UK face coverings discussion

[bramling]

Completely agree, I feel exactly the same. I would suggest you are more than likely to be exempt (under the “extreme distress” category), and that you are therefore perfectly entitled to get on with things without wearing a mask.

I’m damned if I’m going to have to choose between cowering at home or walking around wearing a muzzle on Matt Hancock’s say so. Life is too bloody short.

Have to say I’ve found myself spending more time at home since this came in (not the end of the world, I’ve a house and garden, and plenty of things to occupy myself with — but equally I’m an outdoors person and normally spend a lot of time out and about). Likewise when out for work I’ve simply not bothered nipping into shops, which is something I’d normally do, as I simply can’t be bothered with the hassle.

Needless to say online has benefited in consequence.

One thing I’ve realised in life is that one is rarely alone in doing (or in this case not doing) something, so if this is the case for me then it’s a safe bet others are doing likewise. This is, sadly, certain to mean au-revoir to many businesses over the next year.

The handling of all this also means when the time comes Boris can say au-revoir to my vote, a fact I have recently made very clear to my MP. That said, I’d be amazed if Boris remains PM long enough to see another election. Again, my vote on its own might not be missed, but if enough people feel same...

 

[Scrotnig]

Completely agree, I feel exactly the same. I would suggest you are more than likely to be exempt (under the “extreme distress” category), and that you are therefore perfectly entitled to get on with things without wearing a mask.

I’m damned if I’m going to have to choose between cowering at home or walking around wearing a muzzle on Matt Hancock’s say so. Life is too bloody short.

The trouble is, if you try and 'get on with things without a mask' you run the considerable risk of being challenged, not allowed in, shouted at, ordered about, belittled, insulted or even attacked.

The mere possibility of this can make it just as difficult as wearing the mask in the first place.

My unfortunate answer is that that I simply won't go in shops or travel on public transport (or go to cinemas or museums) until this law is repealed. They won't get my money. Sadly I expect that to be well over a year and quite likely several years.

 

[LAX54]

Have to say I’ve found myself spending more time at home since this came in. Likewise when out for work I’ve simply not bothered nipping into shops, which is something I’d normally do, as I simply can’t be bothered with the hassle.

Needless to say online has benefited in consequence.

One thing I’ve realised in life is that one is rarely alone in doing something, so if this is the case for me that it’s a safe bet others are doing likewise. This is, sadly, certain to mean au-revoir to many businesses over the next year.

The handling of all this also means when the time comes Boris can say au-revoir to my vote, a fact I have recently made very clear to my MP. That said, I’d be amazed if Boris remains PM long enough to see another election. Again, my vote on its own might not be missed, but if enough people feel same...

I am the same, I have not been in a real shop for ages, except for the odd trip to our local Budgens, more and more being done online.
There was an interviews on the radio the other day with someone who deals with how mnay people are shopping in the High Street, they had expected a rise in numbers, however they were surprised when the figures came back, that after the mask mandate, footfall had FALLEN in the High Street, I did wonder when I heard that, why he was surprised !

The other thing with a mask, is that you are not supposed to touch it when you are wearing it, (except to take it off, and bin it if it's disposable), yet nearly everyone I saw, fiddled with it, pulling it up, down, forwards to get a bit of fresh air etc ( I find I do too), so ruining the reason they are wearing it

 

[LAX54]

The trouble is, if you try and 'get on with things without a mask' you run the considerable risk of being challenged, not allowed in, shouted at, ordered about, belittled, insulted or even attacked.

The mere possibility of this can make it just an difficult as wearing the mask in the first place.

My unfortunate answer is that that I simply won't go in shops or travel on public transport (or go to cinemas or museums) until this law is repealed. They won't get my money. Sadly I expect that to be well over a year and quite likely several years.

By which time there will be very few shops, a lot of cinemas will have closed, as well as museums etc, but then no one will have any money as unemployment will be rife !

 

[bramling]

The trouble is, if you try and 'get on with things without a mask' you run the considerable risk of being challenged, not allowed in, shouted at, ordered about, belittled, insulted or even attacked.

The mere possibility of this can make it just an difficult as wearing the mask in the first place.

