UK face coverings discussion

[island]

But - suppose someone wasn't wearing a mask, said they were exempt, would they have to prove they were exempt (ie turning the law the other way round - guilty until proved innocent) and if so, how could they possibly do that? A doctor's note?

So underneath the headline I wonder if anyone who is genually exempt, got a fine or told to leave the train/station; has appealed, who to and how can you prove your case?

There is no ”appeal” as such; if issued a fixed penalty notice and you wish to contest your liability to pay, you need to wait to be prosecuted for the original offence and make your case (or make the prosecution make theirs) in front of magistrates/district judge. As with ticketing cases, it is usually going to be fairly easy to distinguish “can’t wear” from “won’t wear” with skilled questioning.

 

[yorkie]

Bus Users UK are calling out bus operators on Twitter who are tweeting incorrect (or incomplete) information regarding face coverings, e.g.: https://twitter.com/BusUsersUK/status/1310589195853979651

York College I see. Just down the road from me! Disappointing.

York Council has a very extreme view too and spreads incorrect information about Government Guidance. I wonder if someone at the Council has been speaking to the College. There do seem to be some people with 'extreme' views in York, sadly.

 

[kristiang85]

True story about masks; I went to catch a bus and I'd completely forgotten and the bus turned up, I got on. The driver said "have you a mask" so embarrassingly replied that I'd forgotten, and will pull my coat over my face.
"No worries" he said, and just handed me a mask out of a box. "Oh, thanks, brilliant, I'll pay you for that, £1?" and he refused, saying he had bought a bulk amount and handing them out was easier than dealing with obstructing passengers and kept his bus on time.

If masks in bulk can be purchased for pennies, wouldn't it be better for guards, bus drivers and BTP etc to simply carry them around and hand them out if necessary?

I got 50 masks for £3 off Amazon. It's my little emergency stash for when my non disposable ones are still drying from the wash or something, or I keep some in my bag in case I need them for any reason out of the house. So they are cheap, but I don't really like using them as they are awful to wear.

However, if all public transport operators were handing out masks all the time, then a lot of people would become conditioned to not bother taking any, and those pennies would build up. And it just shifts the responsibility from the individual, which shouldn't be the case really.

Then on top of that, and most importantly, is the environmental aspect. It would mean a lot more masks being thrown on the street (as this country is particularly awful for littering); at least if masks are rarely availalbe on tap, people will be more inclined to get non disposable ones for their day to day use.

 

[py_megapixel]

You’re asking for a negative to be proven, that’s not how this works.

That is exactly my point.

I won't comment on the pointlessness, or not, of the mask requirement, as that's been done to death several over in other threads - but it is incorrect to claim that masks are 0% effective, if that cannot be proven, which, as you quite rightly say, it can't.

 

[birchesgreen]

So the first action is not check he's ok or listen to his story...the first action is to make sure he's wearing a mask.

Shows everything that's wrong with this disgraceful law.

No personally i'd give him the cane for not wearing a mask obviously. And detention for the rest of the year. Then give him a new mask. And charge him for him.

 

[DB]

Could you please point me to a piece of evidence that a mask has never prevented a Covid transmission?

I didn't claim that a mask has never prevented a transmission - I said there was 'no clear evidence'. My point was that there is pretty much no actual evidence that they have (yes, they might have done, but if it was significant in scope this would have shown in statistics following mask mandations). My point was that claiming that masks are 'one of a number of useful measures' is not really a true statement - they may have some use, but it's unproven and not likely to be significant or it would be demonstrable. Likewise the claim that they are 'not 100% efficient' implies that they do have at least a good level of efficiency, which is also unproven.

 

[DB]

However, if all public transport operators were handing out masks all the time, then a lot of people would become conditioned to not bother taking any, and those pennies would build up. And it just shifts the responsibility from the individual, which shouldn't be the case really.

It'snot really clear why it should be the individual's responsibility either - it's basically wasting money on something that the government is forcing them to wear on the basis of very weak evidence (and no actual monitoring of effectiveness).

 

[kristiang85]

It'snot really clear why it should be the individual's responsibility either - it's basically wasting money on something that the government is forcing them to wear on the basis of very weak evidence (and no actual monitoring of effectiveness).

We all know that is contentious, but as it stands it is the law for public transport passengers to wear masks so that is what my point is directed towards - in this case I think it should be the individual as it stands who is responsible for providing it. But my more pertinent point was one you didn't quote - we need to encourage use of non-disposable masks, which can be washed between uses, otherwise it is going to be a huge environmental issue that will cancel out all the good work we've done on that side of thnigs in the last few years.

