UK face coverings discussion

[bramling]

I’d be grateful if the pro-mask posters on this thread could address the following points:

Despite mask wearing being very prevalent, there has been no reduction of virus transmission since their introduction. That has also been the case in countries such as France where it’s been basically mandatory to wear a mask whenever you’re not in your private home.

We were told that masks would help us get back to normality and yet, months after their introduction, here we are poised to enter another lockdown.

The established scientific consensus up until this pandemic was that masks in non clinical settings are not beneficial. The WHO has changed its position, but has admitted that was in response to political lobbying rather than scientific reasons.

Our government (which is clearly incompetent, and tells lies at the drop of a hat) has told us “the science is changing”, but has yet to publish said science.

Will there ever come a point when you finally accept that masks don’t make any meaningful difference?

The trouble is that it’s now a useful comfort blanket for some people. Instead of going to the supermarket and filling the trolley with toilet rolls as a coping strategy, such people can now strut around and blame everything on those evil granny killers who aren’t wearing masks.

They clearly don’t work, in fact one wonders if they’re actually working against us. Certainly we’ve lost the culture of keeping distance which we had earlier in the year, which was probably far more useful.

 

[AM9]

Better just not to wear the filthy thing in the first place. If people have a problem with that then they should keep their distance, which they should be doing anyway.

That's an opinion on a different aspect.
duncanp's claim was that he would defy the rules. My comment on his claim was that if he did that in front of BTP, they might take action.
Then duncanp said that he would hide behind a (presumably genuine) case for his exemption.
It's one thing shouting on social media about how his/her 'rights' would be trumpeted aloud, but then admitting that when confronted with the threat of police intervention, climbing-down. That makes it look quite vacuous statement in post #5698.

 

[duncanp]

I’d be grateful if the pro-mask posters on this thread could address the following points:

Despite mask wearing being very prevalent, there has been no reduction of virus transmission since their introduction. That has also been the case in countries such as France where it’s been basically mandatory to wear a mask whenever you’re not in your private home.

We were told that masks would help us get back to normality and yet, months after their introduction, here we are poised to enter another lockdown.

The established scientific consensus up until this pandemic was that masks in non clinical settings are not beneficial. The WHO has changed its position, but has admitted that was in response to political lobbying rather than scientific reasons.

Our government (which is clearly incompetent, and tells lies at the drop of a hat) has told us “the science is changing”, but has yet to publish said science.

Will there ever come a point when you finally accept that masks don’t make any meaningful difference?

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for an answer from the mask bullies.

 

[scotrail158713]

Just for balance I did notice this on a local bus company website. Some of them are reading the rules after all (my bold).

You must wear a face covering when using public transport in order to prevent the transmission of the virus. For children under 5 years of age or those with particular health conditions who cannot put on, wear or remove a face covering because of any physical or mental illness or impairment or disability or without severe distress an exemption applies. There is no requirement to obtain evidence in the form of a letter from a doctor or government that you are exempt. If you have a condition which means you cannot wear a face covering you need only advise if asked that you cannot wear a face covering because you are exempt for one of the reasons listed above.

 

[adc82140]

Just for balance I did notice this on a local bus company website. Some of them are reading the rules after all (my bold).

Scottish I presume with that age cutoff.

 

[scotrail158713]

Scottish I presume with that age cutoff.

Yes

 

[Bikeman78]

I am seriously considering lodging a complaint to a pharmacy I visited yesterday. Despite wearing my sunflower lanyard, I was refused service unless I stood out in the street

I informed them in no uncertain terms that this was discrimatory and blatant treatment as a second-class citizens. I politely refused to allow them to serve me in the street and added that I would be putting in a formal complaint.

Come to think of it, there was no signage on display citing exemptions

The pharmacy attached to my local GP surgery does not let people in with or without a mask. We have to queue outside in the rain whilst they prepare the prescriptions.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

Covid-19: All pupils and staff must wear masks in secondary school corridors

New government guidance also says teachers who are "clinically vulnerable" should not come in to school.

www.bbc.co.uk

Pupils and teachers in all of England's secondary schools and colleges will be required to wear face masks in communal areas and corridors from Thursday.

