UK face coverings discussion

[STINT47]

Sturgeon now announced it will be mandatory to wear face coverings in workplace corridors and communal areas (ie canteens)

Another pointless exercise.

If that doesnt work will we have to wear masks when at home watching tv, taking a bath and sleeping? If that doesn't work perhaps masks should be physically glued to peoples faces?

 

[island]

If that doesnt work will we have to wear masks when at home watching tv, taking a bath and sleeping? If that doesn't work perhaps masks should be physically glued to peoples faces?

Or maybe we could wear two or three face coverings on top of each other?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or maybe we could wear two or three face coverings on top of each other?

Or wear a three-layer covering, as the Welsh pushed for a bit.

 

[duncanp]

Or maybe we could wear two or three face coverings on top of each other?

Or you will have to wear one in a restaurant/pub whilst you are sat at the table, and only lower to for the fraction of a second that it takes you to put a fork or spoon into your mouth, or for as long as it takes you to have a sip of beer.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Sturgeon now announced it will be mandatory to wear face coverings in workplace corridors and communal areas (ie canteens)

Another pointless exercise.

What's next, will Sturgeon announce that it will be mandatory to wear face coverings at all times when you leave the house? (basically what they have done in Italy, parts of Spain and some French cities)

 

[island]

Or you will have to wear one in a restaurant/pub whilst you are sat at the table, and only lower to for the fraction of a second that it takes you to put a fork or spoon into your mouth, or for as long as it takes you to have a sip of beer.

That is already the law in England, though sensibly it is ignored in favour of face coverings being removed once one is sat down.

 

[43066]

That is already the law in England, though sensibly it is ignored in favour of face coverings being removed once one is sat down.

Yes. Strictly speaking the legislation requires you to be masked when not eating or drinking, even when sitting down. Most establishments appear not to realise this.

 

[duncanp]

That is already the law in England, though sensibly it is ignored in favour of face coverings being removed once one is sat down.

Are you sure about that, or coud you quote a source?

My understanding of the law in England is that a face covering must be worn in a pub or restaurant except when you are seated at a table. (ie. You don't have to wear a face covering whilst ordering food in a restaurant, and only remove it the moment the food arrives, and put it on again in between courses.)

I have scored the last bit out, because I don't want to give Matt Hancock or Nicola Sturgeon ideas.

 

[trebor79]

Or you will have to wear one in a restaurant/pub whilst you are sat at the table, and only lower to for the fraction of a second that it takes you to put a fork or spoon into your mouth, or for as long as it takes you to have a sip of beer.

I remain unsure if this was a serious proposal or a joke, but either way it's the most ludicrous thing I've ever seen:

Could you - would you - eat in a mask like this?

Israeli investors have developed a coronavirus mask that has an automatic mouth hole.

www.bbc.co.uk

BBC News report from early in the pandemic with a video of a "remote controlled" face covering to allow eating whilst wearing a mask.

 

[island]

Yes. Strictly speaking the legislation requires you to be masked when not eating or drinking, even when sitting down. Most establishments appear not to realise this.

I am not minded to correct them on this.

Are you sure about that, or coud you quote a source?

My understanding of the law in England is that a face covering must be worn in a pub or restaurant except when you are seated at a table. (ie. You don't have to wear a face covering whilst ordering food in a restaurant, and only remove it the moment the food arrives, and put it on again in between courses.)

I have scored the last bit out, because I don't want to give Matt Hancock or Nicola Sturgeon ideas.

Yes I am. Sections 3 and 4 of the Health Protection Coronavirus Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place England Regulations 2020 (as amended) make this stipulation.

The Scottish regulations, by contrast, explicitly permit removal of face coverings whilst sat at a table.

 

[43066]

Are you sure about that, or coud you quote a source?

My understanding of the law in England is that a face covering must be worn in a pub or restaurant except when you are seated at a table. (ie. You don't have to wear a face covering whilst ordering food in a restaurant, and only remove it the moment the food arrives, and put it on again in between courses.)

I have scored the last bit out, because I don't want to give Matt Hancock or Nicola Sturgeon ideas.

As per @island ‘s post above, pubs and restaurants have now been added to the definition of “relevant place” where coverings must be worn, unless you have a “reasonable excuse”, one of which is needing to eat or drink.

So strictly speaking you’re required to wear one at all times when in a restaurant, apart from when eating and drinking, just the same as you are on board a train. The confusion comes from the government’s own guidance which (incorrectly) states:

[Withdrawn] [Withdrawn] Face coverings: when to wear one, exemptions and what makes a good one

www.gov.uk

premises providing hospitality (bars, pubs, restaurants, cafes), except when seated at a table to eat or drink

This is not an accurate reflection of the way the legislation has been drafted.

