Face coverings to become mandatory in shops in England (includes poll)

[Baxenden Bank]

Sigh... And now we have local officials trying to take matters into their own hands and move the regulation forward. Quote from the BBC website:

Well, if people are going to have to wear them, and the evidence is apparently so strong and growing by the hour that they have a benefit (not my view at all), why wait?

The same for Blackburn - if the cases have been spotted as rising, and at a sufficient rate to cause concern, why wait for another two weeks before you introduce stricter measures?

I was concerned when I saw the headline, and remained so having read the full article. But I have become quite numbed by it all now. I expect to wake up to read something similar every day.

 

[DelW]

The fundamental difference is that the science for smoking and seatbelts is well understood and (as near as can be in our complex, multi-faceted world) unambiguous. Whereas the case for masks is not so. It almost seems that the higher "quality" the research, the less effectiveness is shown.

The comparison with seat belts is an interesting one.

I'm old enough to remember when it became compulsory to (a) fit seat belts, (b) wear them in front seats, and (c) wear them in all seats. Fitment caused relatively little upset, but mandatory wearing in front seats provoked huge complaints, many using similar arguments to those against masks on here. By the time mandatory wearing in all seats came in, the benefits of belts were well established, and only a few were still objecting.

There have been other instances over decades, when a proposed change has been vilified as the end of life as we know it, yet a few years later it's become normal and even accepted as beneficial. Banning smoking in pubs being one such case.

Note that I'm not suggesting that mask wearing should become permanent, just that most people will get used to it for as long as necessary.

 

[Scrotnig]

The comparison with seat belts is an interesting one.

I'm old enough to remember when it became compulsory to (a) fit seat belts, (b) wear them in front seats, and (c) wear them in all seats. Fitment caused relatively little upset, but mandatory wearing in front seats provoked huge complaints, many using similar arguments to those against masks on here. By the time mandatory wearing in all seats came in, the benefits of belts were well established, and only a few were still objecting.

There have been other instances over decades, when a proposed change has been vilified as the end of life as we know it, yet a few years later it's become normal and even accepted as beneficial. Banning smoking in pubs being one such case.

Note that I'm not suggesting that mask wearing should become permanent, just that most people will get used to it for as long as necessary.

Well it's as good as permanent now. There's absolutely no defined end date, just a six month 'review' which will amount to nothing. After that it's open ended.

 

[mmh]

Comparisons with seatbelt law don't work as well as some think - that'll be one of the most broken laws of all.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

Some more mixed messaging today it seems. Getting rather ridiculous now.

Coronavirus: Number 10 contradicts Health Secretary Matt Hancock on face mask rules after sandwich shop confusion

The PM's spokesman suggests face masks won't be mandatory in takeaway sandwich shops - but the health secretary said they would.

news.sky.com

Downing Street has suggested face masks won't be mandatory when buying takeaway from a sandwich shop - contradicting what Health Secretary Matt Hancock told Sky News hours earlier.

From 24 July, the wearing of a face covering will be mandatory in shops and supermarkets in England, with a fine of up to £100 for those who do not comply.

But, ahead of the measure being introduced, there was confusion about whether a face mask should be worn in takeaway food shops.

Cabinet ministers Liz Truss and Michael Gove have this week both been pictured entering the same branch of sandwich shop Pret A Manger in Westminster.

But while Ms Truss donned a face mask, Mr Gove did not when he entered just minutes later.

Appearing on Sky News' Kay Burley@Breakfast show on Wednesday morning, Mr Hancock was quizzed about what the rules would be from 24 July.

He explained that customers such as Mr Gove would need to wear a face mask in Pret branches because it is classed as a shop.

"If there is table service, then it is not necessary to have a mask," the health secretary said.

"But in any shop you do need the mask. So, if you're going up to the counter in Pret to buy takeaway, that is a shop - that is Pret operating as a shop."

However, later on Wednesday, Downing Street appeared to contradict Mr Hancock's view.

The prime minister's official spokesman said: "We will be publishing the full guidance shortly but my understanding is that it wouldn't be mandatory if you went in, for example, to a sandwich shop in order to get a takeaway to wear a face covering.

"It is mandatory... we are talking about supermarkets and other shops, rather than food shops."

To add to the confusion, Chancellor Rishi Sunak posted a picture of himself in a Pret branch while wearing a face mask.

 

[Richard Scott]

The comparison with seat belts is an interesting one.

I'm old enough to remember when it became compulsory to (a) fit seat belts, (b) wear them in front seats, and (c) wear them in all seats. Fitment caused relatively little upset, but mandatory wearing in front seats provoked huge complaints, many using similar arguments to those against masks on here. By the time mandatory wearing in all seats came in, the benefits of belts were well established, and only a few were still objecting.

