UK face coverings discussion

[bramling]

It's unpleasant, though.

A fact of life that sometimes unpleasant things occur.

You know as well as I do whether you've got a cold or hayfever - the symptoms are not exactly the same, and people with hayfever know full well how it affects them. Similarly, I haven't gone for a COVID test every time I've had an asthmatic cough. IOW, don't be silly.

Maybe, maybe not, the symptoms are pretty similar. But that’s not really the point, if it’s going to be considered bad manners to come to work with cold-like symptoms, then you’re now inviting those with hayfever symptoms to be vilified, in the same way that’s now happening to those exempt from wearing a mask. And for what? Just for something that’s an “unpleasant” fact of life.

Fewer would be if people had a bit of consideration and put effort into not spreading it around. You only get that situation in the workplace because people come in (due to a nasty "presenteeism culture") and spread it around there.

Some people actually make the effort to come to work because they don’t want others to have to pick up their work. I think the presenteeism thing is overstated. And of course there’s a million and one other places where people can pick up a cold from besides work.

 

[MikeWM]

A fact of life that sometimes unpleasant things occur.

Plus getting a common cold - much as you don't want one at the time - helps your immune system. The T-cell immunity that is protecting a good proportion of the population from Covid will have been obtained through having such a common cold. That guy who sneezed on the train and spread his germs around could well have saved you from something rather nastier later on!

Basically it seems to me that we shouldn't be trying to fiddle too much with the natural order of things unless we're trying to stop something *really* nasty or life-threatening. The side-effects are too unpredictable.

 

[AlisonM]

Slightly worrying comment from Nicola Sturgeon at today's daily briefing, given the history of advice subsequently becoming law.
(from around 11:50)

• wear face coverings when you are out and about. The law says you have to do it in certain places like shops, public transport, but my advice would be to wear face coverings when you are out and about as often as you can.

 

[Ianno87]

I am simply not prepared to wear a face covering to try and inhibit something which is a natural fact of normal human life.



== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Oct 2020 ==

Well don't then. I'm not making you. Like I said, it would be **voluntary** based on the individual.

But I *can* see lots of people *choosing* to have their face covered when they've got a cold and need to go out, as the "stigma" around face covering has now significantly lessened, as many people are finding them not to be as bad as some people would have you believe...

 

[bramling]

Plus getting a common cold - much as you don't want one at the time - helps your immune system. The T-cell immunity that is protecting a good proportion of the population from Covid will have been obtained through having such a common cold. That guy who sneezed on the train and spread his germs around could well have saved you from something rather nastier later on!

Basically it seems to me that we shouldn't be trying to fiddle too much with the natural order of things unless we're trying to stop something *really* nasty or life-threatening. The side-effects are too unpredictable.

Your points are well made and I agree.

Natural processes are best left alone unless there’s a good reason, and trying to dodge something just because it’s (very mildly) “unpleasant” is not a good reason at all, especially if as seems to be being suggested the remedy is to be walled up indoors and essentially being an economic drain for the duration.

 

[Ianno87]

Your points are well made and I agree.

Natural processes are best left alone unless there’s a good reason, and trying to dodge something just because it’s (very mildly) “unpleasant” is not a good reason at all, especially if as seems to be being suggested the remedy is to be walled up indoors and essentially being an economic drain for the duration.

Before railways were invented, people didn't mix with each other nearly as much as they do today. Surely railways are what are "messing with the natural order of things"?

It's only in the last two centuries of human existence that travel at high speeds and significantly more mixing of each other has been part of life - perhaps Covid has taught us that this brings a bit more responsibility with it than we perhaps first appreciated....?

 

[bramling]

Well don't then. I'm not making you. Like I said, it would be **voluntary** based on the individual.

But I *can* see lots of people *choosing* to have their face covered when they've got a cold and need to go out, as the "stigma" around face covering has now significantly lessened, as many people are finding them not to be as bad as some people would have you believe...