 

[Domh245]

Yes, it is much more serious, because it is the theft of a piece of PPE which therefore causes[1] a safety risk. It's also more serious on other grounds, as like say the theft of someone's tie or another piece of uniform, or of their homework book before it was submitted, it's not a simple "take with intention to permanently deprive" as per the offence of theft, but instead it comes with an intention to get that kid in trouble. Therefore the offence is "aggravated", in a manner.

It could perhaps be compared with removing someone's goggles and running off with them while they were doing a chemistry experiment.

Face masks are not PPE when not in health/social care settings. Please don't peddle this nonsense

PPE in non-healthcare work during the coronavirus pandemic



The coronavirus pandemic has not changed your duty as an employer to protect people in your workplace from health and safety risks. This includes making sure they are not exposed to hazardous substances as part of their work.

Personal protective equipment (PPE) protects the user against health or safety risks at work. It includes different types of respiratory protective equipment (RPE), such as respirators.

Face coverings are not PPE as they do not protect people from work-related hazardous substances. They may be marginally beneficial as a precautionary measure against coronavirus – find out more- Face coverings and face masks.

PPE for protection against coronavirus is generally only required for certain healthcare activities. In a non-clinical setting, there is no need to provide different PPE than you would normally have provided before the pandemic started.

If you have problems with the supply of your masks or other RPE, read how to work safely and manage your supplies of RPE.

Using any form of PPE is a last resort after you have assessed the risks. Find out more in our employer's guidance on your legal duties for providing PPE at work.

Comparisons to uniform or homework theft are very much equivalent - certainly in my secondary school if you were going around with missing bits of uniform you'd be getting in trouble (see me after school) or failing to hand in homework (hand in to reception by 0820 following morning or escalation to Friday detention), in both cases theft of the item is 'aggravated'. Making mask wearing compulsory in a school effectively makes a mask part of the uniform and so mask theft ought to be treated in the same way that uniform theft would be

Notwithstanding the false equivalence of PPE (and views on effectiveness of each as a protective device), your chemistry experiment example also falls down on the fact that the example incident hasn't had the mask ripped off the child's face mid corridor occupation - IME the school provides the goggles and ensures enough for each student, you can't have somebody nicking your goggles before chemistry class. Ripping someone's mask (or goggles off) mid wearing is a different matter and is more likely to be an assault than theft and treated accordingly

And here I was thinking you'd stopped being pro-mask...

 

[birchesgreen]

we need to encourage use of non-disposable masks, which can be washed between uses, otherwise it is going to be a huge environmental issue that will cancel out all the good work we've done on that side of thnigs in the last few years.

I think it already is one to be honest, a short walk outside and you'll see numerous discarded masks. Makes a change from fag ends and fast food wrappers i suppose.

 

[Howardh]

I think it already is one to be honest, a short walk outside and you'll see numerous discarded masks. Makes a change from fag ends and fast food wrappers i suppose.

Round here we have a dog-poo bag mountain.

 

[Bletchleyite]

York College I see. Just down the road from me! Disappointing.

York Council has a very extreme view too and spreads incorrect information about Government Guidance. I wonder if someone at the Council has been speaking to the College. There do seem to be some people with 'extreme' views in York, sadly.

I did, earlier on, hear a caller on LBC say that not many people wear masks on the street in Leeds, but more than 50% do in York - is that right?

 

[35B]

Bus Users UK are calling out bus operators on Twitter who are tweeting incorrect (or incomplete) information regarding face coverings, e.g.: https://twitter.com/BusUsersUK/status/1310589195853979651

Except that on school buses - which is what I understand a "college bus" to be - the operators and/or schools can make mask wearing compulsory. And whilst registering an exemption is not a legal requirement, it strikes me a reasonable compromise between the conflicting rights and duties in this area for an employer or educational institution to seek to register those who seek exemption to save people being repeatedly asked to justify themselves.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And here I was thinking you'd stopped being pro-mask...

I'm overall still pro, but evaluating the evidence as it appears - I think there's still a possibility they're reducing viral load and so reducing case severity.

 

[kristiang85]

I'm overall still pro, but evaluating the evidence as it appears - I think there's still a possibility they're reducing viral load and so reducing case severity.

Yes this is my position, but the more evidence I see, the less convincing it is. But currently I'm still thinking the viral load argument is the best for it.

