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

[Richard Scott]

Nor does trying to understand why wearing a face covering as a temporary requirement is really, really not the biggest ask in the world when scores of people (in NHS, Transport and others) have died fighting Covid.

At that point, I'll leave it there.

Come on lighten up. We understand your point but some of us have different opinions, without that we don't have an intelligent debate just a load of nodding heads. A little bit of humour is keeping some of us sane.

 

[Non Multi]

From my rail journeys today around West London I've grouped passengers in 3 categories:

1: Mask wearers, fitted properly 40%
2: 'An attempt was made'; fitted incorrectly or opened during travel 40%
3: No masks; mainly youths who don't care, but also those exempt 20%

Not many elderly folk on the trains yet.

Verdict: this is going to be fun on the 24th! Good luck with issuing fines Boris, if people simply don't give a damn on the trains.

 

[talldave]

I was only restating it due to the ridiculous argument trying to make a face mask equivalent to a Faraday cage.

If people didn't resort to ridiculous arguments, I wouldn't have to keep saying it.

The argument for wearing them is in itself either non-existent or ridiculous; I've not quite worked out which.

Whilst I am relieved on behalf of retail workers that they don't have to wear them, that very fact in itself is so illogical it beggars belief. It's the same as having a smoking ban for pub customers but allowing staff to smoke, or fitting fire sprinkler systems only on odd numbered floors in a tower block.

It's the insanity that baffles me - and it goes to prove that it's not about infection prevention at all, but about political statements and pandering to the Facebook furloughs.

 

[ashkeba]

Sounds like you don't get satire...

Isn't satire meant to be humourous?

 

[DB]

Isn't satire meant to be humourous?

I guess it rather depends whether you have a sense of humour.

 

[ashkeba]

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.

But it wasn't demonstrated in trials before the rule was introduced, there was only weak evidence for it and there was much objection to having to do something for the benefit of others less careful than you. Does that sound familiar?

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

There are many things which used to be the normal state in Western society which had to change, including people like me being owned! This is a reason even weaker than the evidence for masks!

 

[DB]

But it wasn't demonstrated in trials before the rule was introduced, there was only weak evidence for it and there was much objection to having to do something for the benefit of others less careful than you. Does that sound familiar?


There are many things which used to be the normal state in Western society which had to change, including people like me being owned! This is a reason even weaker than the evidence for masks!

Err - right. So you need evidence to demonstrate that something with lights on tends to be more visible in the dark than something without lights? Would you also demand evidence that water is in fact wet? So, no, I'm afraid it doesn't sound familar. Can you not see how ridiculous this comparison is?

So lots of things have changed. Yep, can't argue with that. But we aren't talking 'lots of things' here - we are talking a specific restriction which has allegedly been introduced on the basis of "growing evidence", but nobody seems able to actually point to this evidence (or, indeed, account for the seemingly illogical situation of shop workers not being included) - and it's a restriction which a lot of people have problems with for various reasons (yes, we know that you don't, and that's fair enough, but unevidenced opinions should not be sufficient to force restrictions on others).

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

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).

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?

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.

 

[bramling]

The argument for wearing them is in itself either non-existent or ridiculous; I've not quite worked out which.

Whilst I am relieved on behalf of retail workers that they don't have to wear them, that very fact in itself is so illogical it beggars belief. It's the same as having a smoking ban for pub customers but allowing staff to smoke, or fitting fire sprinkler systems only on odd numbered floors in a tower block.

It's the insanity that baffles me - and it goes to prove that it's not about infection prevention at all, but about political statements and pandering to the Facebook furloughs.

Just come back from Tesco’s. Store was fairly empty - the emptiest I’ve had it during an evening since March which was refreshingly pleasant. Only saw about 5 people wearing masks (including one who I noticed still had it on when he drove out of the car park!). Not a single member of staff wearing one, which I’d say is quite revealing, and chatting to the lady on the checkout she said she’s completely against it as they’ve just settled down from several months of utter hell, and the last thing they want is having to mediate in disputes over masks.

