UK face coverings discussion

[bramling]

Whilst someone who is 6 foot 4 tall and built like a brick s***house may well thump someone who makes an inappropriate remark to them about masks, this is not an option for people who have conditions such as anxiety, autism, depression etc.

Quite so. This is all very nasty, and something we could have done without. Respecting others’ choices should have been absolutely fine as an approach, now we instead have vigilantism and shaming.

It also now sets a potentially negative precedent where people feel empowered to shame others who do something a particular person dislikes. The possibilities for that are endless, I’m sure many here will have experienced a taste of this when out with their cameras, for example.

A consistent theme through all this is that BJ seems completely incapable of identifying and addressing wider consequences arising from his decisions. Either that or he doesn’t care. One way or other this is why many are rapidly coming to the conclusion that he’s unfit for office.

 

[43066]

Yes, that is very much a concern. That doesn't make masks bad, but it does show that the process of dealing with exemptions is not adequately effective.

I would argue it does make masks bad, or at least exposes this government’s policy of making them mandatory as a bad call, when there’s scant evidence they make any difference.

But of course it’s all about perception, and peoples’ feelings, so the perception of people who *aren’t* wearing them is naturally that they’re selfish/reckless etc. to the hard of thinking, which is a majority of the population, as has become clear over the last few months.

 

[duncanp]

Yes, that is very much a concern. That doesn't make masks bad, but it does show that the process of dealing with exemptions is not adequately effective.

Notices such as YOU MUST WEAR A FACE COVERING are very intimidating to those who have a valid reason for not wearing one.

At the very least, the government should mandate that the notice should say YOU MUST WEAR A FACE COVERING UNLESS YOU HAVE A VALID EXEMPTION.

It would also be good practice to do as National Express West Midlands buses have done and have a notice on the bus (or shop, railway station etc...) saying "..Please be considerate of other passengers. Some of them may have a valid reason for not wearing a mask, and that reason may not always be obvious.."

Oddly enough, the only person I have seen having a go at someone on the bus for not wearing a mask was a rather grumpy bus driver.

All places where masks wearing is compulsory should also be required to display a notice to the effect that harrassment and verbal abuse of those who are not wearing a mask is completely unacceptable, and action will be taken against anyone committing such an act of abuse.

 

[bramling]

I would argue it does make masks bad, or at least exposes this government’s policy of making them mandatory as a bad call, when there’s scant evidence they make any difference.

But of course it’s all about perception, and peoples’ feelings, so the perception of people who *aren’t* wearing them is naturally that they’re selfish/reckless etc. to the hard of thinking, which is a majority of the population, as has become clear over the last few months.

This is exactly the problem - there’s a segment of the population unable to analyse things beyond mask = good and no mask = irresponsible disease-spreading murderer.

When going down an already highly dubious policy avenue (especially one where figures like the deputy CMO only recently said would do “more harm than good”), there should have been a duty of care demonstrated by the government to ensure mitigations were taken to ensure this didn’t result in vigilantism. Instead we have people like Cressida Dick positively endorsing shaming, which is completely unacceptable. Of course, she of all people should know a little about being on the receiving end of mob justice, which makes it all the more crass.

 

[DB]

All places where masks wearing is compulsory should also be required to display a notice to the effect that harrassment and verbal abuse of those who are not wearing a mask is completely unacceptable, and action will be taken against anyone committing such an act of abuse.

They could have put something in the legislation, along the lines of a fixed penalty also being available for those who harass others for not wearing masks. But of course they didn't, because the method of enforcement is intended to be by vigilatism - the government knows perfectly well that shops mostly won't want the hassle of trying to enforce it, and apart from dishing out some fines occasionally to make the poiint the police will generally have more important things to do, so a policy of getting the public to shame and intimidate anyone not wearing masks is clearly the unofficially-approved policy.

And at a slight tangent, but do others find the justification that masks are needed 'as we return to normal' to be utterly ridiculous? There is nothing 'normal' about wearing masks and it's the most draconian restriction introduced since March.

 

[duncanp]

And at a slight tangent, but do others find the justification that masks are needed 'as we return to normal' to be utterly ridiculous? There is nothing 'normal' about wearing masks and it's the most draconian restriction introduced since March.