That’s fine I don’t have a problem with that. However you seemed to be suggesting that there should be a stigma associated with choosing *not* to wear a mask, and I very much object to that.

People shouldn’t expect others to adopt something without good reason, and preventing spread of common cold simply isn’t.

Indeed I’d suggest the negatives associated with facial expressions being hidden (in other words greater chance of conflict situations arising or being unable to be diffused as readily) vastly outweigh the disbenefits of picking up a cold.

Mild ailments are a fact of life, and people need to realise that. It would be highly disturbing if one of the long-term effects of this is people develop an expectation to be insulated from any kind of ailment - it’s as unrealistic as it is unreasonable.

The “other people are a filthy walking biohazard” mentality we’ve seen at times through this is pretty unpleasant to be honest.

 

[Ianno87]

That’s fine I don’t have a problem with that. However you seemed to be suggesting that there should be a stigma associated with choosing *not
to wear a mask, and I very much object to that.

People shouldn’t expect others to adopt something without good reason, and preventing spread of common cold simply isn’t.

Not what I'm suggesting at all.

Indeed I’d suggest the negatives associated with facial expressions being hidden (in other words greater chance of conflict situations arising or being unable to be diffused as readily) vastly outweigh the disbenefits of picking up a cold.

Mild ailments are a fact of life, and people need to realise that. It would be highly disturbing if one of the long-term effects of this is people develop an expectation to be insulated from any kind of ailment - it’s us unrealistic as it is unreasonable.

No, as a considerate human being, I would wear a face covering to stop *my* cold spreading to someone else who may be vulnerable and not want it.

The “other people are a filthy walking biohazard” mentality we’ve seen at times through this is pretty unpleasant to be honest.

Given there's a pandemic on at the moment, hardly surprising.

 

[kez19]

Slightly worrying comment from Nicola Sturgeon at today's daily briefing, given the history of advice subsequently becoming law.
(from around 11:50)

umm nah Sturgeon I rather if I am walking about I breathe in fresh air than keep the mask on constantly, maybe she should be the first to opt in using it all day including walking about etc.

what’s next? Fine people for walking in city centre(not for shopping just a wander) /parks etc for not wearing a face covering? As I just stated I will put one on where necessary however you are not going to tell me if out and about to put one on forget it! (hazard a guess waste of police/court time to enforce this even into “open air”)

 

[WelshBluebird]

For all this talk of "natural processes" and the "natural order or things" - if people didn't travel much more than a few miles from their home then that of course would be the natural way our species has lived for the vast majority of its history and it would also pretty much make global pandemics impossible. Be careful what you wish for when you trot out lines like that!

I'll also ask the people saying that if you are ill you should still go into work - should that also apply to the people making your food in a restaurant when you want to eat out? I am sure you'd have a different answer if you knew that someone being ill at work meant they were constantly sneezing in in your soup!

 

[Scotrail12]

Surely fresh air is important? Yet another piece of advice that Sturgeon needs to shove elsewhere - no chance that people will be wearing face nappies outside.

 

[kez19]

Surely fresh air is important? Yet another piece of advice that Sturgeon needs to shove elsewhere - no chance that people will be wearing face nappies outside.

I guess she doesn’t walk into places for fresh air but I think this for myself is pushing it.

Going to guess she’ll say seen 100% compliance recently in open air too?

 

[bramling]

For all this talk of "natural processes" and the "natural order or things" - if people didn't travel much more than a few miles from their home then that of course would be the natural way our species has lived for the vast majority of its history and it would also pretty much make global pandemics impossible. Be careful what you wish for when you trot out lines like that!

I'll also ask the people saying that if you are ill you should still go into work - should that also apply to the people making your food in a restaurant when you want to eat out? I am sure you'd have a different answer if you knew that someone being ill at work meant they were constantly sneezing in in your soup!

If we’re getting to the point where we’re that bothered about things, quite simply we should never go out.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Oct 2020 ==

Not what I'm suggesting at all.