My unfortunate answer is that that I simply won't go in shops or travel on public transport (or go to cinemas or museums) until this law is repealed. They won't get my money. Sadly I expect that to be well over a year and quite likely several years.

It won’t be several years. Compliance is already starting to wane.

 

[43066]

Have to say I’ve found myself spending more time at home since this came in (not the end of the world, I’ve a house and garden, and plenty of things to occupy myself with — but equally I’m an outdoors person and normally spend a lot of time out and about). Likewise when out for work I’ve simply not bothered nipping into shops, which is something I’d normally do, as I simply can’t be bothered with the hassle.

Yes indeed. I’m not a huge shopping enthusiast, at the best of times, but I’m avoiding casual browsing in bookshops etc. that I might have indulged in previously. That inevitably means I’m less likely to make purchases.

I went into a clothing shop to buy some shorts the other day only to be told by someone sporting an incorrectly worn mask that I couldn’t try anything on, but could buy two sizes of the same item, try on at home and then return, presumably to be resold. I’ve honestly never heard anything so monumentally stupid! Needless to say I walked out.

The handling of all this also means when the time comes Boris can say au-revoir to my vote, a fact I have recently made very clear to my MP. That said, I’d be amazed if Boris remains PM long enough to see another election. Again, my vote on its own might not be missed, but if enough people feel same...

He really does need to go. How things have changed since Jan.

 

[furlong]

Puzzled about where this 'masks will encourage people to return' business might be coming from, I've been digging around some of the surveys, and most I found so far seem to include implicit bias. I've only found one (in the last couple of days) that was even-handed enough to represent the views of people who considered that masks might deter people or even spread the virus. In all the others, someone with those views gets lost in the noise (their natural interpretation of the choices between answers leads the survey creator, with a different interpretation, to miss the viewpoint), leaving the 'masks will help' signal still to emerge. Also, all the ones I've found that mention 'a vaccine' treated it as a simple end state (which of course it is not) - some simply asking yes or no would the person take it (so everything can miraculously get back to normal) and ignoring all the nuances involved in that decision. A survey I found about whether someone would isolate under track and trace similarly ignored the context of an imperfect testing process.

 

[bramling]

Yes indeed. I’m not a huge shopping enthusiast, at the best of times, but I’m avoiding casual browsing in bookshops etc. that I might have indulged in previously. That inevitably means I’m less likely to make purchases.

I went into a clothing shop to buy some shorts the other day but was told by someone sporting an incorrectly worn mask that I couldn’t try anything on, but could buy two of the same item, try on at home and then return, presumably to be resold. I’ve honestly never heard anything so monumentally stupid! Needless to say I walked out.

The sad thing is it’s hard to tell whether something like that is simply the shop’s desperate attempt to negotiate the tight-rope of trying to comply with being “Covid safe” in order to be able to trade at all, pleasing the Facebook furloughs who will shame on social media if they happen to grace with their presence a business which isn’t doing things to their personal preferences, or just being anal.

He really does need to go. How things have changed since Jan.

Absolutely he needs to go. He’s so atrociously bad I’d even advocate doing it right now, in the midst of all this. The only problem is who replaces him. The reason he’s there in the first place is because he seemed to be the least worst of a historically awful bunch. I really do wonder how Mrs Thatcher would have handled this.

 

[furlong]

Mrs Thatcher was a chemist and famous for her grasp of detail, so I can't imagine she'd have tolerated this level of abuse of statistics to advance this government's totalitarian instincts.

 

[bramling]

Mrs Thatcher was a chemist and famous for her grasp of detail, so I can't imagine she'd have tolerated this level of abuse of statistics to advance this government's totalitarian instincts.

Yes if it were a toss-up between a scientist / lawyer versus a journalist, I know who I would want to be handling this, and it wouldn’t be the journalist! The extent to which he is out of his depth is pitiful.

I can’t imagine her advocating a policy like masks without there being some pretty positive evidence in favour.

 

[birchesgreen]

Btw, speaking about the type of mask. I currently have N95s and I wear them everytime I need to go indoors, such as supermarkets. I believe they are the only type of face masks that are really effective in trying to decrease the risk of infection. Homemade masks don't work as well as an N95 mask. If there are bus enthusiasts out there reading this, it's basically like comparing a low floor bus wheelchair ramp with a step entrance coach wheelchair lift. Wheelchair ramps work better than lifts as they speed up boarding/alighting times.

