UK face coverings discussion

[43066]

Out of interest, are we talking 'clinically extremely vulnerable' or 'clinically vulnerable' (or both) as defined here?

The 'clinically vulnerable' list seems very wide-ranging - I fit two, or perhaps three, of those bullet-points. (I think it is more-or-less the same list as they use to determine whether people get offered the flu vaccine each year).

The 'clinically extremely vulnerable' list seems closer to what I would have classified as 'vulnerable' - if i was on that list, I may have considered being a bit more careful, at least back in March and April.

The people I was referring to above are definitely in the “vulnerable”, rather than the “extremely vulnerable” category. Overweight, mild asthma etc.

I quite agree that people in the “extremely vulnerable” category are a different kettle of fish, and should continue to be supported, but they will be a very small sub group.

It's funny because I thought cinemas were going to bite the dust some years ago when home movies (via VHS and then DVD) became popular, along with the likes of "blockbusters". But they survived. I'm not so sure they will this time.

Cinemas now have to compete with streaming services, enormous domestic TVs, etc. They have done so by going up market and offering an “experience”, with decent food, expensive booze, sofas etc. The “Picturehouse” chain is a good example of this.

I hadn’t realised that we are also required to wear masks at the cinema. What a depressing thought - and completely unenforceable once the lights are dimmed, and everyone is eating and drinking, in any case.

 

[Southern Dvr]

I went to the cinema last weekend, saw Dirty Dancing and was only us and one other couple there. From what I’ve seen looking at other films showing at cinemas there has been no shortage of seats. Therefore the mask thing is probably going to do more harm than good. Certainly I don’t want to sit in a cinema for 2 hours or so with a mask on.

There are no 2 cinemas the same. Some have sofas and plenty of space others cram everyone in. Now if you choose a cram then in cinema then makes are needed, but surely if you are at one that’s socially distance able there’s no need for the mask.

But, as always one rule for all. And that is where the problems come with people not adhering to the rules at all.

 

[Huntergreed]

I went to the cinema last weekend, saw Dirty Dancing and was only us and one other couple there. From what I’ve seen looking at other films showing at cinemas there has been no shortage of seats. Therefore the mask thing is probably going to do more harm than good. Certainly I don’t want to sit in a cinema for 2 hours or so with a mask on.

There are no 2 cinemas the same. Some have sofas and plenty of space others cram everyone in. Now if you choose a cram then in cinema then makes are needed, but surely if you are at one that’s socially distance able there’s no need for the mask.

But, as always one rule for all. And that is where the problems come with people not adhering to the rules at all.

Indeed! It’s the same with the rail industry, if 2m is enforced, masks provide very little additional mitigation, so there’s absolutely no use in enforcing both which is what’s happening.

Cinemas surely could just distance the seating so that everyone is 2m apart and then masks won’t be required.

This law presumably means no snacks either, and this spells the end for most cinemas sadly

 

[adc82140]

A quick non scientific survey whilst out and about today revealed near 100% "compliance" in shops, but about 30% of those were nose poker outers, and almost all either stored them on their chin or hung them from one ear on exit. Therefore I'd say 95% were wearing them wrong or handling them incorrectly, which will lead to an increase in infection. I fear our government is just plain old fashioned thick.

 

[talldave]

....... I fear our government is just plain old fashioned thick.

So no different to the Coronaphobes and Facebook Furloughs!!

 

[Average_Driver]

I'm finding the 'give me liberty or give me death' approach to mask wearing on this thread very interesting.

People have been asked to endure slight uncomfort/inconvenience to protect other people and apparently that is too much to ask for many with spurious excuses such as bogus medical reasons and conspiracy theory about how any government instruction is inherently evil.

This disease ain't going anywhere!

 

[DB]

I'm finding the 'give me liberty or give me death' approach to mask wearing on this thread very interesting.

People have been asked to endure slight uncomfort/inconvenience to protect other people and apparently that is too much to ask for many with spurious excuses such as bogus medical reasons and conspiracy theory about how any government instruction is inherently evil.

This disease ain't going anywhere!

As regards the "slight uncomfort/inconvenience to protect other people", many find it more than 'slight', and it has not been demonstrated that it does protect other people.

