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

[Huntergreed]

We did our weekly big Tesco shop today instead of tomorrow to beat the masks. I didn't go around counting everyone, but mask wearers guestimate around 10-15%, which tallies with what others have said today. Saw 1 staff member inside the shop wearing a mask (plus the chap at the entrance with a face shield).
I think this is a very dangerous moment in the whole crisis, with a real potential for conflict between individuals. Trust in Government handling of the crisis has been falling, especially since the Cummings debacle and they haven't done anywhere near enough to justify why mask wearing is needed now, when it wasn't when the virus was rampant in March/April.

The Chief Scientific Advisor and the Deputy Chief Medical Officer (a world authority on influenza) were adamant in March masks made no difference. Did they really get that so badly wrong, or is Hancock making it up as he goes along? Do you need half an hour to work that out?

I imagine it's a mix of political pressure from Scotland doing it, the WHO changing their stance (funnily enough, due to political pressure), those who have been screaming for it to be done for a while being heavily publicised, them trying to convince the people they've scared in to come out now they need it for the sake of the economy and the attitude of 'we must do something, this is something, so we must do this'.

I don't believe there's any science behind it, it's entirely political and psychological (trying to make people feel safe), whether it works will be anyone's guess, but I think footfall will decrease quite sharply.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

And it coincidentally comes into effect a week before shielding is "paused". Hm.

 

[Huntergreed]

And it coincidentally comes into effect a week before shielding is "paused". Hm.

I note the careful and cautious word choice with regards to shielding.

It's almost like they know it's going to have to happen again. Are they not telling us something?

 

[bramling]

I find the idea of wearing a mask on the bus for 45 minutes into town, queuing outside shops (possibly wearing a mask), finally getting into the shop to find they don't have your size, going to another shop and finding they don't stock your brand, returning home another 45 minutes on the bus, simply not worth it. I would do it for a specialist item which I had to see / try on first - such as footwear. Add in the fact that delivery is cheaper than the bus fare: Amazon - from free, £7.99 per month Prime, Argos £3.95, Tesco from £3.00) against £4.00 return, £5.00 day ticket on the bus.

Absolutely. It used to be the case that online required firing up the computer, but now I can order something from a park bench or even whilst lying in the bath!

To compete with that the shops need to be able to offer something that is at least tolerable - precisely the opposite of what we now have.

There’s already a big problem with people spending a lot of time browsing in shops but not actually buying much.

 

[bramling]

And it coincidentally comes into effect a week before shielding is "paused". Hm.

Yes that’s absolutely not a coincidence. Likewise at my work there’s just recently been quite a push to get some of the shielding people back.

One, who does have quite significant underlying issues, was told he “needs to make a decision”.

 

[Yew]

the attitude of 'we must do something, this is something, so we must do this'.

It feels like there should be a snappy name for this, but I've never been able to find one.. I'd call it the any-action fallacy.

 

[Yew]

Agreed. A lot of people are saying they’re finding this all rather draining now, largely due to the way this phobia has now crept into pretty much every aspect of daily life.

The worst thing is, I have friends which I'm 80% sure would make the argument that lock down related suicide should be included in C-19 death statistics.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

to enjoy their last moments of breathing fresh air in a shop for a few months

Oh, don't worry, it will be here for years to come.

the way that they have been mandated through improper use of the emergency legislation procedures

The sad thing is it's unlikely to be actionable, even if someone had the money and inclination to undertake a judicial review about this specific instance of abuse of the 1984 Act's powers. A judge would say it didn't make any difference because Parliament rubber stamped it anyway.

 

[AdamWW]

It feels like there should be a snappy name for this, but I've never been able to find one.. I'd call it the any-action fallacy.

The politician's syllogism:

 

[MikeWM]

In all honesty, the risk of C-19 to me is orders of magnetude less than that caused due to the psychological effects that our massive overreaction response is causing.

Yep, that's been my problem since the start. The whole thing has been a total disaster; by far the biggest domestic policy failure in our lifetimes.

 

[LowLevel]

I will be avoiding the high street from now on and doing shopping online, which to be fair I've done since my local shopping centre introduced a one way system and has a recorded message every 5 minutes to remind you about social distancing.