New government guidance also says that "clinically extremely vulnerable" staff members should not come in to school.

Head teachers said schools would need help to pay for supply teachers.

They also expressed anger that the guidance had "landed on school leaders' desks less than 24 hours before the start of the national lockdown".

The new guidance, issued by the Department for Education on Wednesday afternoon, says "face coverings should be worn by adults and children aged 11 and above when moving around the premises, outside of classrooms or activity rooms, such as in corridors and communal areas where social distancing cannot easily be maintained", and the same applies to further education colleges.

Until now, this requirement was only for schools and colleges where the local Covid-19 alert level was "high" or "very high".

The DfE also says teachers with serious underlying health issues should keep away from the premises.

"Those individuals who are clinically extremely vulnerable are advised to work from home and not to go into work," the guidance says.

"Staff should talk to their employers about how they will be supported, including to work from home where possible, during the period of national restrictions.

"All other staff should continue to attend work, including those living in a household with someone who is clinically extremely vulnerable."

Paul Whiteman, general secretary of the NAHT school leaders' union, said the lockdown was announced four days ago and that it "beggars belief that schools have had to wait until now to find out how it affects them".

"Frankly, it is ridiculous that this new guidance has landed on school leaders' desks less than 24 hours before the start of the national lockdown.

"There is very little in the guidance that could not have been communicated with schools 72 hours ago."

 

[trebor79]

Disgusting.
I thought we'd seen the end of the creeping extension of masks mandation, but it seems someone in government still has a fetish for them.
I wonder if it's to try and shut the teaching unions up?

 

[The Ham]

I’d be grateful if the pro-mask posters on this thread could address the following points:

Despite mask wearing being very prevalent, there has been no reduction of virus transmission since their introduction. That has also been the case in countries such as France where it’s been basically mandatory to wear a mask whenever you’re not in your private home.

We were told that masks would help us get back to normality and yet, months after their introduction, here we are poised to enter another lockdown.

The established scientific consensus up until this pandemic was that masks in non clinical settings are not beneficial. The WHO has changed its position, but has admitted that was in response to political lobbying rather than scientific reasons.

Our government (which is clearly incompetent, and tells lies at the drop of a hat) has told us “the science is changing”, but has yet to publish said science.

Will there ever come a point when you finally accept that masks don’t make any meaningful difference?

The problem is that whilst there's likely to be limited benefits from wearing masks there's a couple of points worth noting:
- people wearing then tend to then not adhere to the correct distance rules increasing their risks
- the impact was only ever likely to be small, so that the overall trend would be hard to identify against doing nothing.

 

[bramling]

- people wearing then tend to then not adhere to the correct distance rules increasing their risks

Is that not a pretty good reason not to have masks?

I’ve certainly noticed recently that we’re back to people choosing “their” seat on a train rather than spreading out - like one morning last week I was on a pretty empty 8-car train (i.e. loadings of one or less per carriage), yet some doltz still chose to come and sit in the table bay directly alongside where I was, all kitted out in mask of course.

 

[trainophile]

Is that not a pretty good reason not to have masks?

I’ve certainly noticed recently that we’re back to people choosing “their” seat on a train rather than spreading out - like one morning last week I was on a pretty empty 8-car train (i.e. loadings of one or less per carriage), yet some doltz still chose to come and sit in the table bay directly alongside where I was, all kitted out in mask of course.

Why did I get royally slagged off when I complained on here about people sitting in the aisle seat a few feet from me (in my window seat), when it seems you are all in favour of the prescribed distancing?

 

[bramling]

Why did I get royally slagged off when I complained on here about people sitting in the aisle seat a few feet from me (in my window seat), when it seems you are all in favour of the prescribed distancing?

My view has been pretty consistent that people should distance themselves where practicable.