No, as a considerate human being, I would wear a face covering to stop *my* cold spreading to someone else who may be vulnerable and not want it.



Given there's a pandemic on at the moment, hardly surprising.

You may not be explicitly suggesting that not wearing a mask should be a stigma, but there’s people who will adopt that attitude - as we’re seeing now with the way some people are choosing to treat those with legitimate medical exemptions.

It’s worth remembering that pre-2020 anyone covering their face in public, with the exception of for obvious religious reasons (and even that is a matter for debate as to whether it’s really a good thing or not), would have been viewed with heavy suspicion, and with good reason as there’s obvious nefarious reasons why someone might like their face covered whilst out and about. Does your being the considerate human being in not passing on a mild and not very harmful cold outweigh the drawbacks in preventing and detecting crime?

Meanwhile, all the same reasons for masks risking doing “more harm than good” and “not being a good idea outside of medical settings” continue to apply of course.

 

[35B]

Surely fresh air is important? Yet another piece of advice that Sturgeon needs to shove elsewhere - no chance that people will be wearing face nappies outside.

Funny, when I've worn a mask outside I've not found it's inhibited my ability to get fresh air. I recognise that the case for masks is marginal, and there are arguments both ways. But that nonsense does the anti case no good at all.

 

[kez19]

Funny, when I've worn a mask outside I've not found it's inhibited my ability to get fresh air. I recognise that the case for masks is marginal, and there are arguments both ways. But that nonsense does the anti case no good at all.

How does it? I tried wearing it outside didn’t like it, I rather just wear a mask in my own settings than wear it for nearly 3-6 hours pending on activities I am doing.
I have stated there is times I have worn a mask and have had panic attacks but I wear one just so that joe public doesn’t jump down my throat, but I see no other solutions being thrown about on resolving this but hey it’s your politicians plus of course it’s pushing the bar up a level.

At a guess next level will be a further push.... must wear face coverings indoor(s) all settings including your own household? Yet I don't read much on conspiracies here but for my own sake in life its making me question alot more than taking it with a pinch of salt.

I guess even if it did get to that point I will still guess people who think freely be researching or just using their own mind would be called nutjobs still as well as the people who didn't see it coming would still deny it, but again what do I know? It is ringing alarm bells for me and a few people I have spoken too.

 

[Richard Scott]

Before railways were invented, people didn't mix with each other nearly as much as they do today. Surely railways are what are "messing with the natural order of things"?

It's only in the last two centuries of human existence that travel at high speeds and significantly more mixing of each other has been part of life - perhaps Covid has taught us that this brings a bit more responsibility with it than we perhaps first appreciated....?

There's been worse illnesses in past two hundred years than current virus. People moving around is what we do and this is why current virus has spread at the rate it does, it's the price we pay. People have also died in rail accidents but that isn't a reason to get rid of them. We understand risks when we travel. We need to get used to fact that diseases are also part of everyday risk but seems we need to learn to react appropriately to them. Afraid masks do not form an appropriate response. We don't know what issues are caused by long term wearing anymore than we know if there are any benefits so, to be honest, they're best forgotten about.

 

[jumble]

View attachment 84262View attachment 84263

I complained to Tesco about their sign being non compliant with the law. The first response ignored my point entirely and waffled on about staff wearing masks. It is good to see that today they have written to me confirming that the poster on the right should be up. I look forward to seeing it up later on.

If you do go and speak to a colleague my understanding is that they will direct you to the shelf where you can buy a pack for a fiver

 

[kez19]

Regarding earlier post from Nicola Sturgeons briefing today:

Coronavirus (COVID-19) update: First Minister's speech 5 October 2020

Statement given by the First Minister Nicola Sturgeon at a media briefing in St Andrew's House, Edinburgh

news.gov.scot

And finally, remember FACTS – the basic but really important rules that underpin our approach to tackling this virus right now.