 

[35B]

Can the mask enthusiasts here say how they would handle this situation:

You see a boy in school who looks upset; you ask if they are alright. They say "no, not really. someone stole my mask and apparently that's my fault"; the school has a policy of punishing students for not wearing masks in corridors even though it's not mandated by Government.

What do you say to that?

My children (both over 11) go to schools where mask wearing in public areas is required, and has been implemented in a way that makes it part of the school uniform. I would expect any school with a competent uniform policy to seek to enforce it meaningfully (my daughter's school has a reputation for teachers measuring hem lengths), and I see no no reason to treat masks as an exception to that if the school wishes to retain credibility with pupils for staff actions matching words*.

I would also expect any school to operate with regard to the welfare of all pupils, and to respond with consideration to the circumstances of the pupil rather than with a blanket (and therefore probably ultimately appealable) policy. In this case, I would expect - in no particular order - that the pupil be given a mask to replace the one removed, the pupil be advised that he is not in trouble or being held responsible for what has been done to him, and then sensitive questioning as to what had happened given that if his story is accurate, it is a clear suggestion of bullying and/or assault, followed by appropriate action in accordance with the school disciplinary policy against the perpetrators.

The primary issue here is not the mask, but the attack on a pupil; I would expect the school to focus on that.

* - in my schooldays, school rules banned the use of Walkmans when on the school campus or in transit. Nothing undermined school authority more than this rule, which was never enforced despite large numbers of pupils walking the mile or so from the station plugged into their Walkmans.

 

[kristiang85]

This tweet just popped up on my timeline. I wonder which station it is?

https://twitter.com/paul_winginit/status/1310625715105263616

Just witnessed staff at a major London railway station tell a woman pushing a bike that she can’t possibly be exempt from wearing a face covering, because she can ride a bike.

 

[greyman42]

I did, earlier on, hear a caller on LBC say that not many people wear masks on the street in Leeds, but more than 50% do in York - is that right?

I would not say it is any where near 50%.

 

[yorkie]

My children (both over 11) go to schools where mask wearing in public areas is required, and has been implemented in a way that makes it part of the school uniform. I would expect any school with a competent uniform policy to seek to enforce it meaningfully (my daughter's school has a reputation for teachers measuring hem lengths), and I see no no reason to treat masks as an exception to that if the school wishes to retain credibility with pupils for staff actions matching words*.

This is exactly what schools are doing, and there lies the problem.

I've found two masks today (one in a corridor and one on a sports pitch a few minutes ago); I have washed them both in the hope that one of them belongs to the boy who lost his.

I feel compelled to do this because I feel bad about how young people are being treated at the moment.

I would also expect any school to operate with regard to the welfare of all pupils, and to respond with consideration to the circumstances of the pupil rather than with a blanket (and therefore probably ultimately appealable) policy.

But many (most?) schools have a strict policy with regard to uniform; my argument is that if the school does as you earlier said then that makes it difficult for them to do what you are saying now, which I find unacceptable.

I don't feel it's comparable to wearing (say) a tie, where they would keep their tie on all day.

In this case, I would expect - in no particular order - that the pupil be given a mask to replace the one removed, the pupil be advised that he is not in trouble or being held responsible for what has been done to him, and then sensitive questioning as to what had happened given that if his story is accurate, it is a clear suggestion of bullying and/or assault, followed by appropriate action in accordance with the school disciplinary policy against the perpetrators.

Well that may or may not have happened, but I feel bad seeing the aftermath of this and I feel the people who attempt to mandate masks (when the Government has NOT done this) are at least partly blame for the situation.

The primary issue here is not the mask, but the attack on a pupil; I would expect the school to focus on that.

I agree about the primary issue but this is easier said than done; it's not infrequently the case that a student thinks an item of theirs has been taken from them, when in reality it has been misplaced.

* - in my schooldays, school rules banned the use of Walkmans when on the school campus or in transit. Nothing undermined school authority more than this rule, which was never enforced despite large numbers of pupils walking the mile or so from the station plugged into their Walkmans.

I don't think schools these days would attempt to ban the use of electronic devices on students way to/from school. Indeed it's often fair game to use them outside the building, let alone beyond the school gates.

This tweet just popped up on my timeline. I wonder which station it is?

https://twitter.com/paul_winginit/status/1310625715105263616

That's @AlterEgo from this forum whose posts/tweets I hold in high regard.

And here is a very disappointing reply:

https://twitter.com/EthanBriggs380/status/1310626624967266309

Yeah, but these staff are probably fed up arguing and trying [their] best to tell people to wear masks. Probably just wanted to get straight to the point.

