UK face coverings discussion

[35B]

It's a perfectly legitimate disagreement to find it unacceptable for people with exemptions to be exposed to being singled out or abused as a result of this policy. This is, of course, one of a number of issues with masks - it's by no means the only one.

Indeed, and I don't suggest otherwise. But I do find opponents of masks seem very quick to focus on the role of exemptions, and to frame their arguments in terms of that area. And at that point, the arguments look contrived.

 

[43066]

No, your arguments on exemptions would be a whole load more credible if they weren’t transparently rooted in your disagreement with masks.

And your enthusiasm for masks would be a whole load more credible (and transparent) if you could point to some evidence that they actually work.

Indeed, and I don't suggest otherwise. But I do find opponents of masks seem very quick to focus on the role of exemptions, and to frame their arguments in terms of that area. And at that point, the arguments look contrived.

Nope. We discuss exemptions separately. Only yesterday I was walking a maskivist through the finer points of when you’re required to wear a mask in a pub.

Just because you disagree doesn’t mean you can’t be all over it like a rash .

 

[Yew]

No, your arguments on exemptions would be a whole load more credible if they weren’t transparently rooted in your disagreement with masks.

If we want to use the time of the NHS to give out exemption certificates, or badges or whatnot, we should have clear indications that there's a benefit. Currently most people follow mask laws, and their actual effectiveness is questionable. Hence, the value obtained by having strict policies and enforcement is surely much lower than it would cost.

 

[MikeWM]

If we want to use the time of the NHS to give out exemption certificates, or badges or whatnot, we should have clear indications that there's a benefit.

Indeed so.

And I wouldn't expect doctors to want to do this anyway. They'd either have to give people the benefit of the doubt and issue exemptions to pretty much anyone who asked, or they'd be opening themselves up to malpractice claims if they refused to issue an exemption to someone who then got ill though wearing one. Determining whether someone is capable of wearing a mask or not isn't exactly a straightforward matter.

 

[bramling]

Indeed, and I don't suggest otherwise. But I do find opponents of masks seem very quick to focus on the role of exemptions, and to frame their arguments in terms of that area. And at that point, the arguments look contrived.

There's plenty on this thread beyond exemptions. Aside from the lack of evidence in support of masks, there's for example plenty of posts discussing the way masks are used incorrectly by very many people, and the possibility they might *increase* risk by introducing a new method of transmitting germs from surfaces to the face.

 

[MikeWM]

It isn't the *UK*, but US Presidential Candidate Biden seems to think that masks fix pretty much everything.

(Sorry this is the S*n, couldn't find a better link)
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12943492/biden-open-court-packing-barrett-nomination/

Earlier in the townhall, Biden said millions of lives would be saved and the country would not go through a lockdown if everyone simply wore masks.

"If you wear this mask, you'll save more lives between now and the end of the year when then if we had a vaccine," Biden said.

"If you listen to the head of the CDC, he stood up and he said you know while we're waiting for a vaccine - and he held up a mask," Biden said at the townhall while raising his mask into the air. "Then if we had a vaccine."

"It's estimated by every major study done from the University of Washington to Columbia that if in fact we wore masks, we could save between now and the end of the year 100,000 lives," Biden continued.

Stephanopoulos interjected, asking "And avoid lockdowns?"

"And avoid lockdown yes," Biden said. "You don't have to lock down if you're wearing the mask."

I'd hope that even those rather keen on mask-wearing think that is really quite a silly position.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Crikey. Are we swapping one idiot for another over there?

 

[35B]

If we want to use the time of the NHS to give out exemption certificates, or badges or whatnot, we should have clear indications that there's a benefit. Currently most people follow mask laws, and their actual effectiveness is questionable. Hence, the value obtained by having strict policies and enforcement is surely much lower than it would cost.

You make my point for me. You are convinced there is insufficient benefit to justify the measures, and then you use that observation to dispute the value of measures to provide controlled exemptions; others use the same basic observation to suggest that it is somehow unreasonable to check whether an exemption exists.

And your enthusiasm for masks would be a whole load more credible (and transparent) if you could point to some evidence that they actually work.

Nope. We discuss exemptions separately. Only yesterday I was walking a maskivist through the finer points of when you’re required to wear a mask in a pub.

Just because you disagree doesn’t mean you can’t be all over it like a rash .

Hmmm, the use of language rather gives you away - not a lot of room for honest disagreement with someone who uses the term "maskivist", and accuses me of lacking transparency.