Also, can you please quote where 'bogus medical reasons' have been noted? It's this sort of bigotry which makes it difficult for anyone who can't wear a mask for whatever reason, and leads to vigilantism.

 

[Huntergreed]

I'm finding the 'give me liberty or give me death' approach to mask wearing on this thread very interesting.

This isn't helpful and it's not quite the approach we're taking, we simply want the restrictions that make our life considerably more uncomfortable to be properly justified scientifically, and so far I remain convinced that they are not.

People have been asked to endure slight uncomfort/inconvenience to protect other people

Can you provide a link to any evidence that states mask wearing protects others? I've certainly not seen any and neither have many of the posters on this thread.

Apparently that is too much to ask for many with spurious excuses such as bogus medical reasons and conspiracy theory about how any government instruction is inherently evil.

Who has been using bogus medical reasons to try and justify that we shouldn't wear masks? They've not been proven to work, and they can cause other health problems.A government who imposes restrictions on daily life without justifiable reason to do so is inherently wrong, even more so when this is done through 'emergency powers', bypassing the need for parliamentary scrutiny completely. The government can, technically, impose a dictatorship style of governing through this method if they saw fit, and for many of us, it's concerning that legislation is being rushed through this power without any justification and/or evidence in favour of it.

This disease ain't going anywhere!

Correct, at least we agree on something.

 

[The North Briton]

The British Cinema Police, wearing night vision goggles. Like their transport counterparts they will maximise irony and hypocrisy by not wearing masks themselves.

LOL! No doubt it will spawn a cringeworthy screen advert along the lines of the ‘turn off your mobile phone’ ones, featuring, at a guess, a suitably masked Darth Vader (other masked antiheroes are available)...

 

[NorthOxonian]

This disease ain't going anywhere!

And that is the crux of why I don't support the ever widening mask diktat. If I honestly felt that these rules would be in force for a few weeks or a couple of months, I wouldn't have a problem with them. But spending a large chunk of my life in a masked dystopia devoid of smiles? That's incredibly demoralising.

 

[Average_Driver]

As regards the "slight uncomfort/inconvenience to protect other people", many find it more than 'slight', and it has not been demonstrated that it does protect other people.

Also, can you please quote where 'bogus medical reasons' have been noted? It's this sort of bigotry which makes it difficult for anyone who can't wear a mask for whatever reason, and leads to vigilantism.

I'm going to hazard a guess that, like me, no one on this forum is an expert on infectious diseases. On that basis why shouldn't I follow the current mask guidance from people infinitely more qualified to make that assessment?

As for the medical thing I was previously in H&S and throughout my career at no point was anyone excused from wearing masks on the basis they medically could not wear one, when you add in the even lower standard for covid of literally just face covering like bandana the amount of genuine exemptions must be tiny.

They certainly seem to be an over-represented group whenever this topic comes up.

 

[Huntergreed]

I'm going to hazard a guess that, like me, no one on this forum is an expert on infectious diseases. On that basis why shouldn't I follow the current mask guidance from people infinitely more qualified to make that assessment?

Can I ask who these 'experts' that are claiming masks are good? Jenny Harries, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, is on the record for saying masks 'do more harm than good', the WHO have admitted they now only encourage masks due to increasing political pressure, I don't know of any 'experts' who have made this claim, simply cabinet ministers who are miles out of their depth and bowing to public pressure.

As for the medical thing I was previously in H&S and throughout my career at no point was anyone excused from wearing masks on the basis they medically could not wear one, when you add in the even lower standard for covid of literally just face covering like bandana the amount of genuine exemptions must be tiny.

They certainly seem to be an over-represented group whenever this topic comes up.

You are showing no empathy whatsoever and no recognition for the genuine problems and distress that wearing masks can cause to many.

 

[Richard Scott]

I'm going to hazard a guess that, like me, no one on this forum is an expert on infectious diseases. On that basis why shouldn't I follow the current mask guidance from people infinitely more qualified to make that assessment?

As for the medical thing I was previously in H&S and throughout my career at no point was anyone excused from wearing masks on the basis they medically could not wear one, when you add in the even lower standard for covid of literally just face covering like bandana the amount of genuine exemptions must be tiny.

They certainly seem to be an over-represented group whenever this topic comes up.