This is not a valid excuse. I may get "fed up" of arguing in my job (though this doesn't tend to happen often, as I know, when I am at work, how to talk to people and how not to talk to them!) but if I resorted to saying things like this, I'd realise I was no longer fit to do the job and accept it was time to quit.

Northern Rail instruct their staff as follows:

You must not attempt to “police” any Covid-19 passenger instructions.

The RMT statement includes the following:

Staff are not expected to enforce the wearing of face masks. That is the responsibility of the police.

 

[35B]

This is exactly what schools are doing, and there lies the problem.

I've found two masks today (one in a corridor and one on a sports pitch a few minutes ago); I have washed them both in the hope that one of them belongs to the boy who lost his.

I feel compelled to do this because I feel bad about how young people are being treated at the moment.

But many (most?) schools have a strict policy with regard to uniform; my argument is that if the school does as you earlier said then that makes it difficult for them to do what you are saying now, which I find unacceptable.

I don't feel it's comparable to wearing (say) a tie, where they would keep their tie on all day.

Well that may or may not have happened, but I feel bad seeing the aftermath of this and I feel the people who attempt to mandate masks (when the Government has NOT done this) are at least partly blame for the situation.

I agree about the primary issue but this is easier said than done; it's not infrequently the case that a student thinks an item of theirs has been taken from them, when in reality it has been misplaced.
I don't think schools these days would attempt to ban the use of electronic devices on students way to/from school. Indeed it's often fair game to use them outside the building, let alone beyond the school gates.

It is possible to both operate a very clear, robustly enforced, policy and to be sensitive in its application where a child is distressed. That applies to all items of clothing. The important bit, which your post doesn’t seem to allow for despite your own approach clearly manifesting it, is that staff respond both to the breach of rules and the child in front of them. A school disciplinary policy that does not provide for a degree of discretion and proportionality is unlikely to be enforceable should matters get to the stage of appeal.

As for the use of electronics, you take my example too lieterally. What my school did 30odd years ago is of course little guide to how schools set equivalent rules today. However, that does not alter the burden of my point, which was that the failure to enforce a school rule with any degree of rigour brought it into total disrespect, regardless of the underlying intent.

Where I suspect we differ fundamentally, though, is in our underlying assumption about compliance with these laws. My view is that they are law, and the bias should be towards adhering to that law. Yours appears to be to debate the logic of the law, and then to presume the benefit of the doubt should apply. I believe that this was always unrealistic, and the loophole left has made life harder rather than easier for those genuinely exempt as it’s left significant doubt about whether, especially where they have hidden disabilities, they are genuinely exempt or swinging the lead. That’s unfair on them.

 

[43066]

That is exactly my point.

I won't comment on the pointlessness, or not, of the mask requirement, as that's been done to death several over in other threads - but it is incorrect to claim that masks are 0% effective, if that cannot be proven, which, as you quite rightly say, it can't.

Asking someone to prove a negative is an utterly futile, you might as well ask them to prove that god doesn’t exist. But public health measures should be based on proven science, so that we know they actually work, and they need to be proportionate. Masks are neither.

I don’t suppose anyone can prove that carrying cloves of garlic around doesn’t ward of the virus, so should we be forced by law to do this?

 

[yorkie]

It is possible to both operate a very clear, robustly enforced, policy and to be sensitive in its application where a child is distressed. That applies to all items of clothing.

Yes you can be sensitive but if a school rule says that there is a consequence for not having an item of uniform or equipment, that doesn't necessarily mean that the consequence can be waived because the child is upset. Of course it should be handled sensitively.

It's not clear to me if you are saying the usual consequences and policies should or shouldn't be followed with face coverings, as if they were any other item of uniform.

The problem with face coverings is that they are not like any other part of uniform, given that students will be removing them about 7 times a day and re-applying them about 7 times a day!

The important bit, which your post doesn’t seem to allow for despite your own approach clearly manifesting it, is that staff respond both to the breach of rules and the child in front of them. A school disciplinary policy that does not provide for a degree of discretion and proportionality is unlikely to be enforceable should matters get to the stage of appeal.

I suspect the issue here is that if the child was to be found upset and/or looking for staff that would be treated differently to being found without an item of uniform and then giving the reason that the item of uniform was taken from them.

I don't know what happened in this case as I only saw the child after any such incident and subsequent conversation with relevant staff who would have dealt with the matter.

