driving their car, *just in case* they have undiagnosed epilepsy, and suddenly have an attack while out driving, and drive into a group of grannies out shopping for the day.

Ridiculous of course, but that's effectively the same reasoning that has resulted in people with no covid symptoms having to wear masks everywhere.

Although for most, masks are no more of an inconvenience than putting on underpants in the morning, nor any major restriction on living life.

Being unable to travel through not driving is a major restriction and inconvenience.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

Sturgeon just made it mandatory for workers in hospitality to wear a face covering

It will also be mandatory for customers to wear one when not seated.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Although for most, masks are no more of an inconvenience than putting on underpants in the morning

I think this is rather an understatement. Literally nobody is going to find wearing one more comfortable than not. They just feel they are on balance a minor thing.

 

[Ianno87]

I think this is rather an understatement. Literally nobody is going to find wearing one more comfortable than not. They just feel they are on balance a minor thing.

Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer not to have ti wear one. They're just not even close to the big deal some people seem to be making out. Cite the heaving town centres of face-coveres folk.

 

[Huntergreed]

Just researched it a bit, turns out she’s mandated it for customers to hospitality when they are not eating or drinking. Surely this doesn’t mean that they are going to expect you to put it on between courses/when reading the menu? This would be ridiculous.

Really this is as far as masks can go before they are mandated outside, in which case I would not be quiet about opposing it