I do support the use of masks, as my interpretation of the evidence suggests that they do more good than harm, at low individual and collective cost. I find the arguments looking for RCT level proof disingenuous in the extreme, and likewise the picking holes in any supportive evidence combined with continuous assertions of the danger. Even more, I deplore the habit of a few of claiming exemption, not because one reasonably applies to them, but because they object to the policy on principle. That's not an objection to their beliefs, but because the abuse of exemption makes life harder for those for whom it does actually matter.

I also prefer not to wear masks, believing that Jack Straw was right on face coverings a decade or so ago, and I find them uncomfortable. I also have serious concerns about how some people (strangely, despite the number of times I've read about it, no one that I've ever encountered or observed) are over the top in their enforcement and/or insist on proofs of status that don't exist.

 

[bramling]

the abuse of exemption makes life harder for those for whom it does actually matter.

I'm not sure that's the case. Notwithstanding the fact that some of the mask brigade don't agree with exemptions in the first place (plenty to be found on social media intimating that people with exemptions shouldn't be allowed in places where masks are currently required, and some extreme people suggesting such people shouldn't go out at all), surely the more people bereft of masks makes those genuinely exempt feel more comfortable and less self-conscious?

I also prefer not to wear masks, believing that Jack Straw was right on face coverings a decade or so ago, and I find them uncomfortable. I also have serious concerns about how some people (strangely, despite the number of times I've read about it, no one that I've ever encountered or observed) are over the top in their enforcement and/or insist on proofs of status that don't exist.

Trust me, it's happening.

 

[Yew]

I find the arguments looking for RCT level proof disingenuous in the extreme, and likewise the picking holes in any supportive evidence combined.

We have RCT data though, and every single one of them showed no statistically significant benefit.

 

[35B]

I'm not sure that's the case. Notwithstanding the fact that some of the mask brigade don't agree with exemptions in the first place (plenty to be found on social media intimating that people with exemptions shouldn't be allowed in places where masks are currently required, and some extreme people suggesting such people shouldn't go out at all), surely the more people bereft of masks makes those genuinely exempt feel more comfortable and less self-conscious?

Trust me, it's happening.

I believe it's happening - the petty minded enforcement of rules is not exactly a new phenomenon. Likewise, I am not at all surprised that there are some who take an absolutist stance - though I'd be interested in the numbers of absolutists at either end of the scale, bearing in mind the echo chamber effect of social media.

But I stand by my view that people who abuse a reasonable concession make life harder for those who need that concession. It removes trust, and seeds the doubt in observers' minds that the exception is being taken advantage of. A friend's late husband had a blue badge, but the reason for it (a serious heart condition) was not immediately obvious, and led to people challenging them in a very accusatory way. One factor in that was the abuse of that concession by others in the town, meaning all were tarred with the same brush.

 

[bramling]

I believe it's happening - the petty minded enforcement of rules is not exactly a new phenomenon. Likewise, I am not at all surprised that there are some who take an absolutist stance - though I'd be interested in the numbers of absolutists at either end of the scale, bearing in mind the echo chamber effect of social media.

I wouldn't say it's widespread - British culture is more towards dirty looks and under-the-breath comments than direct confrontation - but there doesn't have to be much of it to make people feel potentially very uncomfortable. Then there's shops, where one doesn't have to go far to find notices on the door with no mention of exemptions, or threatening wording like "no mask no entry".

Whatever the situation, I don't think it's acceptable for people to be made to feel like dirty secrets who are tolerated as opposed to welcomed, especially for no real reason bar making another subset of people feel more comfortable.

The difficulty is it isn't just the hard-core mask-obsessive types. There's another subset who aren't particularly fussed about masks themselves but grudgingly wear them as it's the easier option, but who wouldn't be choosing to do so if it wasn't the law. These people are if anything worse, as it's not about granny killing, but about "it's not fair I'm wearing one and you're not". Never underestimate just how much simmering grievance "it's not fair" can cause.

But I stand by my view that people who abuse a reasonable concession make life harder for those who need that concession. It removes trust, and seeds the doubt in observers' minds that the exception is being taken advantage of. A friend's late husband had a blue badge, but the reason for it (a serious heart condition) was not immediately obvious, and led to people challenging them in a very accusatory way. One factor in that was the abuse of that concession by others in the town, meaning all were tarred with the same brush.