As for the use of electronics, you take my example too lieterally. What my school did 30odd years ago is of course little guide to how schools set equivalent rules today. However, that does not alter the burden of my point, which was that the failure to enforce a school rule with any degree of rigour brought it into total disrespect, regardless of the underlying intent.

Yes, this is true. But whether we should be enforcing a rule to mandate something the Government do not appear to believe should be mandated, thus creating extra work, extra stress, extra hassle and extra opportunity for conflict and people to get upset, is highly questionable.

Where I suspect we differ fundamentally, though, is in our underlying assumption about compliance with these laws. My view is that they are law, and the bias should be towards adhering to that law. Yours appears to be to debate the logic of the law, and then to presume the benefit of the doubt should apply. I believe that this was always unrealistic, and the loophole left has made life harder rather than easier for those genuinely exempt as it’s left significant doubt about whether, especially where they have hidden disabilities, they are genuinely exempt or swinging the lead. That’s unfair on them.

As I said earlier, this is not in a local lockdown area and therefore there is no law mandating that students should wear masks, nor a law or even guidance stating that schools should mandate the use of masks.

The issue is that the local council has told parents that the Government has stated this, when in reality the Government has not. I find this position to be unacceptable.

 

[py_megapixel]

Asking someone to prove a negative is an utterly futile, you might as well ask them to prove that god doesn’t exist. But public health measures should be based on proven science, not on half baked beliefs, and they need to be proportionate.

I don’t suppose anyone can prove that carrying cloves of garlic around doesn’t ward of the virus, so should we be forced by law to do this?

Several people seem to have misunderstood the spirit of my post in the same way.

I am aware that proving a negative is futile; that is exactly my point. Several members on here have claimed that masks must surely not be effective at all because there is little evidence to the contrary. This is the same problem: proof by counter-example is valid; proof by lack of counter-example (by which I mean something like "there is no evidence for X so X cannot be correct") is not.

This is a relatively new virus; we still don't know what measures are and aren't effective, and to suggest that a measure should not be introduced until it has been proved entirely effective is frankly laughable in the scenario of a fast-moving pandemic.

You'll also notice that I am making an effort NOT to comment on whether I believe the mask regulations themselves are reasonable, and am instead focussing on the masks themselves, because the former always devolves into a roundabout argument.

 

[yorkie]

....This is a relatively new virus; we still don't know what measures are and aren't effective, and to suggest that a measure should not be introduced until it has been proved entirely effective is frankly laughable in the scenario of a fast-moving pandemic...

Mandating the wearing of a face covering when it has not been proven that they are effective, issuing fines for non-compliance, mistreating people who are exempt, making people feel excluded from society.. these are seriously authoritarian measures and I don't think it is fair to say that authoritarian measures should be introduced on the basis that "you cannot prove they are not effective"; it is a very dangerous path to take. Where do you draw the line?

I am extremely disturbed by the authoritarian society we have become; I see the mandating of face coverings, and the numerous incidents that occur due to this mandating (either in law or by organisations themselves not backed up by law) as a highly visible symbol of this authoritarianism.

 

[DB]

Several members on here have claimed that masks must surely not be effective at all because there is little evidence to the contrary.

Where has anyone claimed this?

This debate started when you responded to one of my posts where I pointed out that there wasn't evidence that masks are 0% effective, never mind 100%. Which is the case. Do they make a difference? Maybe, but the evidence simply isn't there to demonstrate it - and if they do it can only be a fairly small one as if it was signicant this would be easy to demonstrate by now.

And intrusive measures like mandating masks should only ever be done in the basis of strong and compelling evidence, not the the basis of 'well, we can't say for sure that they don't work and it makes people feel safer'.

 

[43066]

Several people seem to have misunderstood the spirit of my post in the same way.

I am aware that proving a negative is futile; that is exactly my point. Several members on here have claimed that masks must surely not be effective at all because there is little evidence to the contrary. This is the same problem: proof by counter-example is valid; proof by lack of counter-example (by which I mean something like "there is no evidence for X so X cannot be correct") is not.

This is a relatively new virus; we still don't know what measures are and aren't effective, and to suggest that a measure should not be introduced until it has been proved entirely effective is frankly laughable in the scenario of a fast-moving pandemic.

You'll also notice that I am making an effort NOT to comment on whether I believe the mask regulations themselves are reasonable, and am instead focussing on the masks themselves, because the former always devolves into a roundabout argument.