Exactly.

Wearing masks and "return to normal" are a contradiction in terms.

 

[MikeWM]

The Government have (finally) issued their own version of an 'exempt' badge/card. You don't *need* one, and I'm not recommending either way, but if it helps people be more confident in asserting their rights, they could consider it.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/face-coverings-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own

 

[DB]

The Government have (finally) issued their own version of an 'exempt' badge/card. You don't *need* one, and I'm not recommending either way, but if it helps people be more confident in asserting their rights, they could consider it.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/face-coverings-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own

The wording on that page is typically vague and confusing, e.g.:

Those who have an age, health or disability reason to not wear a face covering should not be routinely asked to provide any written evidence of this. Written evidence includes exemption cards.

What does this even mean? Those aren't the only exemptions, and there is no requirement at all in the legislation to provide 'written evidence' on any occasion - never mind 'routinely'. It then states that exemption cards count as written evidence - but how can they given that anyone can print one out?

 

[MikeWM]

The wording on that page is typically vague and confusing,

Who'd have thought it?!

There are similar issues on exemptions, for example of this page:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...ntres-and-enclosed-transport-hubs-from-friday

Those with the following circumstances are also exempt from wearing a face covering, regardless of the venue:
...
- visual impairments, with a restricted field of vision, particularly if any residual vision is at the lower edge of the normal field of view

So people with a restricted field of vision are exempt, but people with that vision in a certain orientation are 'particularly' exempt?


(Good to note though, as that's a second exemption for me - I have visual field damage).

 

[Bletchleyite]

So people with a restricted field of vision are exempt, but people with that vision in a certain orientation are 'particularly' exempt?

The whole idea of exemptions is not that they are a blanket thing, but rather that if you have one of the listed things (a physical/mental health condition, primarily; I'd include the "severe distress" thing in that because that is in itself a form of mental health condition) AND that causes wearing a mask to be a problem, then you are exempt, rather than that you can call on the listed condition just because you happen not to like the policy.

Someone with a limited field of vision which would be obscured by a mask is clearly very high up that list. If you've got a limited field of vision but the bit that doesn't work is down at the bottom so you'd not even notice a mask, clearly the exemption is not for you.

 

[Smidster]

And at a slight tangent, but do others find the justification that masks are needed 'as we return to normal' to be utterly ridiculous? There is nothing 'normal' about wearing masks and it's the most draconian restriction introduced since March.

While I am doubtful this will be particularly useful, and I personally will be shopping as little as possible as it isn't comfortable, there is awful lot of hyperbole going around.

This is not "the most draconian" thing - In March you had to have a reasonable excuse just to leave your house.

We all need to take a step back and remember the balancing act that we are trying to navigate - This is undoubtedly a pretty nasty virus that we don't want lots of people to get and is really good at spreading while also trying to keep the economy going as much as possible until we either get a vaccine, reliable treatment or the virus loses its potency (either through immunity or mutation) In the grand scheme of things it is something that most people can do with little effort.

Obviously there are those where it is not easy and we should do all we can to help and understand those situations but it is not the most draconian thing in human history.

 

[MikeWM]

The whole idea of exemptions is not that they are a blanket thing, but rather that if you have one of the listed things (a physical/mental health condition, primarily; I'd include the "severe distress" thing in that because that is in itself a form of mental health condition) AND that causes wearing a mask to be a problem, then you are exempt, rather than that you can call on the listed condition just because you happen not to like the policy.

Someone with a limited field of vision which would be obscured by a mask is clearly very high up that list. If you've got a limited field of vision but the bit that doesn't work is down at the bottom so you'd not even notice a mask, clearly the exemption is not for you.

Well, yes. That's not what the government website actually *says* though!

 

[AdamWW]

We all need to take a step back and remember the balancing act that we are trying to navigate - This is undoubtedly a pretty nasty virus that we don't want lots of people to get and is really good at spreading while also trying to keep the economy going as much as possible until we either get a vaccine, reliable treatment or the virus loses its potency (either through immunity or mutation) In the grand scheme of things it is something that most people can do with little effort.

Yes...but not everybody agrees that we are in the situation that you (and I) think we are in, and that is going to affect your view of the need for face coverings.