Also, perhaps completely predictably, the mask shelf was completely bare. If that carries on then people may well be reduced to having to put underpants over the face in order to go on a shop for essential food shopping. Another example of BJ just doing the announcement and doing naff all groundwork to get everything ready.

 

[ashkeba]

Err - right. So you need evidence to demonstrate that something with lights on tends to be more visible in the dark than something without lights? Would you also demand evidence that water is in fact wet? So, no, I'm afraid it doesn't sound familar. Can you not see how ridiculous this comparison is?

No, you need evidence to show that the visibility of rear lights reduce collisions. After all, drivers are told to drive so they can stop in the road they can see and not hit fallen trees so it should not matter, should it?

I think it interesting that increasing visibility being obvious is enough for you with lights and you did not demand evidence of crash reduction, but reducing range of spray is not sufficient and you demand evidence of infection reduction.

So lots of things have changed. Yep, can't argue with that. But we aren't talking 'lots of things' here - we are talking a specific restriction which has allegedly been introduced on the basis of "growing evidence", but nobody seems able to actually point to this evidence (or, indeed, account for the seemingly illogical situation of shop workers not being included) - and it's a restriction which a lot of people have problems with for various reasons (yes, we know that you don't, and that's fair enough, but unevidenced opinions should not be sufficient to force restrictions on others).

Broadly I agree with that but that was not the reason given not to use them. The reason was weak.

 

[Journeyman]

Nor does trying to understand why wearing a face covering as a temporary requirement is really, really not the biggest ask in the world when scores of people (in NHS, Transport and others) have died fighting Covid.

At that point, I'll leave it there.

I think you should. Don't bring the dead into it. Seriously not a classy thing to do. Emotional blackmail is not helping.

 

[DB]

No, you need evidence to show that the visibility of rear lights reduce collisions. After all, drivers are told to drive so they can stop in the road they can see and not hit fallen trees so it should not matter, should it?

I think it interesting that increasing visibility being obvious is enough for you with lights and you did not demand evidence of crash reduction, but reducing range of spray is not sufficient and you demand evidence of infection reduction.

A factor in collisions is often that the driver didn't see what they ran into (or not in time to stop) - I don't think that's in dispute by anyone. Making other objects more visible is therefore reducing one of the reasons for collisions - it's also the purpose of cat's eyes to demark road lanes so that drivers can see this in the dark, and of reflective bollards and barriers, and of streetlights on major roundabouts and intersections.

Tail lights on other cars would of course not stop someone from driving into a fallen tree if they didn't see it in time, but that's not really relevant - it's not feasible to mandate that lights must be fitted to all trees which might fall onto a road, and the chances of encountering a fallen tree are after all pretty small, whereas the chance of encountering other cars is very much higher.

As regards masks, firstly you need to demonstrate that there is any appreciable risk in catching the Big Bad Virus in a place where you are briefly in the proximity of others, such as a shop, and nobody has demonstrated that. Then you need to demonstrate that if this risk exists, masks (of the type expected to be worn by members of the public) will appreciably reduce these risks. That's not been demonstrated either. Finally, you need to demonstrate that risk is not in fact increased by people fiddling with the area around their mouth and then touching surfaces. Nobody has demonstrated that either.

 

[londiscape]

Nor does trying to understand why wearing a face covering as a temporary requirement is really, really not the biggest ask in the world when scores of people (in NHS, Transport and others) have died fighting Covid.

At that point, I'll leave it there.

The problem with the 'biggest ask in the world' is actually, as anyone with at least 30 minutes of proper infection control training would understand, as that it makes the problem worse.

