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

[birchesgreen]

Tut tut, i thought you knew the rule was "Do as i say not as i do"?

 

[island]

Supposing a shop (or chain) refused to implement this law because it would adversely affect their trade and instead put a sign up outside saying "masks optional here, enter at your own risk". Could the government or indeed the Police force them to comply ?

As it’s law, yes they could.

That would be like selling a car that said “seatbelts not included, buy at your own risk”, this would be stopped immediately.

This is not correct, assuming (which is reasonable) that the enforcement provisions of existing similar regulations are replicated. Enforcement will be a matter for police and local authorities – who are already pre-emptively washing their hands of the matter.

The signage in a number of American stores that is going around Facebook with messaging to the effect of “Masks are required by law unless you have an exemption, we will not enquire into your medical history so if you enter the store without a mask we will assume you have an exemption and not bother you” may well show up here.

I'm only pro-mask on the presumption to it is a temporary, needs-must requirement.

If they're still around in 2024, I'd find it hard to believe their removal wouldn't become political by the point for the General Election.

If they’re still around in 2021, I’d find it hard to believe their removal wouldn’t become political by the point of public demonstrations demanding a General Election. Or just mass non-compliance.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

TBH my libertarian side does object to compulsory seatbelt *wearing* laws just like it does to cycle helmet laws. However, wearing a seatbelt is to protect the individual. I would however wear a seatbelt in a car whether required or not (I'm less convinced by coaches).

However I'm happy with compulsory fitment because, like most workplace H&S, it protects people from unscrupulous companies with more power than the individual by ensuring the appropriate PPE is provided. As masks are intended to protect others, not the wearer, on that basis I accept the idea of compulsion (though I hate actually wearing one).



None at all, which is downright stupid.

Clearly it should be "in any indoor public space where 2m cannot be guaranteed to be maintained at all times, and where mitigations to allow a reduction to 1m are not feasible with 1m maintained". Offices for example can do it a different way, e.g. by 2m distancing or setting up "cubicles" like the Americans like where everyone has their own partitioned space, and car workshops can do it by putting the cars 2m apart and having only one person work on each.

I don't agree with 'covering up', but if it is to be done, a simple message is the way to do it. I would stick with the first part of your suggestion ie "A face covering must be worn in any indoor public space where 2m cannot be guaranteed". and that would include all staff, all visitors, all delivery drivers, even Cabinet Minsters and Special Advisors. Even those who think / can confirm that they have previously had it. Everyone or no-one.

 

[jtuk]

If after several months R remains stable or continues downward then yes lets review masks again.

Why, let's look at that R rate:

R has remained stable and continued downwards for months already - even before the lockdown. If you want to live in a nuclear bunker for the rest of your life, go ahead and leave the rest of us to live ours

 

[Bantamzen]

Why, let's look at that R rate:

R has remained stable and continued downwards for months already - even before the lockdown. If you want to live in a nuclear bunker for the rest of your life, go ahead and leave the rest of us to live ours

Just out of curiosity, do you have the link for that & the data?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just out of curiosity, do you have the link for that & the data?

To be fair on that data, on Monday 16th Bozza "asked" us not to go to theatres, pubs etc. A considerable number of people, me included, took that advice, and so while some didn't there would be a considerable reduction from that date, and it was obvious that a problem was starting shortly before that (indeed my manager was a bit unimpressed I did go in on that day). The last meal out I had was a "cheeky Nando's" at Euston on the way home on that date, so the lockdown de-facto started then for me.

 

[DB]

Just out of curiosity, do you have the link for that & the data?

I think it's from the Evidence Not Fear site linked here yesterday (https://evidencenotfear.com/)

 

[Bantamzen]

I think it's from the Evidence Not Fear site linked here yesterday (https://evidencenotfear.com/)

Cheers, I'll have a nosey!

 

[DB]

The signage in a number of American stores that is going around Facebook with messaging to the effect of “Masks are required by law unless you have an exemption, we will not enquire into your medical history so if you enter the store without a mask we will assume you have an exemption and not bother you” may well show up here.