 

[westv]

Surely the need to eat or drink occurs as soon as you decide to enter to eat and/or drink otherwise you wouldn't be entering to eat/drink.

 

[Bantamzen]

As per @island ‘s post above, pubs and restaurants have now been added to the definition of “relevant place” where coverings must be worn, unless you have a “reasonable excuse”, one of which is needing to eat or drink.

So strictly speaking you’re required to wear one at all times when in a restaurant, apart from when eating and drinking, just the same as you are on board a train. The confusion comes from the government’s own guidance which (incorrectly) states:

[Withdrawn] [Withdrawn] Face coverings: when to wear one, exemptions and what makes a good one

www.gov.uk

This is not an accurate reflection of the way the legislation has been drafted.

But surely when you are seated, that is because you are there to drink and/or eat?

 

[43066]

Surely the need to eat or drink occurs as soon as you decide to enter to eat and/or drink otherwise you wouldn't be entering to eat/drink.

But surely when you are seated, that is because you are there to drink and/or eat?

The regs actually say that you have a reasonable excuse to remove the covering where it is “reasonably necessary” to eat or drink. So, on an ordinary reading, sitting down to eat makes no difference. You should keep the covering on until you need to remove it in order to eat.

This is completely ludicrous, of course, and most venues I’ve been into are only asking for coverings to be worn when you’re moving around/visiting the toilet.

The whole thing is farcical. I was in a pub yesterday where I had to go to stand beside the bar to use the card machine, and was then followed back to my table by the barmaid carrying my beer, because it’s table service only!

 

[Bantamzen]

The regs actually say that you have a reasonable excuse to remove the covering where it is “reasonably necessary” to eat or drink. So, on an ordinary reading, sitting down to eat makes no difference. You should keep the covering on until you need to remove it in order to eat.

This is completely ludicrous, of course, and most venues I’ve been into are only asking for coverings to be worn when you’re moving around/visiting the toilet.

The whole thing is farcical. I was in a pub yesterday where I had to go to stand beside the bar to use the card machine, and was then followed to my table by the barmaid carrying my beer, because it’s table service only!

All venues I have been to ask you only cover up when moving around, if suddenly people were expected to only remove them when about to take a bite or a drink the places would empty. I feel that the spirit of it is once sat down to eat or drink, you don't need them, and that it is just badly drafted.

 

[bramling]

The regs actually say that you have a reasonable excuse to remove the covering where it is “reasonably necessary” to eat or drink. So, on an ordinary reading, sitting down to eat makes no difference. You should keep the covering on until you need to remove it in order to eat.

This is completely ludicrous, of course, and most venues I’ve been into are only asking for coverings to be worn when you’re moving around/visiting the toilet.

The whole thing is farcical. I was in a pub yesterday where I had to go to stand beside the bar to use the card machine, and was then followed back to my table by the barmaid carrying my beer, because it’s table service only!

Do we assume this is more due to poor attention to detail in writing the regs, rather than actual intent?

I have a really nasty feeling that if the current hysteria (which although from more and more of a minority of the population, is still pretty loud and forceful) continues it’s not going to be long before “masks outdoors” comes in. That’s certainly the point for civil disobedience. I’d be well up for it.

 

[island]

So strictly speaking you’re required to wear one at all times when in a restaurant, apart from when eating and drinking, just the same as you are on board a train. The confusion comes from the government’s own guidance which (incorrectly) states:

[Withdrawn] [Withdrawn] Face coverings: when to wear one, exemptions and what makes a good one

www.gov.uk

This is not an accurate reflection of the way the legislation has been drafted.

On the plus side, in the unlikely event you were prosecuted for being sat without a mask whilst waiting for your food to come, you would have a reasonable excuse that you were following the official government website.

 

[STINT47]

Surely the need to eat or drink occurs as soon as you decide to enter to eat and/or drink otherwise you wouldn't be entering to eat/drink.

If your sat down and the fire alarm goes off should people first sanatise their hands then put a mask on before leaving the cafe?

Sounds silly but Karen may be stood at the bus stop outside with her kid and their grandmother. As your fire related death won't be covid it doesnt matter to most of the population.

Actually as the cafe evacuation will stop social distancing outside it may be best to lock the fire exit and let everyone burn

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

If your sat down and the fire alarm goes off should people first sanatise their hands then put a mask on before leaving the cafe?

Sounds silly but Karen may be stood at the bus stop outside with her kid and their grandmother. As your fire related death won't be covid it doesnt matter to most of the population.

This actually happened at a local school - there was a fire alarm and one teacher insisted that the kids got their masks on before they left the classroom to evacuate. (Masks mandatory in corridors in Scottish secondary schools)

As I understand it, one of the parents heard and rightly kicked up a fuss.

 

[island]

If your sat down and the fire alarm goes off should people first sanatise their hands then put a mask on before leaving the cafe?