A) a face mask presents a nice moist environment in front of your mouth where pathogens can accumulate
B) if you are not infected, you will be touching potentially infected surfaces and transmitting pathogens to your mouth when fiddling with the mask, therefore increasing your own probability of infection
C) if you are infected, you will be transmitting pathogens on to surfaces after fiddling with the mask, therefore increasing probability of infections to others
D) everyone fiddles with the mask, they're very uncomfortable and you're not going to stop them from doing it, even if (in mad world) you could institute a PPE course for 66 million people in the space of 9 days

This is why those who have proper infection control training (usually healthcare professionals) are taught NOT to touch the mask, and discard them for a new one every 30 mins (clinical situations may vary) - can you seriously imagine the entire British public doing the same?

This is why mandatory mask wearing is a bad idea, it INCREASES transmission - even the WHO understood this until they were forced to change their advice due to "political lobbying"

Pathetic, purely and simply, it's government by pandering to the shoutiest voices on Facebook. Which are all wrong.

 

[BJames]

No, you need evidence to show that the visibility of rear lights reduce collisions. After all, drivers are told to drive so they can stop in the road they can see and not hit fallen trees so it should not matter, should it?

I think it interesting that increasing visibility being obvious is enough for you with lights and you did not demand evidence of crash reduction, but reducing range of spray is not sufficient and you demand evidence of infection reduction.


Broadly I agree with that but that was not the reason given not to use them. The reason was weak.

I don't agree with this comparison either for exactly the same reasons as @DavidB says above. If it's dark, you probably can't see the back of a black car as well as you can with lights on. That's blindingly obvious. With masks, there is a very reasonable likelihood that it reduces spread in some way. It's not blindingly obvious, it requires further evidence, and right now there remains to be sketchy evidence and people have quoted to evidence that it does not help. I doubt that there was ever evidence to say that having rear lights on the back of your car doesn't make it safer - if there is I imagine the person(s) writing that paper have since had their study debunked by rational people. I don't see that your comparison holds up.

In terms of range of spray, while I accept the fact that it reduces the amount of spray if you cough or sneeze, I've genuinely seen quite a few people take their mask off to cough or sneeze before putting it back on, as it's easier and usually people don't want to breathe in their sneeze (doesn't matter about "it's your germs" etc, people don't think like that and don't care). You got a tissue, use that and bin it, like the policy has been all along. Otherwise you've got people sneezing openly into their masks with some droplets coming out, that would otherwise have been 95-100% caught in the tissue.

In case it's not clear, I am not an advocate of masks but I will wear them for the short term because I don't want the aggravation of arguing with vigilantes and staff who are just doing their job. Doesn't mean I'm going to head back to the high street and spend a lot of money, I'll do that online from the comfort of my mask-free home. I have sat on intercity services and kept my mask on the whole time, it is fine, any enjoyment of travelling is sucked out but again I'm not exempt so I'm not prepared to argue with lots of people.

 

[BJames]

The problem with the 'biggest ask in the world' is actually, as anyone with at least 30 minutes of proper infection control training, as that it makes the problem worse.

A) a face mask presents a nice moist environment in front of your mouth where pathogens can accumulate
B) if you are not infected, you will be touching potentially infected surfaces and transmitting pathogens to your mouth when fiddling with the mask, therefore increasing your own probability of infection
C) if you are infected, you will be transmitting pathogens on to surfaces after fiddling with the mask, therefore increasing probability of infections to others
D) everyone fiddles with the mask, they're very uncomfortable and you're not going to stop them from doing it, even if (in mad world) you could institute a PPE course for 66 million people in the space of 9 days

This is why mandatory mask wearing is a bad idea - even the WHO understood this until they were forced to change their advice due to "political lobbying"

Pathetic, purely and simply.

As I was writing my post this came through and basically says what I was trying to say but better. People don't understand how to use them properly and don't want to have their own germs sitting across their face. You touch an infected mask repeatedly, and touch other surfaces, you may spread something. You sneeze into a tissue, bin and sanitize like you're supposed to, the risk must be lower as you're not constantly touching your face.

 

[MikeWM]

Just come back from Tesco’s.