That's actually quite sensible. No doubt it won't stop the self-appointed vigilantes though.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I'm curious.

89% of the electorate (on this poll) are either for, against, or unsure/undecided about the proposals (276 out of 310).
That's 34 people who don't know / can't decide whether they are for, against or unsure/undecided!

50% who voted on any option are against coverings, but that means 56% of those who actually expressed a preference are against the proposals.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I'm curious.

89% of the electorate (on this poll) are either for, against, or unsure/undecided about the proposals (276 out of 310).
That's 34 people who don't know / can't decide whether they are for, against or unsure/undecided!

50% who voted on any option are against coverings, but that means 56% of those who actually expressed a preference are against the proposals.

I'm curious as to why the percentages add up to 155.1% in the poll?

 

[NorthOxonian]

I'm curious as to why the percentages add up to 155.1% in the poll?



View attachment 80759

People can vote for multiple options. There have been 310 voters but some of these have cast multiple votes meaning there are 481 votes in total.

 

[Domh245]

People can vote for multiple options. There have been 310 voters but some of these have cast multiple votes meaning there are 481 votes in total.

Exactly this. I find it particularly interesting that there are more people who are in favour of it than there are people who are more likely to return to shopping. "You all have to wear masks, but I'm not personally affected"

(that or they didn't realise it was a multi-option poll)

 

[Silver Cobra]

Reading through this thread and the previous thread with regards to face coverings being mandatory in Scotland, I recall seeing mentions and questions regarding how 'Challenge 25' would work in relation to the wearing of face coverings, such as if people would be required to remove their face coverings for this. In my workplace, a notice was put up on Sunday addressing how 'Challenge 25' will work with regards to face coverings, and it states that we are not to ask the person to remove their face covering.



With regards to the prevelance of customers wearing face coverings since the announcement, in my workplace, it definitely feels like they have become more prevalent. In the last few weeks, it seemed to be around 15-20% of customers were wearing them; yesterday, it felt more like around 40-50%. Amongst staff, very few of us are wearing coverings. A few members of the front-end staff are wearing either a mask or a visor, and one member of the cleaning team regularly wears both a mask and a visor. No-one within the replenishment team is or has been wearing any coverings since the pandemic began.

 

[ainsworth74]

Exactly this. I find it particularly interesting that there are more people who are in favour of it than there are people who are more likely to return to shopping. "You all have to wear masks, but I'm not personally affected"

(that or they didn't realise it was a multi-option poll)

Can only speak for myself but the prevalence of masks doesn't impact on my calculation as to whether I go shopping or not as I've been going to the shops during the pandemic as often as I was before the pandemic. About once per week as that's as often as I've ever needed to as the overwhelming majority of my shopping otherwise is online just as it was pre-pandemic! So I think masks are a good idea and I wear one (if I remember it!) but it doesn't mean that I'll suddenly go out shopping more than I was before when I have no reason to do so.

 

[Skymonster]

Exactly this. I find it particularly interesting that there are more people who are in favour of it than there are people who are more likely to return to shopping. "You all have to wear masks, but I'm not personally affected"

(that or they didn't realise it was a multi-option poll)

There is no option for “It will not influence the frequency I visit shops.” It is quite legitimate to favour the proposal in principal but the proposal does not change the frequency (more or less) at which you visit shops.

 

[nlogax]

There is no option for “It will not influence the frequency I visit shops.” It is quite legitimate to favour the proposal in principal but the proposal does not change the frequency (more or less) at which you visit shops.

It's a shame we can't do nested or branching poll questions here, I think that would provide a clearer picture of how respondents feel about these new rules.

 

[adc82140]

Just had a response from my MP, who is the only one who stood up in parliament to oppose the mask rules. I have asked him to pressure government into following the scientific research more than emotion, and to make the public aware about how unacceptable it is to question those who are exempt. He agreed with me on all points.

 

[ainsworth74]

I have asked him to pressure government into following the scientific research more than emotion

Surely unnecessary? We've been assured repeatedly that the Government will always follow the science!