 

[scotrail158713]

My worry is masks in schools up here. I believe we’ll see a decline in cases in the next couple of weeks, which will coincide with masks just becoming mandatory in senior classes. The decline will, IMO, have nothing to do with mandating masks in class, however it will be very convenient to use as proof that “masks work”, and it will continue longer than necessary.
I know a couple of teachers and already they’ve said it’s a real struggle for everyone to work productively as communication suffers so much.

 

[farleigh]

Covid-19: All pupils and staff must wear masks in secondary school corridors

New government guidance also says teachers who are "clinically vulnerable" should not come in to school.

www.bbc.co.uk

Yes. This has made me unhappy

 

[yorkie]

And I can tell you now it makes people get closer to each other.

I wonder how long it's going to last for? Better not continue after the Easter break; that would be ridiculous

I really hate the authoritarianism in this country.

 

[kez19]

Covid-19: All pupils and staff must wear masks in secondary school corridors

New government guidance also says teachers who are "clinically vulnerable" should not come in to school.

www.bbc.co.uk

Then give it time they’ll do what’s happened in Dundee, every year in secondary to wear one

 

[SynthD]

Masks work just like that herd immunity that many anti mask people crow about. It has to be a significant enough portion of the country to work. With people complaining about authoritarianism, others die to the disease rather than the frankly absurd dream of dying to the overbearing government of V for Vendetta. To be the ones complaining about mask mandates and going against them is to be the ones requiring longer mandates and lockdowns.

 

[yorkie]

@kez19 I can't see it being mandated in a classroom environment.

Masks work just like that herd immunity that many anti mask people crow about. It has to be a significant enough portion of the country to work.

This is one of the most bizarre things I've read on this subject. What you write doesn't really make sense and is fairly meaningless. What are you actually saying?

On the subject of immunity you clearly have a huge misunderstanding about a naturally occuring phenomenon; this virus is going to approach epidemic equilibrium at some point; it's an undeniable fact.

With people complaining about authoritarianism, others die to the disease rather than the frankly absurd dream of dying to the overbearing government of V for Vendetta.

Do you have evidence that authoritarianism saves lives?

On the contrary, it is extremely damaging for society, for several reasons including creating resentment and many other factors leading to poor mental health and it risks destabilising our society which is based on very different values. The thread to society cannot be underestimated.

In Sweden they look at the bigger picture and recognise the risks and have rightly chosen a different path.

To be the ones complaining about mask mandates and going against them is to be the ones requiring longer mandates and lockdowns.

If the mandating of masks resulted in shorter lockdowns, how do you explain the long and harsh lockdowns in places like Spain, France, Italy which are going down the authoritarian mask mandating route Vs Sweden who do not mandate masks and do not have lockdowns?

Can you demonstrate that mandatory masks have the effect you claim? Is there any research linking mandatory masks with shorter lockdowns? I think you are making this up.

If people think authoritarianism saves lives then I'd like to see them move to a country like China, rather than campaign for the UK to go down that path.

 

[kez19]

Face coverings and physical distancing

Face coverings should be worn in classrooms by pupils in the senior phase (S4-6) and their teachers. Individual schools in Dundee are asking S1-3 pupils to follow the same approach as an additional measure.Face coverings should also be worn by:

www.dundeecity.gov.uk

From the council site in full:


Updated guidance on face coverings use by pupils and staff
Updated guidance on face coverings use by pupils and staff container
Updated guidance on face coverings use by pupils and staff content
Following the introduction of Coronavirus Protection Level 3 restrictions in Dundee, the guidance for school pupils, staff and parents regarding the use of face coverings has changed.
Under the guidance, face coverings should be worn in classrooms by pupils in the senior phase (S4-6) and their teachers. Individual schools in Dundee are asking S1-3 pupils to follow the same approach as an additional measure.
Face coverings should also be worn by:

• adults and young people in secondary schools (including special schools) when moving about the school in corridors and confined communal areas (including toilets).
• adults at all times where they cannot keep two metres from other adults and/or children and young people in primary and secondary schools (with some exceptions in P1-2).
• adults, young people and children aged five and over travelling on dedicated school transport or public transport.
• parents and other visitors to any school site (whether entering the building or otherwise), including parents at drop-off and pick-up.