There have been other instances over decades, when a proposed change has been vilified as the end of life as we know it, yet a few years later it's become normal and even accepted as beneficial. Banning smoking in pubs being one such case.

Note that I'm not suggesting that mask wearing should become permanent, just that most people will get used to it for as long as necessary.

I remember seat belt law and most people knew the purpose of them long before the law came in and were doing it as flying through a windscreen at 30mph didn't seem to do one's life expectancy any good. However the mask debate shows evidence is weak and how long will it last? Facial expressions are important in communication and my job would be much harder without being able to see facial expression. I'd hate to live in a masked world, would be awful. Couldn't see someone smile, that can be the difference between a situation turning or not. In addition seeing someone smile makes things much more pleasant. The thought of living in a clinical masked world is not one I want to be part of.

 

[John Hunt]

If I go out shopping and visit more than the 1 shop, my facecovering will stay in place. However I will not wear an anorak or hoodie jacket with the hood up for obvious reasons.

 

[ashkeba]

I looked at this last week in this post.

As I said then it is worth looking at page 30:




To base anything on such weak 'evidence' is dismal science; the Royal Society should be ashamed.

But if that's the relevant evidence, that's what we've got to base the decision on. There is no inaction possible here, only a decision to wear or a decision not to. What would you prefer they did? Invent some evidence? Are you Tony Blair?

 

[DB]

But if that's the relevant evidence, that's what we've got to base the decision on. There is no inaction possible here, only a decision to wear or a decision not to. What would you prefer they did? Invent some evidence? Are you Tony Blair?

Not true.

The norm is that the status quo (which has up until now been that everyone decides for themselves) remains unless there is compelling evidence to change it. There isn't, so no change should be made on the basis of current evidence.

 

[talldave]

There have been other instances over decades, when a proposed change has been vilified as the end of life as we know it, yet a few years later it's become normal and even accepted as beneficial. Banning smoking in pubs being one such case.

Was that when we banned it for customers but allowed staff to continue smoking indoors? Oh hang on, no of course not, it wasn't like that because the smoking ban was done in the old days when we did things properly following democratic debate.

 

[ashkeba]

If I go out shopping and visit more than the 1 shop, my facecovering will stay in place. However I will not wear an anorak or hoodie jacket with the hood up for obvious reasons.

Not obvious to me unless you like rain running down the back of your neck.

 

[MikeWM]

But if that's the relevant evidence, that's what we've got to base the decision on.

I agree. But let's not pretend that this is good, concrete, 'new' evidence. By their own description, it is weak, circumstantial, based on a very different setting from where they are applying it to, based on different diseases, and totally lacking in RCTs. It may well be all we have, and maybe eventually we can find something better, but let's be honest about it.

There is no inaction possible here, only a decision to wear or a decision not to.

The action is always to not impose a mandatory action on people, backed by legal sanctions for non-compliance, many of whom are very uncomfortable about it for a good number of reasons, until there is very good evidence to support it. However politicians and - deeply regrettably - 'scientists' choose to spin it, this is *not* good evidence.

Are you Tony Blair?

Never been happier in my life to reply 'no' to a question

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Some more mixed messaging today it seems. Getting rather ridiculous now.

Coronavirus: Number 10 contradicts Health Secretary Matt Hancock on face mask rules after sandwich shop confusion

The PM's spokesman suggests face masks won't be mandatory in takeaway sandwich shops - but the health secretary said they would.

news.sky.com

So, what is the difference between popping into a sandwich shop for five minutes, popping into Tesco for a sandwich meal deal for five minutes, or popping into a newsagent for your fags and daily paper?

"It is mandatory... we are talking about supermarkets and other shops, rather than food shops."

In what way is a supermarket not a food shop?

Back to the argument: is buying easter eggs an 'essential' purchase in a shop otherwise legally open to sell 'essential' items.

There is lack of attention to detail, and then there is lack of attention to anything.

 

[ashkeba]

Not true.

The norm is that the status quo (which has up until now been that everyone decides for themselves) remains unless there is compelling evidence to change it. There isn't, so no change should be made on the basis of current evidence.

That's not how public health works, is it? Refusing to require masks would also be an action. And public health often progresses on weak evidence, intervening and monitoring. After all, where was the compelling evidence for reopening pubs? Where were the randomised controlled trials of it?

 

[DB]

That's not how public health works, is it? Refusing to require masks would also be an action. And public health often progresses on weak evidence, intervening and monitoring. After all, where was the compelling evidence for reopening pubs? Where were the randomised controlled trials of it?

No, refusing to wear a mask would not be an action as it is the normal state of affairs. In the same way that not wearing a pink tutu (which somebody mentioned on here earlier!) would not be an action because most people would not normally wear a pink tutu.

Can you quote me an example where a widespread and significant obligation has suddenly been introduced, which applies to everyone in the country, on the basis of weak and contested evidence? I can't think of a single example prior to this situation.

