It will be a pain as I enjoy visiting shops and felt that things were maybe starting to get back some way towards normal. This feels like a backwards step. I won't be visiting shops whilst this is in place - pubs and restaurants will stay on my itinerary though.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Face coverings to become mandatory in shops in England (includes poll)
- Thread starter SouthEastBuses
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
It is a big step backwards - a way to extend a national "lockdown" of retail while pretending the opposite. They did the same with schools (which, according to government lawyers, have remained open to all students throughout) and public transport (technically usable by anyone, while everything possible is still being done to discourage use). In effect the government seems to be trying to reduce further the number of people visiting all types of physical shops and nudge people back towards online shopping.
Enthusiast
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2019
- Messages
- 1,226
Quite. Far better if he'd have simply said "What's the point of wearing a mask?"
I went to my local Aldi at 2030 this evening. About 60-70 customers inside but only me and one other wearing a mask. As someone who has had a plastic tube down my throat, I can assure people its much preferable to wear a mask than have a ventilator tube down your throat.
A moment's thought would tell them that a masked society is not 'normal life'.
Regarding masks versus visors - I saw a suggestion the other day that while a mask worn and handled incorrectly might not matter so much, those full face visors you sometimes see, when handled incorrectly provide a large surface to collect and spread pathogens and might turn out at the end of all this as having been worse than using nothing.
Actually it was very revealing. As far as he was concerned, it was only his health that he cared about, so he wasn't the type to have any consideration for others. A not unusual view among those who protest about wearing face coverings.
I wasn't implying that he was particularly intelligent or well informed about the wearing of face coverings.
He made a good point, perhaps unwittingly, perhaps not. Quarantining the healthy is a pretty wacko state of affairs, regardless of people trying to normalise it.
bramling
Veteran Member
Judging by the number of mask-wearers visibly misusing their masks in various ways, as well as some of the misinformation floating round social media, it could quite well be argued using the same logic that many maskophiles aren’t particularly intelligent or well informed about the wearing of face coverings.
Bantamzen
Established Member
Given that mask wearing is supposed to protect others, technically he is right. If someone doesn't have the virus, a mask is pointless. Where the debate lies is if people not displaying symptoms and carrying the virus can present a significant risk of passing it on, i.e. that the virus is active and producing enough copies of itself to potentially pass through the air or via surfaces & establish in another host. This is far from proven yet, as is the effectiveness of bits of cloth slung in front of our faces.
I'll tell you what's even more revealing is the number of people who strongly advocate wearing masks all the time that when pressed quickly go from protecting "others" to protecting themselves. There may even be a little bit of that being displayed around these various forums.
Maybe not 'more' revealing, (depending on one's point of view), but I agree about ignorance of who face coverings protect does produce some daft reactions. Clearly, it gives a few some false sense of security about the wearer being protected, but it does graphically illustrate that much of the oft claimed 'British community spirit' disappeared when a large portion of society convinced themselves that they personally weren't likely to suffer from COVID-19.
Last edited:
I was planning a trip to Carlisle with a friend up here last night. We were planning to go next Tuesday, but we decided against it purely on the basis that it would be too uncomfortable to go around shops all day wearing a face mask.
I don’t quite understand how the mandation of these horrible things would make the shopping experience more pleasurable for people, but that’s what many seem to want. I can only hope that the many who’ve been screaming on Facebook to mandate them actually go out and support these shops whilst those of us who don’t like this law buy online for the foreseeable future.
I don’t quite understand how the mandation of these horrible things would make the shopping experience more pleasurable for people, but that’s what many seem to want. I can only hope that the many who’ve been screaming on Facebook to mandate them actually go out and support these shops whilst those of us who don’t like this law buy online for the foreseeable future.
The Facebook Furloughs wear them on their chin, or fiddle with them excessively thus actually increasing the virus spread risk. Fortunately it doesn't matter so much now because the chance of encountering anyone with the virus is in the 1 in tens of thousands.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It isn't intended to be comfortable. It is intended to reduce spread.
We are in a very dangerous position at present - R=1, basically - that is, the virus is now bimbling along at a constant level. That means no more reopening unless we can find another way to get it down a bit. Masks in all indoor settings where 2m cannot be maintained seems a reasonable one to me.
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2018
- Messages
- 4,126
R is going to fluctuate now we have a small number of infections, to be honest it's pretty uninformative now and best forgotten about. It's a useful indicator with higher numbers.
Indeed. Perhaps for some people the pleasure of knowing they've done something which might help to prevent Covid starting to spread exponentially again outweighs the discomfort of wearing the mask?
I don't quite understand the attitude that everyone in favour of restrictions must be supporting the restrictions in themselves, not the goal that they are intended to achieve.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Well, precisely. I would hardly say I like wearing one, it's quite unpleasant. But the point is making a small, relatively short-term sacrifice for the greater good.
It might be a few weeks, it might be a few months, but these suggestions that it would be forever are farcical.
Is it though. Do masks really reduce spread? I’ve not seen any proof of this! Indeed if anything cases have increased since we mandated them up here in Scotland! This “growing evidence” is not coming to light, leading many people to, rightly, question whether it exists at all, or whether it’s a psychological trick to get more people back on the high street.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Even if it is, if it works, great.
I can’t agree. If a law is rushed through parliament which makes daily life significantly more uncomfortable without reasonable justification or strong evidence in support of it, I’d say it’s anything but great.
The thing I find worrying is that people don't seem to be concerned about the cost, 50 million reusable masks are a considerable expendiature, which if the plan is to use them as a placebo, then surely there are better ways to invest hundreds of millions of pounds?
Yep, it's a completely irrelevant statistic at this low a level, and hugely influenced by methodology. Who knew that testing more people would result in more cases?
Bantamzen
Established Member
Is the correct answer. As you say, as the number come down R will fluctuate with localised spikes, rising quickly before dropping away as quickly. This was demonstrated in Germany a few weeks when the media went into a frenzy when in rose to 2.8 there briefly, before quickly dropping back below 1 as has done her.
Even if it gets more people back in shops, improving the economy with all the advantages that brings?
Um....the people whose job it is to interpret the results?
Yes it's not simple - if infections remain constant the proportion of positive cases is likely to go down as you expand testing because the criteria for being tested become less strict. But I think we can be fairly confident that the calculations that go into determining R are sophisticated enough to recognize that more tests = more cases determined.
There is random sampling going on and being used to determine infection levels - I don't know if tests from people who got one because they showed symptoms are also used - these clearly won't give an accurate value for the percentage of people infected.
- Status