Hopefully not an N95 with a front valve?

A Certain Type of N95 Mask May Do More Harm Than Good

Experts say certain N95 masks with front valves protect the user but don't prevent that person from spreading COVID-19 to others nearby

www.healthline.com

 

[adc82140]

Any mask with a valve is dangerous. They fire a jet of exhaled air in concentrated form far further than you would without any face covering. If I had my own way I would make it illegal to wear one (obviously with exceptions for those working in industry using them for their indended purpose).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Btw, speaking about the type of mask. I currently have N95s and I wear them everytime I need to go indoors, such as supermarkets. I believe they are the only type of face masks that are really effective in trying to decrease the risk of infection. Homemade masks don't work as well as an N95 mask.

Are they valved as many are? If so, you're protecting you but not others from you.

 

[adc82140]

Are they valved as many are? If so, you're protecting you but not others from you.

If it's not been properly fit tested by a professional, then he's not protecting himself either. This has just illustrated everything that's wrong with this mask rule. He genuinely thinks that he is protecting others, but is in fact putting them in more danger. This isn't at all his fault, how is anyone supposed to know that without being told. The "anything that covers the nose and mouth " message is dangerous.

 

[island]

I disagree. I think that the majority of people are wearing them because they have to in order to visit shops etc.

Precisely. Whilst anecdotes are not data, the number of people wearing masks in supermarkets was widely observed to rise dramatically in England from the 23rd to the 24th of July.

If it is a choice between wearing a mask and a £100 fine, I'll wear the mask. If it is a choice between wearing a mask and being prevented from accessing my local supermarket, I'll wear a mask. I don't like the rule, but if breaking the rule results in worse consequences for me than obeying it, then I will follow it

This is where I find myself also. I do not agree with wearing masks, I do not believe they are especially effective, and I am exceptionally concerned that many of those wearing them see them as a licence to ignore social distancing. However, I do not want to create emotional trouble or stress for myself by having a conflict with the law, and I am in the process of changing jobs and do not want to deal with the baggage of a potential criminal conviction.

The requirement means for me that most discretionary travel on public transport and discretionary shopping and recreation have reduced down to zero. Thankfully gyms do not appear on the list of premises requiring masks; my lockdown weight gain has been lamentable.

 

[Huntergreed]

Completely agree, I feel exactly the same. I would suggest you are more than likely to be exempt (under the “extreme distress” category), and that you are therefore perfectly entitled to get on with things without wearing a mask.

Problem is, I’m a young, relatively healthy 18 year old male, and most people (including many on this forum) would judge someone of thay demographic who’s not wearing a mask to be breaking the law as they’re not exempt. I’ve heard many comments along the lines of “you’re too young to be exempt” towards others, and I don’t want the stress and anxiety of getting fined by police if they decide to take this view as well

 

[trebor79]

Btw, speaking about the type of mask. I currently have N95s and I wear them everytime I need to go indoors, such as supermarkets. I believe they are the only type of face masks that are really effective in trying to decrease the risk of infection. Homemade masks don't work as well as an N95 mask.

It's people like you who really annoy me. So in theory at least, I could be fined for not wearing a mask. But someone like you has "complied" with this stupid law by covering your face, but you've covered it with something that is literally worse than not wearing anything. If you're infected, you're spraying virus all over the place through the exhalation valve.
And it won't protect you unless it's been professionally fitted.
This really is the exemplary of why this stupid, badly thought out "face covering" law needs to be canned ASAP.

Any mask with a valve is dangerous. They fire a jet of exhaled air in concentrated form far further than you would without any face covering. If I had my own way I would make it illegal to wear one (obviously with exceptions for those working in industry using them for their indended purpose).

Seconded. Completely inappropriate as a public health measure.

This is where I find myself also. I do not agree with wearing masks, I do not believe they are especially effective, and I am exceptionally concerned that many of those wearing them see them as a licence to ignore social distancing. However, I do not want to create emotional trouble or stress for myself by having a conflict with the law, and I am in the process of changing jobs and do not want to deal with the baggage of a potential criminal conviction.