The reason I'm against wearing a mask is that I just dont find covid-19 very prevalent or very serious. What is it... 20000 deaths outside care homes in 6 months? Thats not a huge amount

You don't have to die for it to cause a problem is perhaps the issue. A mate had it with mild symptoms. Nothing undue to worry about, except 4 months later he still doesn't have the puff to leave the house and they have no idea how long it might last so it's effectively disabled him for what could be the short, medium or long term.

I think we need to give it a little longer before saying it isn't very serious because if a decent proportion of those who haven't died or even needed treatment develop debilitating side effects then it changes the perspective quite a lot.

 

[AdamWW]

The reason I'm against wearing a mask is that I just dont find covid-19 very prevalent or very serious. What is it... 20000 deaths outside care homes in 6 months? Thats not a huge amount

But it might just be that the reason it's not very prevalent is because of all the things that have been done to reduce spread....now including masks.

(I do find the argument that they should be required only in areas where infection levels are high quite compelling...if we can have a local lockdown I would have thought this might be a sellable idea).

 

[jtuk]

But it might just be that the reason it's not very prevalent is because of all the things that have been done to reduce spread....now including masks.

It also might just be that would have gone away on its own

 

[adc82140]

I've checked the legislation. Visors seem to be accepted.

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) Regulations 2020

These Regulations require members of the public to wear face coverings whilst inside a relevant place specified in the Regulations in England to protect against the risks to public health arising from coronavirus, except in certain limited cases.

www.legislation.gov.uk

Paragraph 2.1:

"face covering" means a covering of any type which covers a person's nose and mouth

 

[AdamWW]

You don't have to die for it to cause a problem is perhaps the issue. A mate had it with mild symptoms. Nothing undue to worry about, except 4 months later he still doesn't have the puff to leave the house and they have no idea how long it might last so it's effectively disabled him for what could be the short, medium or long term.

I think we need to give it a little longer before saying it isn't very serious because if a decent proportion of those who haven't died or even needed treatment develop debilitating side effects then it changes the perspective quite a lot.

I'd find it a lot easier to take a view on the need for masks - and other precautions - if I had a better idea of how prevelant "long term" issues are. We have numbers for deaths and infections, but all I've seen is fairly anecdotal evidence of people who have had a mild case but not recovered.

In the UK the Covid App people probably have the best idea, and the best I can find is: "one in ten people may still have symptoms after three weeks, and some may suffer for months. "

They also say that people with mild symptoms seem more likely to have long term effects.

I think it's a mistake to just concentrate on survival rates and say "Not many people are dying round here so why should I wear a mask."

 

[AdamWW]

I've checked the legislation. Visors seem to be accepted.

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) Regulations 2020

These Regulations require members of the public to wear face coverings whilst inside a relevant place specified in the Regulations in England to protect against the risks to public health arising from coronavirus, except in certain limited cases.

www.legislation.gov.uk

Paragraph 2.1:

"face covering" means a covering of any type which covers a person's nose and mouth

Fascinating. Because I think there is weaker evidence that a visor prevents transmission than a mask.

It also might just be that would have gone away on its own

Well it might but it doesn't seem to be happening anywhere. (Please don't say Sweden, because they didn't just carry on as normal - for example they are still asking people to socially distance and to work from home if possible).

 

[45107]

It also might just be that would have gone away on its own

Donald, do you really think that the virus will just disappear if no action is taken ? It gets fed up and goes home ?
Look at the number of cases worldwide, that are slowly rising again.
In the UK the number has flat lined. That would indicate to me that the measures taken are having an effect.
The fact that they have flat lined instead of dropped indicates that it still around and looking for victims.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I note the careful and cautious word choice with regards to shielding.

It's almost like they know it's going to have to happen again. Are they not telling us something?

If there is a second wave, of course it will.

 

[farleigh]

Donald, do you really think that the virus will just disappear if no action is taken ? It gets fed up and goes home ?
Look at the number of cases worldwide, that are slowly rising again.
In the UK the number has flat lined. That would indicate to me that the measures taken are having an effect.
The fact that they have flat lined instead of dropped indicates that it still around and looking for victims.

Yes - of course worldwide figures are rising. That just requires 1 person to contract it.

The flatlining is not necessarily an endorsement of the measures taken but it could be.