Plenty of people don't agree with "we don't want lots of people to get it" on the grounds that most people don't die, or think that actually we've over-estimated how it spreads and in fact the lockdown didn't change anything so we are wasting our time not going back to normal now.

 

[DB]

This is not "the most draconian" thing - In March you had to have a reasonable excuse just to leave your house.

That's why I said 'since March' - can you think of anything introduced since then which is as draconian as this? I can't.

We all need to take a step back and remember the balancing act that we are trying to navigate - This is undoubtedly a pretty nasty virus that we don't want lots of people to get and is really good at spreading while also trying to keep the economy going as much as possible until we either get a vaccine, reliable treatment or the virus loses its potency (either through immunity or mutation) In the grand scheme of things it is something that most people can do with little effort.

Obviously there are those where it is not easy and we should do all we can to help and understand those situations but it is not the most draconian thing in human history.

You seem to be assuming that 'vaccine, reliable treatment or the virus loses its potency' will actually happen! If it doesn't - and it may not - or if it takes a reasonable amount of time, the current tactics will cause a really major recession which will cause a lot more damage to society than this virus, and will prolong the virus spread as attaining herd immunity will take longer. What is this actually achieving?

You might be able to wear a mask with 'little effort', but I can't, and many others can't. Yes, I can justifiably claim an exemption (on two counts actually), but I'm really, really not looking forward to this as I do not want the confrontations. I have already stopped using trains because of this, and will keep visits to shops to an absolute minimum while this rukle is in place. And all because of a law introduced on very shaky evidence, with no clear statement of what it's supposed to achieve or metric for measuring that.

 

[Bantamzen]

And just when you think it couldn't get any worse....

ministers are considering making people wear GLOVES

Government did not understand severity of virus at start of outbreak, admits PM

www.telegraph.co.uk

If they even try and enforce this, I think the public will start to get seriously p****d off with the whole thing and decide that they hve had enough of being bossed about.

Compulsory gloves?

As a certain former Prime Minister once said "NO, NO, NO"

Oh for the love of sanity....

And talking of which, I nipped into my local Co-op today, pulled up my camo snood to pacify the terrified, only to discover that the staff who just yesterday were not using any form of PPE were all now masked, behind visors and wearing gloves. So what changed in the space of 24 hours save the legislation? Was covid on it's jollies and just flew in on the red-eye this morning? Utter, utter stupidity. That's the real infection to be worried about, the entire country, nay much of the world are killing reason & intelligence in favour of hysteria and madness.

Everyone need to get a chuffing grip!

 

[birchesgreen]

The supermarket staff are probably wearing PPE due to complaints from customers, it happened at my wife's supermarket today. Of course the difference between wearing a mask for a 20 minute shop and an eight hour shift is considerable...

 

[DB]

The supermarket staff are probably wearing PPE due to complaints from customers, it happened at my wife's supermarket today. Of course the difference between wearing a mask for a 20 minute shop and an eight hour shift is considerable...

Quite. Supermarket staff are being put in a really crap position here.

 

[Bantamzen]

The supermarket staff are probably wearing PPE due to complaints from customers, it happened at my wife's supermarket today. Of course the difference between wearing a mask for a 20 minute shop and an eight hour shift is considerable...

Well the complaints must have happened very quickly, because yesterday practically nobody was wearing face coverings, customers & staff alike, and today (around 1pm) it looked more like an operating theatre than a local store. I suspect, like the mad one way system, this is another example of "look, we are doing something!".

 

[Bletchleyite]

Quite. Supermarket staff are being put in a really crap position here.

Have you asked them? They may prefer to wear them than not.

 

[Richard Scott]

Have you asked them? They may prefer to wear them than not.

The checkout girl yesterday said that she was not looking forward to it but her employer had made it mandatory so she wasn't happy.

 

[DB]

Have you asked them? They may prefer to wear them than not.

Indeed they may - but the point here is that they are being forced into a position where they are at risk of arsey maskivist complaints if they don't, plus they are no doubt going to get involved in mask disputes between customers, whether they like it or not.

 

[birchesgreen]

Have you asked them? They may prefer to wear them than not.