I would have worded the sentence above better drop "really" its not needed, like really!

• wear face coverings when you are out and about. The law says you have to do it in certain places like shops, public transport, but my advice would be to wear face coverings when you are out and about as often as you can.
• avoid crowded places whether they are indoor or outdoor crowded places.
• don’t forget to clean hands and to clean hard surfaces that you or other people might be touching.
• two metre distance is what you should be seeking to keep from people in households other that your own.
• and of course self-isolate, and book a test straightaway, if you experience any of the symptoms of COVID which, to remind everybody, those symptoms we’re asking you to be alert for are a fever, a new cough, or a loss of or change in your sense of taste or smell.

When you are out and about as often as you can - what does that mean? Out in the fresh air, parks walking city centre/towns/villages - she mentions the blatantly obvious in terms of shops/transport but like what do you mean "out and about" it could mean anything!

Remember FACTS again.... Nicola remember Margaret...

 

[Bletchleyite]

At a guess next level will be a further push.... must wear face coverings indoor(s) all settings including your own household?

Has any country in the world done that? More likely would be extending it to outdoor public places, at least where busy (though it strikes me it is pointless to do that).

In the home, the only context where it makes sense is where you have a family member who is infected, and they should probably wear one when in parts of the house where others are there to avoid spreading it around the family.

 

[duncanp]

Before railways were invented, people didn't mix with each other nearly as much as they do today. Surely railways are what are "messing with the natural order of things"?

But even in 14th century Europe, the Black Death managed to wipe out a significant proportion of the population, and this was in the days when many people spent their entire lives no more than a few miles from their home village or town.

Reading about the outbreak of the bubonic plague in Eyam, Derbyshire, in 1665, wikipedia says

"..The history of the plague in the village began in 1665 when a flea-infested bundle of cloth arrived from London for Alexander Hadfield, the local tailor. Within a week his assistant George Viccars, who noticing the bundle was damp, had opened it up. Before long he was dead and more began dying in the household soon after..."

 

[kez19]

Has any country in the world done that? More likely would be extending it to outdoor public places, at least where busy (though it strikes me it is pointless to do that).

In the home, the only context where it makes sense is where you have a family member who is infected, and they should probably wear one when in parts of the house where others are there to avoid spreading it around the family.

Yet I could say when I had it our household didn't need it so that renders that point useless! (this was back in June before face coverings became the in thing) I just think that could be the next step be her or both Sturgeon/Boris..

 

[HSTEd]

In the home, the only context where it makes sense is where you have a family member who is infected, and they should probably wear one when in parts of the house where others are there to avoid spreading it around the family.

Given the small size of British homes it strikes me that attempting to prevent spread amongst a family is entirely futile and will cause even more psychological damage.

 

[35B]

How does it? I tried wearing it outside didn’t like it, I rather just wear a mask in my own settings than wear it for nearly 3-6 hours pending on activities I am doing.
I have stated there is times I have worn a mask and have had panic attacks but I wear one just so that joe public doesn’t jump down my throat, but I see no other solutions being thrown about on resolving this but hey it’s your politicians plus of course it’s pushing the bar up a level.

At a guess next level will be a further push.... must wear face coverings indoor(s) all settings including your own household? Yet I don't read much on conspiracies here but for my own sake in life its making me question alot more than taking it with a pinch of salt.

I guess even if it did get to that point I will still guess people who think freely be researching or just using their own mind would be called nutjobs still as well as the people who didn't see it coming would still deny it, but again what do I know? It is ringing alarm bells for me and a few people I have spoken too.

If mask wearing causes you panic attacks, then that is a completely different matter - there are exemptions in the law, and necessarily so. But as someone not subject to an exemption, and no desire to wear masks for longer than absolutely required, I still do not find that wearing one stops me from obtaining fresh air.