I may not be an expert but have a science background and am perfectly able to analyse information and make up my mind. From what I've seen from so called experts even they don't agree. There's lots of evidence for and lots against so really should just be a choice at the moment until a definitive answer is found. It is possible masks are actually causing a bigger spread due to people feeling safer and reducing social distancing, fiddling with masks and maybe transferring high viral load on their hands.
Perhaps there are lots of intelligent people in this group who, like myself, are able to analyse information and think for themselves. I agree that if H&S dictates you should wear whatever precaution is advised but that comes with an obvious benefit whereas, as is often pointed out, the masks benefit is disputable.

 

[bramling]

I'm going to hazard a guess that, like me, no one on this forum is an expert on infectious diseases. On that basis why shouldn't I follow the current mask guidance from people infinitely more qualified to make that assessment?

Some of the resistance to masks comes from having done just that, listening to people rather well qualified to comment, for example two of the government's deputy Chief Medical Officers.

 

[PaulMc7]

If the governments both UK and Scottish came out immediately when this pandemic hit, supported face coverings and provided evidence as to why they work then I'd have been more supportive of them. On top of that if people were actually aware of why someone like myself was exempt from wearing one and understood that more people are exempt than anyone actually realises it would be far better. Society has become far more selfish and toxic because a lot of people don't realise their fear has made them completely stupid and incapable of understanding reality. A large majority of people I've seen didn't even wear a face covering properly and think you don't have to distance when wearing one. It was always going to be a backwards strategy that's completely unenforceable and some people need to learn that. Police numbers in the UK are nowhere near high enough to catch out even a small percentage of those not wearing one

Seen people saying they're boycotting supermarkets/public transport etc because staff won't enforce them. It's genuinely laughable

 

[Andyh82]

A quick non scientific survey whilst out and about today revealed near 100% "compliance" in shops, but about 30% of those were nose poker outers, and almost all either stored them on their chin or hung them from one ear on exit. Therefore I'd say 95% were wearing them wrong or handling them incorrectly, which will lead to an increase in infection. I fear our government is just plain old fashioned thick.

I don’t see the link between the last sentence and the rest of your post? Were all the people in your local shops members of the government?

 

[Class 33]

Cinemas are practically doomed, nobody in their right mind will want to wear a mask whilst at the cinema (does this means snacks are also going to stop being offered/permitted?)

Museums and Galleries likely won't do very well, I wouldn't want to spend long in one if I had to wear a mask (I often find myself trying to speed up my shopping just to avoid wearing one!)

I certainly wouldn't want to goto the cinema now and having to wear a clothy face mask for 2 hours/2 and a half hours or however long. A lot of people will feel the same too. And this law will probably mean cinemas can't sell snacks and drinks now. What with this new rule AND this seemingly never-ending "social distancing guidelines" too, I can see many cinemas in this country closing down permanently over the coming months, in particular the smaller independent cinemas. Worst case scenario, cinemas in this country could even become a thing of the past. If so, this will be very sad.

I like going to museums and galleries. And un-rushed visits to these venues can take up 3 hours or even 4 hours or so. I certainly wouldn't have to wear a face mask for these sort of durations during visits to them. So I will be avoiding going to museums/galleries whilst this nonsensical face mask law applies. Again, many people will feel the same too. And with much reduced visitors to these venues, there is a real risk that a number of them could close permanently too.

 

[Huntergreed]

I certainly wouldn't want to goto the cinema now and having to wear a clothy face mask for 2 hours/2 and a half hours or however long. A lot of people will feel the same too. And this law will probably mean cinemas can't sell snacks and drinks now. What with this new rule AND this seemingly never-ending "social distancing guidelines" too, I can see many cinemas in this country closing down permanently over the coming months, in particular the smaller independent cinemas. Worst case scenario, cinemas in this country could even become a thing of the past. If so, this will be very sad.

I like going to museums and galleries. And un-rushed visits to these venues can take up 3 hours or even 4 hours or so. I certainly wouldn't have to wear a face mask for these sort of durations during visits to them. So I will be avoiding going to museums/galleries whilst this nonsensical face mask law applies. Again, many people will feel the same too. And with much reduced visitors to these venues, there is a real risk that a number of them could close permanently too.

Indeed, it’s such a shame what’s happening to the ‘cultural’ side of this country. I don’t know anyone who would choose to visit a museum/gallery in spite of mask laws as it just isn’t enjoyable, and as for cinemas, I don’t even see how they can function with mask laws in place.