If they wanted to wear them they were allowed to (at my wife's branch anyway), the fact none of them did until today may indicate something.

 

[Bantamzen]

Have you asked them? They may prefer to wear them than not.

I did, and they are not happy.

 

[DB]

I did, and they are not happy.

Have they been ordered to by the shop owner?

 

[Bantamzen]

Have they been ordered to by the shop owner?

As I understand it, they had been "advised to in order to reassure customers". The same customers that 24 hours ago didn't give a stuff.

 

[Journeyman]

Have you asked them? They may prefer to wear them than not.

Supermarket staff have been given the option of wearing masks for months, and have almost universally chosen not to, as they're horrifically uncomfortable for an eight hour shift. The manager of my local supermarket was dreading having to wear one all day, which she has now been made to do by senior management.

 

[DB]

As I understand it, they had been "advised to in order to reassure customers". The same customers that 24 hours ago didn't give a stuff.

This sort of thing is self-perpetuating - the more people feel pressured into doing it, the more it expands.

The fact that until the government made this annoucement, mask use had been visibly falling (round here, anyway) for weeks, suggests that this demand from the public for 'reassurance' is only emerging because they are being told that they need to be 'reassured' (assuming it is actually emerging and not imagined, of course!).

 

[Kendalian]

Exactly.

Wearing masks and "return to normal" are a contradiction in terms.

Totally agree. It's either safe or it isn't.

1 essential food shop a week for me and anything else online until the masks go.

As an aside, BBC North West Tonight were filming at Piccadilly earlier in the week mid morning. Staff aside, it was deserted. This can't go on

 

[bramling]

Supermarket staff have been given the option of wearing masks for months, and have almost universally chosen not to, as they're horrifically uncomfortable for an eight hour shift. The manager of my local supermarket was dreading having to wear one all day, which she has now been made to do by senior management.

Same with railway staff. Although exempt by law, some companies appear to be requesting staff to wear them "in order to set an example".

Fortunately there's plenty of good reasons why staff cannot wear them, especially when performing safety-critical tasks, and there's enough staff prepared not to entertain this nonsense, that there's not a lot that can practically be done. Make me wear a mask and trains won't run, end of.

Minds do tend to be focussed when it's suggested that in order to use masks safely and in accordance with PHE guidance it would be necessary to issue something like 10-20 masks per shift, per person!

 

[Enthusiast]

I really don't understand why people have a problem wearing a mask unless they have a medical condition which prevents them from doing so.

I do. I have a problem because I believe that, as a person untrained in the use of PPE (and certain to remain that way) I'm quite sure that wearing a face covering puts me more at risk of infection than if I didn't wear one. Virtually every person you see wearing a mask or other form of covering fiddles with it, removes and replaces it, has it hanging round their chin or from one ear, all whilst they are out in shops and on buses touching possibly infected surfaces. Try as I may, I'm little different. I'm certainly not wearing one where it is not required; I often pop in to my local pub for some breakfast or a coffee whilst I'm out so it has to be removed then. I short I'm no different to anybody else when wearing something which I've not been trained to wear and handle properly. One thing I have been very careful about since this fiasco began was not to touch my face whilst out. I was almost religious with it because it seemed quite a sensible thing to ensure and fairly east to achieve (though during the colder weather there was the temptation when my eyes watered). Now I cannot do that.

I am on the point of abandoning masks because I used to feel quite comfortable going out and about but now I don't. I travel on buses and trains and I go into shops. During those activities I touch my face covering, remove it and replace it. It's not a good idea at all. In short, I consider (along with the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Jenny Harries) that the risk to me in wearing one is far greater than the risk to anybody else by my not doing so and that's my call. If challenged I shall simply say I have an exemption. If I face a fixed penalty I shall decline to pay it and since I believe it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove I do not have an exemption rather than for me to prove that I have, I'll see them in court.

The whole idea of exemptions is not that they are a blanket thing, but rather that if you have one of the listed things (a physical/mental health condition, primarily; I'd include the "severe distress" thing in that because that is in itself a form of mental health condition) AND that causes wearing a mask to be a problem, then you are exempt, rather than that you can call on the listed condition just because you happen not to like the policy.

The list of "reasonable excuses" is not exhaustive.