As for looking stuff up online, we all do that. My own view, though, is that a great deal of what calls itself critical thinking online is definitely nutjob territory, and from people who (1) treat anything governments say as false and (2) make no allowance for honest people doing their best.

 

[Yew]

Given the small size of British homes it strikes me that attempting to prevent spread amongst a family is entirely futile and will cause even more psychological damage.

Do not trust anyone, not even your family, they may be agents of the enemy.

 

[35B]

Given the small size of British homes it strikes me that attempting to prevent spread amongst a family is entirely futile and will cause even more psychological damage.

Funny, we've discussed how we might try to organise ourselves as a family if one of us caught Covid. Not pleasant to have to rejig how we live during the infectious period, but hardly likely to impose psychological damage on any of us, and a prudent precaution given the impact Covid can have. And, no, it's not necessarily entirely futile given adherence to the advice.

 

[HSTEd]

Funny, we've discussed how we might try to organise ourselves as a family if one of us caught Covid. Not pleasant to have to rejig how we live during the infectious period, but hardly likely to impose psychological damage on any of us, and a prudent precaution given the impact Covid can have. And, no, it's not necessarily entirely futile given adherence to the advice.

Given that it becomes infectious prior to becoming symptomatic, by the time you know you have it, they will likely already been infected.

 

[kez19]

If mask wearing causes you panic attacks, then that is a completely different matter - there are exemptions in the law, and necessarily so. But as someone not subject to an exemption, and no desire to wear masks for longer than absolutely required, I still do not find that wearing one stops me from obtaining fresh air.

As for looking stuff up online, we all do that. My own view, though, is that a great deal of what calls itself critical thinking online is definitely nutjob territory, and from people who (1) treat anything governments say as false and (2) make no allowance for honest people doing their best.

Everyone is different, yes they are exemptions but I ain't going around wearing a badge to say I am exempt, I take it in my stride but I do however find it quite alarming that we have to have "labels" to say to be exempt, what happened to letting people get on in life?

Why is someone not believing what government says is false, no government(s) are innocent here but its the rules they come away with and they break the rules, politicians get a slapped wrist but joe public gets fined (I see a pattern here don't you?), but don't "theories" at least make you question things or lets just say isn't your own mind telling you things that don't seem right? As I say I haven't read much on theories here but my mind is indicating on something that doesn't feel right (don't mind being proved wrong in any case but thats just what I feel), until both governments get their heads out of the sand than burying further with this, its not filling me with confidence at all.

Here is another thing to think about since its always about wearing masks/face coverings why are we not being encouraged to take vitamins such as zinc/vitamin c/vitamin d3/iodine etc, I doubt this part would be part of a conspiracy theory but if you look at it differently why is that not being talked about? Irony in why I say this, is when I had covid back in June, I was taking and still am using multivitamins whether or not this does play a part in defense but surely you would expect your "scientists" to be at least saying this to pass onto the public or is it just more of an inconvience that this will be part of another announcement in the new year? .... remember take your vitamins people after masking down...

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

I'm reading on Twitter tonight that the Scotitsh government have announced an exemption card scheme, but cannot see any hard evidence of it.

Anyone able to shed some light?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm reading on Twitter tonight that the Scotitsh government have announced an exemption card scheme, but cannot see any hard evidence of it.

Anyone able to shed some light?

Scottish Government announce card scheme for those exempt from wearing face coverings

The Scottish Government are “working on a card” that will be available to those exempt or unable to wear a face covering, the Health Secretary has announced.

www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com

appears to discuss it.

Good in my view. It should never have been done without a formal exemption process.

 

[GodAtum]

Well don't then. I'm not making you. Like I said, it would be **voluntary** based on the individual.

But I *can* see lots of people *choosing* to have their face covered when they've got a cold and need to go out, as the "stigma" around face covering has now significantly lessened, as many people are finding them not to be as bad as some people would have you believe...

And that's the rub. If the government says face coverings are now optional, will the stigma now be on people who don't wear a face covering on public transport?