The number of new cases has dropped in the UK.

 

[Huntergreed]

If there is a second wave, of course it will.

Yes, but it’s interesting how every other measure is “lifted” or “eased” but shielding is “paused”, or perhaps I’m just reading into it too far.

 

[Darandio]

Hey-ho. Not my fault if the government legislates to ban me from all retail outlets, they can complain to the government if they find too many people feel as I do.

Not again. You are banning yourself. Any suggestion that you are being banned by the government because you don't wish to comply with legislation is tiresome.

 

[AdamWW]

Yes - of course worldwide figures are rising. That just requires 1 person to contract it.

The flatlining is not necessarily an endorsement of the measures taken but it could be.

The number of new cases has dropped in the UK.

The figures from the Covid app people (from people reporting symptoms and from actual tests in England) show cases dropping up to early July, then rising slightly and have now levelled off. They are more detailed than the ONS figures but in agreement.

Their view is that there is still a dangerous proportion of infectious people around, and that precautions should continue, including wearing masks.

Given what has been seen in the UK and elsewhere in the world it is very hard to imagine that social distancing and lockdowns have not had a huge effect - and it's very hard to see how they could not.

I would hope that the government approach to masks depends on how numbers continue to evolve. If infections start dropping again, I would have thought it would be easier to justify removing the requirement to wear a mask than if they start to go up again.

 

[Scrotnig]

Not again. You are banning yourself. Any suggestion that you are being banned by the government because you don't wish to comply with legislation is tiresome.

I cannot comply with the legislation.

I have exemption under medical condition (claustrophobia), plus the fact that combined it triggers severe anxiety and panic attacks.

However, going into a shop without a mask, whilst completely lawful, puts me at risk of challenges from shop staff, police or members of the public. We've already seen that many of these challenges are highly confrontational. Just the fear of that happening is enough to bring on a panic attack.

So, I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't.

Any suggestion that I am "banning myself" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of this and other mental health issues and the impact they have on people's lives.

if I could just shrug it off - don't you think I would?

 

[sjpowermac]

Donald, do you really think that the virus will just disappear if no action is taken ? It gets fed up and goes home ?
Look at the number of cases worldwide, that are slowly rising again.
In the UK the number has flat lined. That would indicate to me that the measures taken are having an effect.
The fact that they have flat lined instead of dropped indicates that it still around and looking for victims.

It’s interesting that in the poll the percentage of people in favour of the mask proposals is steadily rising. I think you and @AdamWW have made some interesting points and have perhaps won some people over.

For those jumping up and down asking for stronger evidence than observational studies: I wonder how many of them would volunteer to take part in an experiment where they get coughed over by an infected person with (or without!) a mask? Perhaps they could contact the lab of their choice and offer their services?

 

[Huntergreed]

Not again. You are banning yourself. Any suggestion that you are being banned by the government because you don't wish to comply with legislation is tiresome.

The poster in question has a genuine exemption on medical grounds from wearing a mask, and, through anxiety of being challenged, doesn't feel comfortable using these services under current circumstances, I wouldn't argue those who are afraid to go out due to the virus are 'banning themselves', and in a similar way, I wouldn't argue that the poster in question due to not feeling comfortable going out due to anxiety is 'banning themself' either.

 

[AdamWW]

I cannot comply with the legislation.

I have exemption under medical condition (claustrophobia), plus the fact that combined it triggers severe anxiety and panic attacks.

However, going into a shop without a mask, whilst completely lawful, puts me at risk of challenges from shop staff, police or members of the public. We've already seen that many of these challenges are highly confrontational. Just the fear of that happening is enough to bring on a panic attack.

So, I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't.

Any suggestion that I am "banning myself" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of this and other mental health issues and the impact they have on people's lives.

if I could just shrug it off - don't you think I would?

A very unfortunate state of affairs, and I hope that the reality when it comes to the chance of being challenged is worse than your fears. I suspect that given a few weeks at most things will settle down...there's a limit to how long most people can be bothered about such things before moving on to the next one.

 

[Darandio]

I cannot comply with the legislation.

I have exemption under medical condition (claustrophobia), plus the fact that combined it triggers severe anxiety and panic attacks.