In other words, vigilantism. Enforcement for these sorts of things is for official channels. I'm not convinced much of this challenging is for genuine reasons at all, in a lot of cases it's simply bullying or people who have the hump that someone else gets something they don't. Your parking space example could well be the same thing, grievance that someone else is getting something "better" than them. As you allude to yourself this sort of thing is toxic, so we should be *very* careful before introducing things which give rise to this - the science behind masks is extremely shaky, we may well have introduced all these problems for literally nothing.

 

[MikeWM]

Then there's shops, where one doesn't have to go far to find notices on the door with no mention of exemptions, or threatening wording like "no mask no entry".

You certainly don't have to go very far. The vast majority - I'd say 90% or more - are like that.

Interestingly, as was pointed out earlier in the thread, there was a little-noticed change to the SIs about three weeks ago that it appears makes such signs unlawful (in England). Signs advising the requirement to wear masks must also mention the existence of exemptions and excuses.

See the delightfully named The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Obligations Of Undertakings) (England) Regulations 2020 (as amended) at 2A

2A.—(1) A responsible person must, during the emergency period—
(a)display a notice providing the information in paragraph (2); or
(b)take other measures to ensure that any person who enters the relevant area without wearing a face covering is given the information specified in paragraph (4).
(2) The information referred to in paragraph (1)(a) is that any person present at the relevant area is required to wear a face covering under the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) Regulations 2020 unless an exemption under those Regulations applies to the person or the person has a reasonable excuse under those Regulations not to wear a face covering; and
(3) A notice under paragraph (1)(a) must be displayed in a conspicuous location at the relevant area
(4) The information to be given to the person under paragraph (1)(b) is that the person is required to wear a face covering unless an exemption applies to the person or the person has a reasonable excuse not to wear a face covering

with fixed penalty notices for breaching this regulation starting at £1,000 and increasing up to £10,000.

 

[43066]

I do support the use of masks, as my interpretation of the evidence suggests that they do more good than harm, at low individual and collective cost.

Please can you post said evidence?

 

[trainophile]

It does make you wonder what the point is when you're sitting quietly with your uncomfortable mask on, and a group of four teenagers board and sit at the opposite table, all wearing their masks under their chins. Even if a guard does breeze through they rarely bother to say anything if they're outnumbered.

 

[VauxhallandI]

You certainly don't have to go very far. The vast majority - I'd say 90% or more - are like that.

Interestingly, as was pointed out earlier in the thread, there was a little-noticed change to the SIs about three weeks ago that it appears makes such signs unlawful (in England). Signs advising the requirement to wear masks must also mention the existence of exemptions and excuses.

See the delightfully named The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Obligations Of Undertakings) (England) Regulations 2020 (as amended) at 2A


with fixed penalty notices for breaching this regulation starting at £1,000 and increasing up to £10,000.

When I reported Tesco I did mention that most of the high street were all in breach.

What is a little lop sided is that if an individual fall foul of the law then it’s a policeman and a charge whilst if it is a Business it’s the Environmental Heath team from the Council?

 

[Richard Scott]

What we really need is good solid evidence that masks are of use at reducing spread in the real world not a medical setting. When this is forthcoming I'll happily support them even if wearing them is still uncomfortable and not normal. I have never known so many restrictions to be brought in based on an idea that it may do something. There is no science in anything recently bar Whitty and Valence giving bout some wild guesses of numbers that may be affected if we do nothing and wouldn't exactly call that scientific.

 

[david1212]

What we really need is good solid evidence that masks are of use at reducing spread in the real world not a medical setting. When this is forthcoming I'll happily support them even if wearing them is still uncomfortable and not normal. I have never known so many restrictions to be brought in based on an idea that it may do something. There is no science in anything recently bar Whitty and Valence giving bout some wild guesses of numbers that may be affected if we do nothing and wouldn't exactly call that scientific.

Indeed. Also where evidence supports the wearing of a mask the comparison between any old piece of cloth, specific material(s) and designs and a three ply medical mask.

 

[Bikeman78]

And people are anti mask primarily because there’s (still) no evidence that they’re beneficial. But that point no longer seems to matter.

Exactly. If they're so brilliant why do the medical experts think we're heading for a second wave as bad as the first? Especially as there's far fewer people on trains and in shops compared with early March.

 

[LAX54]

We have RCT data though, and every single one of them showed no statistically significant benefit.