I accept a lack of evidence of efficacy isn’t the same as evidence against it, but science generally works on the basis that theories need to be proved before they are regarded as correct.

The majority of evidence around the subject is that face coverings in non clinical settings have little effect and might do more harm than good (as people don’t follow proper hygiene routines and abandon distancing), and indeed that was the established consensus of the scientific community up until a few months ago. This is a new virus, but it’s a new version of an existing type of virus, which is pretty well understood.

The government has told us “the science has changed”, but hasn’t told us what this new evidence is, so it’s reasonable to assume that’s just yet another lie. Furthermore masks were mandated at a time when little else changed, and yet there seems to have been very little change in infection rates as a result.

 

[WM Bus]

Just noticed this on NX West Midlands facebook page.

Well done mr bus driver....
Refused to let my 17 year old on the bus even though she had her sunflower lanyard on with exempt card and badge explaining she can't/doesn't have to wear a mask, and he refused to let her on as she didn't 'Look' autistic.
I could understand if she was just someone trying to push their luck but she explained to him why she can't due to sensory issues. But he let others on with masks sitting under their noses (which is as good as not wearing one)

Facebook

www.facebook.com

 

[43066]

Just noticed this on NX West Midlands facebook page.

Facebook

www.facebook.com

Absolutely disgusting, and I sincerely hope he gets fired.

 

[py_megapixel]

Mandating the wearing of a face covering when it has not been proven that they are effective,

How do you want to prove that they are, or are not, effective?

issuing fines for non-compliance, mistreating people who are exempt, making people feel excluded from society... these are seriously authoritarian measures

These bits, I do not agree with (except possibly the fines for non-compliance, but the way they're being used now is way out of proportion). It is horrible that people are being excluded from society because of this.

However this is not a problem with masks at all, rather the way they're used. Claimign that masks are bad because they are used in a discriminatory way, is like buying petrol and complaining when it damages the fuel pump in a diesel car.

I don't think it is fair to say that authoritarian measures should be introduced on the basis that "you cannot prove they are not effective"; it is a very dangerous path to take. Where do you draw the line?

You'll have to just believe me on this, but if these measures had suddenly been introduced in, say, 2015, on the grounds that they would save thousands of people from the yearly influenza, then I would be incredibly annoyed.

However, this is a completely different situation to that. There is a clear reason for the introduction of masks, and I would have thought plenty of people ready to protest if the measures remain longer than the pandemic. But for now, much of society believes masks are a good idea (I've had a family member who I don't live with state that they'd prefer me to wear one in their car, which I did, for example, and I haven't really encountered anyone with more than a mild objection to wearing one due to the hassle of carrying it around) and so they will stay.

Furthermore masks were mandated at a time when little else changed, and yet there seems to have been very little change in infection rates as a result.

Possibly because masks were mandated at roughly the same time as the reopening of various venues where there is a significant chance of spreading.
Correlation (or lack thereof) doesn't always mean causation (or lack thereof).

Refused to let my 17 year old on the bus even though she had her sunflower lanyard on with exempt card and badge explaining she can't/doesn't have to wear a mask, and he refused to let her on as she didn't 'Look' autistic.

Oh not this kind of crap. Why do so many people not understand that people don't "look autistic"? And it's not just autistic spectrum disorders, there are plenty of other "invisible disabilities" as they're often called, which you would be unlikely to see at a glance. I hope that bus driver is fired, though I doubt anything will actually be done about it.

Frankly this should be an essential part of training for anyone in a customer-facing role.

</rant>

The below is generic and not specifically addressed at the members quoted above

There seem to be two self-contradictory, but commonly held nevertheless, points of view here.

1) That the idea of trying to quell the spread is silly and we should all go back to life as normal
2) Mask wearing, test & trace etc. are all authoritarian measures which have no place in society.

The truth is that for many people - including to some extent myself, and to a much greater extent many others, including members of my own family, find that the measures I mentioned in point 2 make them feel safer doing point 1. In this case, surely believers in point 1 should encourage the measures in point 2, as it makes society more confident in "life as normal"?

 

[yorkie]

.... Claimign that masks are bad ....

I am not claiming that.

1) That the idea of trying to quell the spread is silly and we should all go back to life as normal
2) Mask wearing, test & trace etc. are all authoritarian measures which have no place in society.

These are not my views either.

The truth is that for many people..... make them feel safer ...

If you are saying the purpose of mandating masks is to make some people feel safer, you are right, I agree that is indeed the reason, as far as I can see. If you are not saying that, then apologies; feel free to elaborate.