It is understood that some staff, children and young people and parents/carers cannot wear a face covering for good reasons including those with more complex additional support needs. This position will be respected and the Scottish Government exemption will apply.
Staff and pupils should ensure they:

• bring their own face coverings to school;
• store these safely in a washable, sealable bag or container when not in use;
• wash reusable face coverings in hot water at the end of each day; and
• safely and hygienically dispose of disposable face coverings after use.

Please remember that a face covering can be as simple as a scarf, snood or other piece of cloth which covers the nose and mouth.
Schools will also arrange for a limited supply of face coverings to be available. If you think you may have difficulty in sourcing a face covering or if you feel that your child or young person should be exempt, please contact your school directly.

I can see this happening in England (if not already)

 

[SynthD]

@kez19 I can't see it being mandated in a classroom environment.
This is one of the most bizarre things I've read on this subject. What you write doesn't really make sense and is fairly meaningless. What are you actually saying?

On the subject of immunity you clearly have a huge misunderstanding about a naturally occuring phenomenon; this virus is going to approach epidemic equilibrium at some point; it's an undeniable fact.

Do you have evidence that authoritarianism saves lives?

On the contrary, it is extremely damaging for society, for several reasons including creating resentment and many other factors leading to poor mental health and it risks destabilising our society which is based on very different values. The thread to society cannot be underestimated.

In Sweden they look at the bigger picture and recognise the risks and have rightly chosen a different path.


If the mandating of masks resulted in shorter lockdowns, how do you explain the long and harsh lockdowns in places like Spain, France, Italy which are going down the authoritarian mask mandating route Vs Sweden who do not mandate masks and do not have lockdowns?

Can you demonstrate that mandatory masks have the effect you claim? Is there any research linking mandatory masks with shorter lockdowns? I think you are making this up.

If people think authoritarianism saves lives then I'd like to see them move to a country like China, rather than campaign for the UK to go down that path.

I prefer living resentment than dead people. I prefer people labelling the government coming up with fairly medical based solutions and getting the Commons approval as something accurate. I prefer Sweden's regret over people still blindly pointing towards it as something to copy. I prefer national healthcare to the freedom of not having it.

The term epidemic equilibrium is new to me, but is that the one that we get to after half a million people die? Is it the new term for herd immunity now the nation knows how many people that'll kill?

As I already said, we can't look back at past periods where masks were required because people did not wear masks enough. You had liberty and you, unfortunately, used it.

 

[birchesgreen]

one morning last week I was on a pretty empty 8-car train (i.e. loadings of one or less per carriage), yet some doltz still chose to come and sit in the table bay directly alongside where I was, all kitted out in mask of course.

Was it due to a reservation? I was on a train a few weeks ago with a reserved seat and hilariously the seat was sat right behind the only other person then sat in that carriage.

 

[Bantamzen]

I prefer living resentment than dead people.

Living resentment has it's own consequences.

I prefer people labelling the government coming up with fairly medical based solutions and getting the Commons approval as something accurate.

I think you'll find that the "fairly medical based solutions" do not have universal approval even in the medical / scientific communities.

I prefer Sweden's regret over people still blindly pointing towards it as something to copy. I prefer national healthcare to the freedom of not having it.

Sweden's regret? They admitted they got it wrong with care home (something our government has not), but other than that what else are they regretting?

The term epidemic equilibrium is new to me, but is that the one that we get to after half a million people die? Is it the new term for herd immunity now the nation knows how many people that'll kill?

As I already said, we can't look back at past periods where masks were required because people did not wear masks enough. You had liberty and you, unfortunately, used it.

And as for that last statement I take it you are happier with the thought of having governments control every facet of your life? If so, you are in the minority so do not expect us to follow.