The point about pubs is that they were allowed to open as the infection rate was dropping - which it still is, hence the mask insistence is even more ridiculous.

 

[Yew]

That's not how public health works, is it? Refusing to require masks would also be an action. And public health often progresses on weak evidence, intervening and monitoring. After all, where was the compelling evidence for reopening pubs? Where were the randomised controlled trials of it?

Pubs being open is the natural state, we need not "evidence that it is safe to reopen them" but "evidence that they are required to remain closed"

 

[ashkeba]

Can you quote me an example where a widespread and significant obligation has suddenly been introduced, which applies to everyone in the country, on the basis of weak and contested evidence? I can't think of a single example prior to this situation.

Rear lights on vehicles.

I am not sure whether there was strong evidence for the already mentioned seat belts or only theoretical until they were introduced.

 

[Ianno87]

Comparisons with seatbelt law don't work as well as some think - that'll be one of the most broken laws of all.

But by breaking that law you are generally only putting youraelf at risk (unless seated behind somebody else).

Masks are to protect others from yourself.

 

[ashkeba]

Pubs being open is the natural state, we need not "evidence that it is safe to reopen them" but "evidence that they are required to remain closed"

Not wearing any clothes is the natural state but that is already not allowed in most shops, is it? So what difference is one more item of clothing?

 

[Midnight Sun]

I do think it odd that so many against a cloth over their nose are happy to wear a chainsaw hood, but if it works and reduces spread by redirecting your spray mostly down your front then I am happy for it.

Very simple reason, unless you replace the face mask when it gets damp (30 to 60 minuites of use), Prelonged wearing of a damp face mask may result in the skin developing Spots, Pimples or Blisters and Redness in the area covered by the mask. This provides another entry point for the viruses and Bacteria.

 

[DB]

Rear lights on vehicles.

I am not sure whether there was strong evidence for the already mentioned seat belts or only theoretical until they were introduced.

So, rear lights on vehicles allow them to be seen and make it less likely that someone will run into one in the dark. This is an easily observable fact, and can easily be demonstrated by controlled trials if necessary.

Seat belts - likewise easily demonstrable using crash test dummies. If a car hits a wall and one dummy is wearing a searbelt and one isn't, which one sustains the most damage.

Masks are to protect others from yourself.

And as has been repeatedly pointed out, the evidence that masks actually do this is very weak.

Not wearing any clothes is the natural state but that is already not allowed in most shops, is it? So what difference is one more item of clothing?

It's not the normal state when in a public place in western society.

 

[MikeWM]

There is lack of attention to detail, and then there is lack of attention to anything.

They are either the most entirely useless Government ever, or they are trying to do a 1984 on us (ie. we spent all our time trying to work out the logic and the contradictions, and in the end either give up or go mad).

 

[Yew]

Not wearing any clothes is the natural state but that is already not allowed in most shops, is it? So what difference is one more item of clothing?

I struggle to see how your post is relevant to the one I was replying to..

 

[greyman42]

My old local in Newcastle have emailed me to say they're re-opening this week, but wearing a mask will be mandatory except when sitting at a table.

People are just making stuff up as they go along now.

I can't see people bothering to drink in a pub with these stupid rules. They will just go down the road to one that values its customers.

 

[Ianno87]

And as has been repeatedly pointed out, the evidence that masks actually do this is very weak.

But not conclusively so.

 

[Huntergreed]

But not conclusively so.

Correct, but the default has always been that a law will not be introduced without conclusive evidence that demonstrates that it is effective. The opposite seems to have been done this time, and I have no idea why.

 

[DB]

But not conclusively so.

It's sufficiently weak that under any other circumstances it would be way below the threshold for taking even minimal action.

 

[Ianno87]

Correct, but the default has always been that a law will not be introduced without conclusive evidence that demonstrates that it is effective. The opposite seems to have been done this time, and I have no idea why.

We don't have time to find out for sure, for the sake of what is, to most, a small inconvenience.

 

[Midnight Sun]

Not obvious to me unless you like rain running down the back of your neck.

It is, if your planning on commiting a crime. Very hard to I.D someone when you only see the eyes

 

[DB]

Correct, but the default has always been that a law will not be introduced without conclusive evidence that demonstrates that it is effective. The opposite seems to have been done this time, and I have no idea why.

It's a variation on that old proving a negative thing isn't it? Proving a negative is often normally notoriously hard to do conclusively, and the onus is therefore that if someone is proposing something which cannot be easily observed, they are required to demonstrate to a fairly high level that it works / that it's true if action based on it is to be taken. This applies to many areas, including law-making and medicine.

That basically seems to have been reversed here, and the attitude is that "well, we can't absolutely demonstrate that it has no effect at all, so we'll do it anyway". This is no way to make policy.