It's a fixed penalty so not a criminal conviction. The way the law has been written, if you say you're exempt then you are exempt. It's on the state to prove that your aren't, which is impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt, if it came to that (which it won't).

 

[duncanp]

Mrs Thatcher was a chemist and famous for her grasp of detail, so I can't imagine she'd have tolerated this level of abuse of statistics to advance this government's totalitarian instincts.

Completely agree

I have said elsewhere on this forum that we need a Prime Minister with a science or maths degree who is able to look at statistics and mathematical models with a critical eye.

If Mrs Thatcher had been Prime Minister in March this year and Professor Ferguson's Pantsdown's report predicting 500,000 deaths without an immediate lockdown had landed on her desk, one of the first things she would have said is "..why are we even listening to this clown given that he has got so many things wrong in the past?.." If she was then persuaded that the report was serious, she would have interviewed Professor Ferguson Pantsdown herself and gone through the assumptions in the mathematical model line by line.

Similarly with the suggestion that pubs may have to close in order for schools to re-open. She would have asked for figures to back up the proposal.

We really need a Prime Minister who has that same kind of enquiring an critical mind. In the Conservative Party the only people I kind think of who might fit the bill are Sajid Javid and Rishi Sunak. For the Labour Party, Sir Keir Starmer, as an experienced QC, has the right credentials.

Boris Johnson doesn't fit the bill and seems to believe whatever the scientists tell him. He shouldn't really need an "enforcer" like Cummings to do his job for him.

And I say that as someone who usually votes Conservative.

 

[Yew]

It won’t be several years. Compliance is already starting to wane.

My worry around that is that Boris seems to be the sort who doesn't take people not following his instructions very well.

 

[Richard Scott]

We really need a Prime Minister who has that same kind of enquiring an critical mind. In the Conservative Party the only people I kind think of who might fit the bill are Sajid Javid and Rishi Sunak. For the Labour Party, Sir Keir Starmer, as an experienced QC, has the right credentials.

It's a pity then that Keir Starmer isn't questioning all these actions and forming an effective opposition, which is what we need rather than just criticising what's being done and seemingly implying we need more restrictions. He's currently as useless as all the other wet politicians we have.

 

[AdamWW]

Completely agree

I have said elsewhere on this forum that we need a Prime Minister with a science or maths degree who is able to look at statistics and mathematical models with a critical eye.

If Mrs Thatcher had been Prime Minister in March this year and Professor Ferguson's Pantsdown's report predicting 500,000 deaths without an immediate lockdown had landed on her desk, one of the first things she would have said is "..why are we even listening to this clown given that he has got so many things wrong in the past?.." If she was then persuaded that the report was serious, she would have interviewed Professor Ferguson Pantsdown herself and gone through the assumptions in the mathematical model line by line.

Similarly with the suggestion that pubs may have to close in order for schools to re-open. She would have asked for figures to back up the proposal.

We really need a Prime Minister who has that same kind of enquiring an critical mind. In the Conservative Party the only people I kind think of who might fit the bill are Sajid Javid and Rishi Sunak. For the Labour Party, Sir Keir Starmer, as an experienced QC, has the right credentials.

Boris Johnson doesn't fit the bill and seems to believe whatever the scientists tell him. He shouldn't really need an "enforcer" like Cummings to do his job for him.

And I say that as someone who usually votes Conservative.

While I think there would be a lot to be said for politicians with science degrees (Mr Cummings appears to agree with that, by the way), I don't agree with your reasoning here.

The Prime Minister wasn't just handed one report to look at. He was given advice by SAGE, taking that report and others into consideration. I don't think you should expect the prime minister, no matter how scientifically able, to go throug a report line by line questioning the science, nor should you have a system that relies on having a scientist as prime minister. Now I do think there is a lot that could have been questioned about the report, but I think the answer would have been much more transparancy so that people outside SAGE had a chance to comment.

And I'm still a bit confused about where he is supposed to have gone wrong, because so far as I can see a calculation of how many deaths are taken to reach herd immunity is a very simple one - it just requires knowledge of the infection fatality rate and R. Now these are difficult to know, but I don't think those numbers came from his modelling.