Ditto. Number of staff wearing masks : zero. Number of customers wearing masks : zero. (usually there are one or two customers doing so; zero is pleasantly rare). Clearly not a lot of enthusiasm for wearing masks around here.

If that carries on then people may well be reduced to having to put underpants over the face in order to go on a shop for essential food shopping.

Well, I probably will be doing exactly that...

 

[BJames]

Ditto. Number of staff wearing masks : zero. Number of customers wearing masks : zero. (usually there are one or two customers doing so; zero is pleasantly rare). Clearly not a lot of enthusiasm for wearing masks around here.

Same at my Sainsbury's just an hour ago. And people keeping their distance but nobody being jumpy - much nicer shopping environment than when I went earlier in the day yesterday.

 

[initiation]

Same at my Sainsbury's just an hour ago. And people keeping their distance but nobody being jumpy - much nicer shopping environment than when I went earlier in the day yesterday.

Another one here when I went last night to tesco. Zero staff wearing one, 10% of the public.

This really doesn't tally with the comments on my local Facebook page which were 80% in favour of the law. I wonder how many of those will only wear masks after the 24th and not before.

 

[BJames]

Another one here when I went last night to tesco. Zero staff wearing one, 10% of the public.

This really doesn't tally with the comments on my local Facebook page which were 80% in favour of the law. I wonder how many of those will only wear masks after the 24th and not before.

I'm really struggling to understand this too. These polls must be either just filled in by Facebook fanatics or keyboard warriors who don't go outside, you'd think the amount of people in favour of this would be sort of reflected in the shops we've been in. I've been in multiple shops in two cities over the last week and it's the same everywhere - not to mention the exact same being said by forum members here.

 

[Epic]

I'm really struggling to understand this too. These polls must be either just filled in by Facebook fanatics or keyboard warriors who don't go outside, you'd think the amount of people in favour of this would be sort of reflected in the shops we've been in. I've been in multiple shops in two cities over the last week and it's the same everywhere - not to mention the exact same being said by forum members here.

It's as if we are being told/informed of one thing but reality is the opposite. Why would they do this?

 

[furlong]

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.

This is where you get back to the government's mixed messages. Their scientific advice seems to remain that face coverings are not a good idea as far as the virus is concerned except possibly in some narrow situations - nothing changed there - it's been consistent advice all the way through buried in the detailed guidelines. So while you might have seen the logic in going from 2m to 1m plus face coverings, and them doing that when the public transport compulsion came in, it seems their advisors wouldn't accept inferior trade off so in the end we got the face coverings but still had to keep the 2m. And now it seems it'll be the same with shops - keep the 2m (because that's what they have consistently considered really to be important - just keep apart from other people as much as you can!) but still add on the face coverings anyway because they're going to want to keep those at the end of this so they've a good way eventually to signal to people 'It really is all over now!'. I assume they're still hoping to persuade their advisors to let them drop the physical distancing, now after introducing the face coverings, but I reckon that'll still take a while. As we're getting to the tail of the epidemic, I think the targetted and more widely-available testing means an increasingly higher percentage of cases will be getting detected now so the numbers won't appear to be going down as rapidly as the epidemic actually is, but at some point that effect will saturate and the measured rate will take a further turn downwards. I think the biggest problem throughout this has been the skew caused by the focus on the measured numbers and crude modelling rather than trying to understand the underlying events through the filter of different and changing sampling biases. One statistic I haven't seen for example is where one person in a household (or other close environment) caught it detectedly, what proportion of others in the household didn't, and what does that imply about pre-existing community immunity and chance of transmission?

 

[Yew]

I think it interesting that increasing visibility being obvious is enough for you with lights and you did not demand evidence of crash reduction, but reducing range of spray is not sufficient and you demand evidence of infection reduction.

Because all of the existing randomised control trials show that there's no statistically significant effect. This isn't a case where we don't yet have evidence, we have evidence that it does not work.