 

[43066]

I prefer people labelling the government coming up with fairly medical based solutions and getting the Commons approval as something accurate.

In what way are face coverings “fairly medical based” solutions when there’s no evidence that they actually work?

 

[35B]

@kez19 I can't see it being mandated in a classroom environment.
This is one of the most bizarre things I've read on this subject. What you write doesn't really make sense and is fairly meaningless. What are you actually saying?

On the subject of immunity you clearly have a huge misunderstanding about a naturally occuring phenomenon; this virus is going to approach epidemic equilibrium at some point; it's an undeniable fact.

Do you have evidence that authoritarianism saves lives?

On the contrary, it is extremely damaging for society, for several reasons including creating resentment and many other factors leading to poor mental health and it risks destabilising our society which is based on very different values. The thread to society cannot be underestimated.

In Sweden they look at the bigger picture and recognise the risks and have rightly chosen a different path.


If the mandating of masks resulted in shorter lockdowns, how do you explain the long and harsh lockdowns in places like Spain, France, Italy which are going down the authoritarian mask mandating route Vs Sweden who do not mandate masks and do not have lockdowns?

Can you demonstrate that mandatory masks have the effect you claim? Is there any research linking mandatory masks with shorter lockdowns? I think you are making this up.

If people think authoritarianism saves lives then I'd like to see them move to a country like China, rather than campaign for the UK to go down that path.

I wouldn't describe what is happening in the various British measures as authoritarianism at work, and I wouldn’t characterise the Swedish approach as being nearly as different as you represent it being.

The comparison between the legal structures obscures as much as it reveals; the idea of having to apply at a cost for a license for people to gather is far from liberal. As for the trust in people to obey advice rather than rules, I suggest the determination of many to do their own thing rather than follow advice or rules may give an insight into somewhat different national characters.

None of which gainsays that the British government’ performance has been nothing to write home about, or that the data and it’s interpretation guiding policy is contestable.

But I’d be grateful if people could spare us the cant about swede being a liberal paradise, or Britain being barely one step removed from China.

 

[SynthD]

I'm seeing too much reductio ad absurdum to be interested in continuing this.

And I recommend the same for others.
Edit: I regret not taking my own advice

 

[jumble]

If 0.1% die of those infected that's 13 deaths saved.

Hence why it has to be none, and not just not statistically significant. Few would argue that 0.1% is statistically significant yet for the friends and family of those 13 people it's enough of a difference.

I am hoping one day people will stop quantifying the deaths as an absolute figure as the hypothetical 13 died with covid and not of covid
No one can tell us how many of those would have died anyway regardless of whether they caught covid or not.

 

[Smidster]

I prefer living resentment than dead people. I prefer people labelling the government coming up with fairly medical based solutions and getting the Commons approval as something accurate. I prefer Sweden's regret over people still blindly pointing towards it as something to copy. I prefer national healthcare to the freedom of not having it.

The term epidemic equilibrium is new to me, but is that the one that we get to after half a million people die? Is it the new term for herd immunity now the nation knows how many people that'll kill?

As I already said, we can't look back at past periods where masks were required because people did not wear masks enough. You had liberty and you, unfortunately, used it.

I am not "Anti-Mask" per se but think the basic premise of your argument is flawed.

Compliance with mask requirements has been very high - To suggest that all of the increase in cases is being caused by a very small proportion of people who are not wearing masks in mandated places is ludicrous.

At the margin I tend to think it might have a pretty small benefit although that is concentrated in a limited number of places where you have both an enclosed space and lots of people (e.g transport). I still see nothing to really support the idea that they are going to be a magic bullet and unfortunately many seem to think they are and we are only ever "more masks in xyz" away from solving everything.

 

[SynthD]

Could you put a number on high? And what it needs to be for the masks to be effective? Words like high are too flexible to be useful.

 

[Darandio]

I'm seeing too much reductio ad absurdum to be interested in continuing this.

And I recommend the same for others.

Is that because you make claims about medical based decisions, get challenged about it and cannot find an answer?