We could also look to Germany, where a lockdown was also implemented, as an example where a country led by a scientist made similar decisions.

 

[talldave]

The trouble is, if you try and 'get on with things without a mask' you run the considerable risk of being challenged, not allowed in, shouted at, ordered about, belittled, insulted or even attacked.

If it's of any support or encouragement I can report that I've not been challenged. However I suspect that being so tall I may appear a little intimidating for anyone to pick an argument with. And like many others, my physical shopping trips are at the absolute minimum (Post Office - letterbox annoyingly inside the shop even though lockdown has opened up the wonderful world of online postage, and supermarket). Everything else is bought online - no change from lockdown.

My rough analysis shows more non-wearers late afternoon and evening, if that helps.

On the altruistic side of things, I would consider anyone wearing a mask prior to 24 Jul as altruistic. Those wearing since 24 Jul are not.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Those wearing since 24 Jul are sheep law abiding

Fixed that for you. It is wrong to criticise people for complying with the law.

 

[AdamWW]

[/QUOTE]

Fixed that for you. It is wrong to criticise people for complying with the law.

And (in my view) unpleasant to use a derogatory term for such people.

Apart from anything else, if people are following the law for a reasoned fear of punishment, how does that make them "sheep"?

 

[talldave]

Fixed that for you. It is wrong to criticise people for complying with the law.

That's your opinion, not mine. The word "law" is debateable, since the requirement hasn't been voted on by my democratically elected representative in the House of Commons or in the House of Lords. Welcome to North Korea.

And (in my view) unpleasant to use a derogatory term for such people.

Apart from anything else, if people are following the law for a reasoned fear of punishment, how does that make them "sheep"?

Because they haven't used their brain and considered the health consequences of breathing through germ infested material for hours on end.

Just because a bunch of unskilled idiots in government have made something law, it doesn't mean it's sensible or not a risk to our health.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's your opinion, not mine. The word "law" is debateable, since the requirement hasn't been voted on by my democratically elected representative in the House of Commons or in the House of Lords. Welcome to North Korea.

Whether you like it or not, it is the law. Are people also "sheep" for wearing seatbelts, as I suspect most people wear those because they are legally mandated to and don't think about why? Or is everyone driving on the motorway at 70mph a "sheep"? Or anyone who pays their train fare?

You can express valid concerns about whether it should be the law or not, or the basis on which the law was made (I too would rather it had gone through Parliament, though it would certainly have passed as it has widespread cross party support). You can also cast insults at masks if you want, as some do. However the fact stands that it is the law, and it is fundamentally wrong to cast childish insults at people who like to live their lives on the correct side of it.

 

[AdamWW]

That's your opinion, not mine. The word "law" is debateable, since the requirement hasn't been voted on by my democratically elected representative in the House of Commons or in the House of Lords. Welcome to North Korea.

If we were in North Korea we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[talldave]

If we were in North Korea we wouldn't be having this discussion.

That's a very good point!

However, I hope you get my sentiment. The arguments played out on here should have taken place in The House of Commons.

All the other quoted laws have valid justification. Government haven't given any valid criteria for mask wearing introduction or for its future withdrawal. Some people find that unacceptable and will not comply.

 

[AdamWW]

However, I hope you get my sentiment. The arguments played out on here should have taken place in The House of Commons.

All the other quoted laws have valid justification. Government haven't given any valid criteria for mask wearing introduction or for its future withdrawal. Some people find that unacceptable and will not comply.

I fully understand why some people feel justified in 'civil disobedience' in this matter.

Where we differ is is whether it's appropriate or not to call the remaining people 'sheep' for failing to disobey the law.

 

[Huntergreed]

I fully understand why some people feel justified in 'civil disobedience' in this matter.

Where we differ is is whether it's appropriate or not to call the remaining people 'sheep' for failing to disobey the law.

I disagree that people are “sheep” for choosing to obey the law, because I believe they are following it due to a fear of facing abuse/shaming/punishment rather than because they agree with it (a bit like myself, I’m 18 and healthy and there’s no way I would be able to pass as an exemption in the eyes of enforcement, so I really have no choice)

I do, however, think that many people don’t question the motives behind the laws imposed by the government and just accept them as “for the greater good”, which isn’t a good attitude.