However, going into a shop without a mask, whilst completely lawful, puts me at risk of challenges from shop staff, police or members of the public. We've already seen that many of these challenges are highly confrontational. Just the fear of that happening is enough to bring on a panic attack.

So, I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't.

Any suggestion that I am "banning myself" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of this and other mental health issues and the impact they have on people's lives.

if I could just shrug it off - don't you think I would?

The poster in question has a genuine exemption on medical grounds from wearing a mask, and, through anxiety of being challenged, doesn't feel comfortable using these services under current circumstances, I wouldn't argue those who are afraid to go out due to the virus are 'banning themselves', and in a similar way, I wouldn't argue that the poster in question due to not feeling comfortable going out due to anxiety is 'banning themself' either.

And neither of you know nothing of my situation or that of my family, don't assume a misunderstanding or otherwise. I stand by what I said and while I do express sympathy to the situation, I still don't believe it's right to say that anyone is banned by the legislation.

I haven't seen any of these confrontational challenges either, never mind many, although that isn't to say they aren't happening. The best thing is probably to wait and see what tomorrow brings and see what people report on here and elsewhere. Given the legislation has got more holes than a Swiss Cheese, it's quite possible that after a few days some retailers won't give a hoot whether you wear one or not, in fact it seems some might already be heading towards that.

 

[sjpowermac]

I cannot comply with the legislation.

I have exemption under medical condition (claustrophobia), plus the fact that combined it triggers severe anxiety and panic attacks.

However, going into a shop without a mask, whilst completely lawful, puts me at risk of challenges from shop staff, police or members of the public. We've already seen that many of these challenges are highly confrontational. Just the fear of that happening is enough to bring on a panic attack.

So, I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't.

Any suggestion that I am "banning myself" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of this and other mental health issues and the impact they have on people's lives.

if I could just shrug it off - don't you think I would?

I appreciate fully what you are saying and have a great deal of sympathy for the situation in which you find yourself.

On the flip side, I wouldn’t take these threads as necessarily an accurate reflection of reality.

Naturally, I can only give you my own observations, but they are based on being out and about travelling by train for the past month.

I’ve yet to see anyone say anything to anybody for not wearing a mask. By and large, the trains here in Yorkshire are so quiet that you can often have a coach (almost) to yourself.

I do wear a mask (I’m neither for nor against). There have been two occasions though where being a bit absent minded I forgot! On the first I ran to catch a bus and completely forgot. The driver didn’t challenge me and the passengers didn’t even look my way. The second occasion was when waiting to go through a barrier at a major station, I was preoccupied with rummaging for my ticket and again forgot. No problem from any of the rail staff or security.

I think as many have already said, very few people are currently wearing them in shops. I’ve done a mixture in shops of mask/no mask and nobody has troubled me.

I wonder if the LNER style ‘sunflower’ lanyard might be of any help to you?

I can empathise a little, I felt quite anxious on my first post-lockdown journey, I was worried about getting something wrong and that was even though I wore a mask. Several of my friends have said just the same thing, that they were anxious and it was all a bit weird, and this from people who are rail enthusiasts too.

Is there any possibility to take a trip with a friend? I do really hope that you manage to make a journey or visit the shops and genuinely wish you all the very best.

 

[bramling]

Not again. You are banning yourself. Any suggestion that you are being banned by the government because you don't wish to comply with legislation is tiresome.

I think that’s rather disingenuous. There are people whom mask wearing is medically impracticable or highly uncomfortable. Whilst they are exempt by law, this doesn’t prevent such people being on the receiving end of vigilantism, ignorance or bad attitude, which is something no one in such a position should have to face.

Faced with such a dilemma, and in the absence of support from the government (a trend we’ve seen right through this where the government has failed to mitigate against side-effects arising from some of its policy decisions), it’s not surprising at all that some people now feel uncomfortable venturing into shops. Especially for a measure which the DCMO recently went on the record as saying may “do more harm than good” and is “not a good idea”.

 

[Scotrail12]

Do the announcements from "key workers" in stations do anyone else's head in? The most annoying one is the child of a "key worker", that's bordering on emotional blackmail IMO.

Sure, people should follow the rules but let us get on with our journey. I'm fine with the general reminders on face coverings but the others can go right in the bin as far as I'm concerned.