Sounds silly but Karen may be stood at the bus stop outside with her kid and their grandmother. As your fire related death won't be covid it doesnt matter to most of the population.

You are only required to wear a face covering whilst entering or remaining in a relevant premises (exemptions etc. aside). If you are leaving the premises then you are not entering or remaining in it and do not need to wear a face covering.

That is of course separate to avoiding harm being a reasonable excuse itself.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This actually happened at a local school - there was a fire alarm and one teacher insisted that the kids got their masks on before they left the classroom to evacuate. (Masks mandatory in corridors in Scottish secondary schools)

As I understand it, one of the parents heard and rightly kicked up a fuss.

If there's one situation where a mask might actually come in useful it would be to reduce breathing in smoke.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

If there's one situation where a mask might actually come in useful it would be to reduce breathing in smoke.

They may not have to breathe in any smoke if they didn't waste 10-20 seconds rummaging for and putting on their face covering...

 

[43066]

I feel that the spirit of it is once sat down to eat or drink, you don't need them, and that it is just badly drafted.

Do we assume this is more due to poor attention to detail in writing the regs, rather than actual intent?

Agreed. The rationale behind it (which there’s no evidence for) is presumably to prevent spread while people are moving around, since we are all supposed to be socially distancing when seated, in any case. The difference between the legislation and the guidance perhaps also indicates that something different was envisaged.

No doubt the task of drafting these regs and accompanying guidance has been made more difficult by the myriad of changes that have taken place, but there’s really no excuse for such an appalling lack of attention to detail. It’s embarrassing, smacks of incompetence and if they get things like this wrong you wonder what else they’re screwing up.

I have a really nasty feeling that if the current hysteria (which although from more and more of a minority of the population, is still pretty loud and forceful) continues it’s not going to be long before “masks outdoors” comes in. That’s certainly the point for civil disobedience. I’d be well up for it.

I dread to think what’s coming next. I do think attitudes are starting to change but the government is clearly going to remain on the current course until we have a vaccine.

 

[bramling]

Agreed. The rationale behind it (which there’s no evidence for) is presumably to prevent spread while people are moving around, since we are all supposed to be socially distancing when seated, in any case. The difference between the legislation and the guidance perhaps also indicates that something different was envisaged.

No doubt the task of drafting these regs and accompanying guidance has been made more difficult by the myriad of changes that have taken place, but there’s really no excuse for such an appalling lack of attention to detail. It’s embarrassing, smacks of incompetence, and if they get things like this wrong you wonder what else they’re screwing up.



I dread to think what’s coming next. I do think attitudes are starting to change but the government is clearly going to remain on the current course until we have a vaccine.

Yea I think you’re right - until such time as they’re pushed off that course by an external event.

Apart from vaccine that might be civil disobedience, internal party political pressure (“chatter” has started over the last few weeks, and I think this will continue to get louder and more forceful over time), or of course economic ruin - which may go hand in hand with civil disobedience..

I’m increasingly coming to the view that the latter may well be what we have to do.

 

[Cowley]

Sounds silly but Karen may be stood at the bus stop outside with her kid and their grandmother. As your fire related death won't be covid it doesnt matter to most of the population.

Time to drop the ‘Karen’ references now I think...
It was reasonably funny the first 732 times but it’s wearing thinner than a disposable face mask that’s been used multiple times now, and I’m not sure that it really helps the level of discussion in this section which on the whole is educated, useful and informative.

(That wasn’t directed at you specifically @STINT47 by the way )

 

[DB]

I dread to think what’s coming next. I do think attitudes are starting to change but the government is clearly going to remain on the current course until we have a vaccine.

I guess that would depend on the level if compliance. If there is mass ignoring of their rules they may have to change tack.

 

[43066]

On the plus side, in the unlikely event you were prosecuted for being sat without a mask whilst waiting for your food to come, you would have a reasonable excuse that you were following the official government website.

That’s about as reasonable an excuse as it’s possible to imagine!

 

[bramling]

I guess that would depend on the level if compliance. If there is mass ignoring of their rules they may have to change tack.

Before we get to that point no doubt we’ll go through a few more announcements about fines increasing.

 

[kristiang85]

Yes. Strictly speaking the legislation requires you to be masked when not eating or drinking, even when sitting down. Most establishments appear not to realise this.

In California they seem to enforce it: https://twitter.com/CAgovernor/status/1312437371460173825

Going out to eat with members of your household this weekend? Don't forget to keep your mask on in between bites.

Do your part to keep those around you healthy. #SlowtheSpread

 

[Bantamzen]

In California they seem to enforce it: https://twitter.com/CAgovernor/status/1312437371460173825

Now look at the graphic on that Tweet. As others on that thread suggests, it contradicts the text.