 

[Peter Mugridge]

People can vote for multiple options. There have been 310 voters but some of these have cast multiple votes meaning there are 481 votes in total.

Aahhh.... I thought it was a single option poll when I voted!

 

[MDB1images]

Just had a response from my MP, who is the only one who stood up in parliament to oppose the mask rules. I have asked him to pressure government into following the scientific research more than emotion, and to make the public aware about how unacceptable it is to question those who are exempt. He agreed with me on all points.

I emailed my MP about this subject before it became mandatory and he said he was totally against it and would raise my concerns(my concerns was I didn't believe it was scientific and more a way of reassuring which I could understand but what is the end game, also concerns of how like Rail that for those coaxed out of coming out many will view it as a health risk so avoid the high street).

 

[DB]

I wonder how many MPs were in theory against it because they could see the lack of evidence, but said nothing to avoid rocking the boat and having hysterical accusations thrown at them on twitter and facebook?

 

[Journeyman]

I wonder how many MPs were in theory against it because they could see the lack of evidence, but said nothing to avoid rocking the boat and having hysterical accusations thrown at them on twitter and facebook?

I'm sure that's got something to do with it. Here in Scotland there's been far less resistance and opposition, mainly because there seems to be an unwritten rule amongst nationalist voters and politicians that you absolutely do not ever criticise Nicola Sturgeon or any of her policies.

A week in, I'm getting used to it and can tolerate it, but I won't ever agree with it, and I won't put up with it for a second longer than is legally required.

 

[scotrail158713]

A week in, I'm getting used to it and can tolerate it, but I won't ever agree with it, and I won't put up with it for a second longer than is legally required.

That’s pretty much how I’m feeling about it. It’s not brilliant, but I’ll tolerate it for the time being.

 

[Busaholic]

Having read the 'regulations' it seems that you are exempt from wearing a mask if you say you are, simple as that. Bit like declaring which gender you are, it's up to you, no questions asked, or rather none to be answered. I wondered if I might bother trying to secure an exemption on medical grounds (severe sinusitis in my case, confirmed by MRI scan in April), but there's nothing to be secured in the first place. If I say my health won't allow me to wear a facemask, then that's the end of the matter, in the context of shops anyway. I happen to know that it'd not be the case with hospital appointments, and quite rightly so imo. By the way, I shall endeavour to actually abide by the spirit of the regs for the time being, and actually put a mask on before I enter a shop because I get so sick of the pettymindedness directed towards us, and don't have the energy for TOO many arguments in one day.

 

[Mag_seven]

That’s pretty much how I’m feeling about it. It’s not brilliant, but I’ll tolerate it for the time being.

That is what a lot of people will be thinking but we must ask "when will this end?". Nobody so far has given an answer, let alone asked the question.

 

[NorthOxonian]

One observation in relation to the poll.

Not long after it opened, the gap between "for" and "against" was more than 30%. It gradually narrowed through the twenties and is now 17% - indicating a shift in opinion in favour of the new policy. So has anyone changed their mind in the last couple of days, or is it that there are new voters who are more supportive of the rules?

 

[Journeyman]

That is what a lot of people will be thinking but we must ask "when will this end?". Nobody so far has given an answer, let alone asked the question.

ScotGov's first review is next Thursday. I doubt anything will change, but I'll be interested to see if anything comes out of it.

 

[Tetchytyke]

That is what a lot of people will be thinking but we must ask "when will this end?". Nobody so far has given an answer, let alone asked the question.

On the One Show tonight they were following inspectors on London buses doing a mask check and everyone on the programme was pretty much tumescent at the sight of some poor bloke getting fined £100 by a jumped up copper showing off for the cameras.

The mind boggles.

 

[Huntergreed]

On the One Show tonight they were following inspectors on London buses doing a mask check and everyone on the programme was pretty much tumescent at the sight of some poor bloke getting fined £100 by a jumped up copper showing off for the cameras.

The mind boggles.

And what if this gentleman had a genuine exemption? That’s seems totally wrong