How many people actually get within the recommended limits of 'less than 1 metre for more than 15 mins'

 

[DustyBin]

What we really need is good solid evidence that masks are of use at reducing spread in the real world not a medical setting. When this is forthcoming I'll happily support them even if wearing them is still uncomfortable and not normal. I have never known so many restrictions to be brought in based on an idea that it may do something. There is no science in anything recently bar Whitty and Valence giving bout some wild guesses of numbers that may be affected if we do nothing and wouldn't exactly call that scientific.

This sums it up nicely. There is no evidence, I’ve searched and searched and there is nothing. Basically, from what I can make out, there is evidence that face coverings stop large droplets of saliva being expelled when somebody coughs, sneezes, or is talking loudly for example. But that’s common sense, we use tissues for a similar purpose (not for the latter though). Masks simply remove the need for people to practice good hygiene, and frankly, manners.

Lets rewind a few years and look at some research carried out long before COVID-19 arrived:

A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers | BMJ Open

I’ll quote the following as this is what I firmly believe is happening in the real world today (and remember this was in a medical setting):

The physical properties of a cloth mask, reuse, the frequency and effectiveness of cleaning, and increased moisture retention, may potentially increase the infection risk for HCWs. The virus may survive on the surface of the facemasks,29and modelling studies have quantified the contamination levels of masks.30 Self-contamination through repeated use and improper doffing is possible. For example, a contaminated cloth mask may transfer pathogen from the mask to the bare hands of the wearer. We also showed that filtration was extremely poor (almost 0%) for the cloth masks. Observations during SARS suggested double-masking and other practices increased the risk of infection because of moisture, liquid diffusion and pathogen retention.31These effects may be associated with cloth masks.

Masks are very likely doing more harm than good, due to the type(s) people are wearing and their incorrect use, as well as the fact that they have replaced social distancing. That politicians (and others) repeated claims that they save lives beggars belief quite frankly (the claims made by democrats in the USA are an extreme example!). In my opinion they’re simply a desperate but highly visible response introduced by clueless politicians who need to be seen to be doing something.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

This sums it up nicely. There is no evidence, I’ve searched and searched and there is nothing. Basically, from what I can make out, there is evidence that face coverings stop large droplets of saliva being expelled when somebody coughs, sneezes, or is talking loudly for example. But that’s common sense, we use tissues for a similar purpose (not for the latter though). Masks simply remove the need for people to practice good hygiene, and frankly, manners.

Lets rewind a few years and look at some research carried out long before COVID-19 arrived:

A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers | BMJ Open

I’ll quote the following as this is what I firmly believe is happening in the real world today (and remember this was in a medical setting):



Masks are very likely doing more harm than good, due to the type(s) people are wearing and their incorrect use, as well as the fact that they have replaced social distancing. That politicians (and others) repeated claims that they save lives beggars belief quite frankly (the claims made by democrats in the USA are an extreme example!). In my opinion they’re simply a desperate but highly visible response introduced by clueless politicians who need to be seen to be doing something.

Biden should take a look at this, from the Centers for Disease Control, published in September in the US

CDC Study Finds Overwhelming Majority Of People Getting Coronavirus Wore Masks

Over 70 percent of the case-patients who were contaminated with the virus fell ill despite "always" wearing a mask.

thefederalist.com

A study conducted in the United States in July found that when they compared 154 “case-patients,” who tested positive for COVID-19, to a control group of 160 participants from health care facilities who were symptomatic but tested negative, over 70 percent of the case-patients were contaminated with the virus and fell ill despite “always” wearing a mask.

 

[Richard Scott]

Biden should take a look at this, from the Centers for Disease Control, published in September in the US

CDC Study Finds Overwhelming Majority Of People Getting Coronavirus Wore Masks

Over 70 percent of the case-patients who were contaminated with the virus fell ill despite "always" wearing a mask.

thefederalist.com

The idea is that masks protect others but people think it'll protect them, which seems to be patently untrue. Idea they protect others likely to be highly flawed as those people with into doubt were putting masks on and taking them off frequently transferring viral load to their hands for them to deposit onto whatever surface they touches as bet they weren't washing/sanitising their hands every time they touched their mask?

 

[trainophile]

If anything you're more likely to keep touching your face while wearing one. I find the edge of the cotton fabric makes my face itch where it's in contact. It's an instinctive action to scratch an itch.

 

[david1212]

If anything you're more likely to keep touching your face while wearing one. ....