 

[londiscape]

Because all of the existing randomised control trials show that there's no statistically significant effect. This isn't a case where we don't yet have evidence, we have evidence that it does not work.

Absolutely right, but this is even worse because there is significant evidence that it increases the problem, it's not even "cost-neutral"

 

[Midnight Sun]

Enforcement is going to be a problem, As it is with buses in Peterborough and Cambridge. In both places the face cover rule is not enforce with most people not wearing them. Bus drivers don't wish to be involved with the enforcement of face coverings.
I don't blame them afterall it is only a 12 days since French bus driver 'Philippe Monguillot', was beaten to death when he asked four passengers to wear face masks aboard his bus in Bayonne.

Wearing of damp face masks is going to put strain on NHS walk-in Centres and GP's with people seeking treating for painfull rashs on the face where the mask has been.

 

[Non Multi]

I'm really struggling to understand this too. These polls must be either just filled in by Facebook fanatics or keyboard warriors who don't go outside, you'd think the amount of people in favour of this would be sort of reflected in the shops we've been in. I've been in multiple shops in two cities over the last week and it's the same everywhere - not to mention the exact same being said by forum members here.

I tend to shop in the morning, quite a few are wearing them at that time of day.

 

[bramling]

I tend to shop in the morning, quite a few are wearing them at that time of day.

Yes it seems to be the ones whose imagination doesn’t extend beyond 1000 to 1400 who seem obsessed with masks, the same types who quiver if they need to pass in an alleyway. An evening visit to Tesco is by contrast a refreshingly civilised experience, no fuss, no bother, no dirty looks, no pointed remarks, just everyone getting on with their shopping and respecting each other’s space (I didn’t get within 10 metres of anyone let alone 2), like they always did before all hell broke loose back in February.

 

[bramling]

Another one here when I went last night to tesco. Zero staff wearing one, 10% of the public.

This really doesn't tally with the comments on my local Facebook page which were 80% in favour of the law. I wonder how many of those will only wear masks after the 24th and not before.

Seems like there’s a simple solution - masks compulsory until about 1300, then not after that. I’m sure the mask enthusiasts would still find something to moan about.

I’d happily arrange do my shopping later in the day as in normal times that has always tended to be a more relaxing experience devoid of nuisance people, thankfully this normality is returning after having been a little messed up during lockdown.

 

[furlong]

Seems like there’s a simple solution - masks compulsory until about 1300, then not after that. I’m sure the mask enthusiasts would still find something to moan about.

But then they wouldn't be able to introduce it as an urgent (not enough time to consult parliament), necessary, rational and proportionate measure under the 1984 act to combat the spread of infection.

(1) The appropriate Minister may by regulations make provision for the purpose of preventing, protecting against, controlling or providing a public health response to the incidence or spread of infection or contamination in England and Wales (whether from risks originating there or elsewhere).

 

[Bantamzen]

I dispute the "significant impact on daily lives" claim. It's an extra item of clothing meaning the economy can be opened up more.



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

If masks are going to be effective against the spread, why would we need to wait months? Given that the median infection to symptom period is 5.2 days, with an outer marker of 14 days, even with lag in reporting we would know if had been successful within 3-4 weeks. Seems to me that months means we are waiting for something else, or just trying to give the illusion that this is a temporary measure.

Not necessarily a bad thing, a major contributor to environmental damage is overconsumption by rich Western countries.

It's a symbol? Really? I just see it as an extra bit of clothing. I admit I don't get much of the emotional stuff that seems to inflict many people. If I have to wear a mask to go shopping, I will, I am not going to restrict my life any more than I have too just to try and feel like I am making a point or fighting a battle against authority.

So your answer is even more consumption, and more importantly even more waste?

 

[adc82140]

The front page of the Metro shows Rishi Sunak wearing a face covering with a one way valve on it. That makes a mockery of all they've said so far about protecting others. What an utter farce. May just as well go in to a shop doing your best impersonation of Tornado or Flying Scotsman if you're going to do that.