Is this really the end of so much of the culture in this country?

 

[778]

Now that masks have now been mandated in museums and other enclosed spaces from 8th August, does this mean that the expiry date for the statutary instrument that covers shops and public transport (The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) Regulations 2020), will now be pushed back to August 8th 2021?

Also if mandatory masks does become permanent in the future (i really hope it doesn't), would it need to be voted through parliament, or would the statutary instrument just be extended indefinitely?

 

[Huntergreed]

Now that masks have now been mandated in museums and other enclosed spaces from 8th August, does this mean that the expiry date for the statutary instrument that covers shops and public transport (The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) Regulations 2020), will now be pushed back to August 8th 2021?

If they update the shop and trains legislation with this set then I imagine so, whereas if they draft a new piece of legislation purely to cover these spaces, then likely not.

Also if mandatory masks does become permanent in the future (i really hope it doesn't), would it need to be voted through parliament, or would the statutary instrument just be extended indefinitely?

Presumably the government could just extend the statutory instrument, provided they could come up with another excuse that sounded reasonable enough to the general public at each “review date”, although whether they can do this is questionable, I don’t think it’s justified even this time.

 

[adc82140]

I don’t see the link between the last sentence and the rest of your post? Were all the people in your local shops members of the government?

The government has mandated masks without even a thought about educating people how to use them safely.

 

[joncombe]

Also if mandatory masks does become permanent in the future (i really hope it doesn't), would it need to be voted through parliament, or would the statutary instrument just be extended indefinitely?

As an aside Parliament is an enclosed place with lots of talking. Perhaps masks should be mandated there? (I don't *think* they are already but I stand to be corrected)

 

[Huntergreed]

As an aside Parliament is an enclosed place with lots of talking. Perhaps masks should be mandated there? (I don't *think* they are already but I stand to be corrected)

I can’t see this happening! (They won’t want to pass laws that make their lives more difficult directly, rather pass the burden to us and then they can and will blame us if it goes wrong)

 

[furlong]

Simon Heffer's on board now in the Telegraph

The Government's insulting policy on face masks is yet another nail in the coffin for our cultural life.
Those attending museums, galleries and cinemas now have to wear masks - how stupid do the Government think patrons of the arts are?

 

[Huntergreed]

Simon Heffer's on board now in the Telegraph

I completely agree, they seem to be insistent on destroying our cultural heritage and the cultural scene in this country. I work in the arts and it does worry me what the future holds, just how are we going to get through this? :/

 

[Jordan Adam]

Very disappointing to see Transdev ignoring the guidance regarding masks and handing out free ice creams to passengers on buses thus leading them to remove their masks.

https://twitter.com/burnleybuses/status/1289208349066747909

Duty manager Debbie has been out and about making sure our drivers and customers are keeping cool

 

[trebor79]

The final nail in the coffin for many cinema chains right there

Who wants to sit in a cinema wearing a hot and sweaty mask for 2+ hours?!

Nobody. People will just take them off as soon as the lights dim, or even before.

I had a ride on the Island Line today. About 10% of passengers masked. Mainly groups of people, but one yoing lady in particular who shook her head when her boyfriend put one on. He promptly removed it from one ear and left it dangling.
About another 40% removed, loosened or turned them into chin ornaments during the journey, me included. It's quite a short journey even end to end.

 

[Enthusiast]

People have been asked to endure slight uncomfort/inconvenience to protect other people

No they haven't. They have been ordered to indulge in a practice which will undoubtedly place them at a far greater risk (albeit still minimal) whilst the reduction in risk to others is even smaller.

On that basis why shouldn't I follow the current mask guidance from people infinitely more qualified to make that assessment?

See above - and below.

The government has mandated masks without even a thought about educating people how to use them safely.

 

[Jordan Adam]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/transdev-blazefield.192373/

Eating and drinking is permitted.

Surely however that then defeats the whole purpose of wearing a mask. Even if eating/drinking is permitted i don't think encouraging it given the current circumstances is particularly useful.

 

[Andyh82]

If it was such a bad idea to wear masks and just something ‘Cummings came up with’ or something along those lines, NI, Wales and Scotland wouldn’t have done it as well, particularly Scotland.