Even more so with glasses either trying to rearrange to at least reduce misting up or remove glasses because you can not see enough.

I consider masks to be safety risk. When winter really comes far more likely I'll end up in hospital having slipped or tripped and broken something than someone else being admitted with Covid-19 passed on by me because I was not wearing a mask.

Only when in close contact with the same person for an extended time e.g. work where being close together is unavoidable, public transport with no seperation, hairdresser, beautician etc do I consider there might be a worthwhile benefit.

 

[Reliablebeam]

On a SWR rail replacement bus and it kicked off a bit when some stroppy luvvie started challenging the driver about passengers without masks. Said passengers made their views pretty clear and the bloke has gone off to shout at the station staff at Feltham, god help them.

 

[DustyBin]

On a SWR rail replacement bus and it kicked off a bit when some stroppy luvvie started challenging the driver about passengers without masks. Said passengers made their views pretty clear and the bloke has gone off to shout at the station staff at Feltham, god help them.

I honestly think it’s others not being subject to (or simply ignoring) the unpleasant and petty rules that makes people angry rather than a genuine belief that said rules need to be followed to keep us safe. I can understand it to be honest, it’s the “if I have to suffer so should you” attitude. Not in every case but a good number I’m sure.

 

[jumble]

They're already calling themselves out by not wearing a mask. Adding a badge to state they are exempt simply legitimises that and stops dirty looks etc. I don't see a problem.

There is this view in the UK which goes "I want measures to be made for my disability, but I'm unwilling to tell anyone what it is so they can make those measures for me while ensuring those without the disability aren't making my life harder by using them without the disability because they're then not available to me", which is ludicrous.

In Germany, they have the Behindertenausweis which can be shown to prove one has a disability, problem solved. Just like a blue badge but with wider scope. If you want the special measures, show it and you get them.

If the authorities here in the UK start down the road of issuing official exemption cards then how do they stop people from abusing them in other ways which the German people are not inclined to do?
(I see plenty of people parking in Disabled bays and then striding off down the road looking as fit as several butchers dogs as Boris would say)

How is this going to work if someone who has forgotten their card or has not yet been issued with theirs owing to the inevitable bureaucratic delays and they are then suffer badly whilst on the railway because they are not allowed to take off their mask on presumably the penalty of a fine because their card is awaiting delivery?
If that person produces an Asthma inhaler then what happens next?
Who is going to issue these cards and who pays ?

I like to think I am reasonably fit and healthy but I do not like the idea at all that if I suddenly struggle to breath on a very hot day on very crowded public transport that I am not allowed to mitigate this because I have not made this official
Sometimes we need to remind ourselves we are not dealing with children



I very much doubt that you will be getting your wish any time soon

All we can rely on is a decent percentage of people complying which I understand to be around 90% on the underground which is far more than I would expect.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the authorities here in the UK start down the road of issuing official exemption cards then how do they stop people from abusing them in other ways?
( i see plenty of people parking in Disabled bays and then striding off down the road looking as fit as several butchers dogs as Boris would say)

Not every disability is visible.

To give you an idea, I am presently recovering from DVT (a blood clot in the leg). The effect of this was, at its height, that I could walk very quickly - normal speed, pretty much, for about 100 yards, by which point my calf would have swelled up such that my ability to walk would then be considerably reduced.

You don't of course get a Blue Badge for temporary things (though I must admit I've long wondered why - I don't see why someone with a broken leg shouldn't be able to have the car they're in parked right next to the place they're going) - but it is possible to have similar things that are permanent, and that would allow a Blue Badge.

 

[jumble]

Not every disability is visible.

To give you an idea, I am presently recovering from DVT (a blood clot in the leg). The effect of this was, at its height, that I could walk very quickly - normal speed, pretty much, for about 100 yards, by which point my calf would have swelled up such that my ability to walk would then be considerably reduced.

You don't of course get a Blue Badge for temporary things (though I must admit I've long wondered why - I don't see why someone with a broken leg shouldn't be able to have the car they're in parked right next to the place they're going) - but it is possible to have similar things that are permanent, and that would allow a Blue Badge.

I do not disagree but just like mask exemptionists who don't need it there are blue badge abusers
Admittedly about 20 years ago
Ealing council issued blue badges on the basis of people receiving DLA
Hillingdon council insisted on their doctor interviewing applicants whereas Ealing did not
The number of people applying for badges who received DLA in Hillingdon was about 50% of the amount in Ealing