UK face coverings discussion

[py_megapixel]

These are not my views either.

As I noted, that part was a defacto separate post, not specifically addressed at you (usually I'd put it separately but the forum software automerges these days anyway)

If you are saying the purpose of mandating masks is to make some people feel safer, you are right,

That is correct.
I get the impression that it's a majority of people that feel safer with mask-wearing, and that's why it probably makes sense to stay.
Personally I would be in favour of making it something along the lines of "strongly encouraged" rather than mandatory, but still...

 

[DB]

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

Some actual scientific studies which demonstrate it would be one way - but there aren't any: only those which are 'meta-analyses' of studies in healthcare settings, and they then claim that the same conclusions apply despite the massive differences. Alternatively, some stats which show a clear reduction in infections coinciding exactly with mask mandates - but despite the number of countries which have mandated masks, there are no such studies ther than from one city in Germany, where the masks were introduced alongside other very stringent measures, so it doesn't really prove anything. There are a number of examples, including this country, whee masks mandates didn't coincide with any other major changes, and there is no measureable result at all.

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.

Of course it's a problem with masks - it was always inevitable that this would be the outcome as that's just what happens. If soeone puts petrol in their diesel car that is only going to affect them - they aren't going to have members of the public coming up to them and demanding to know why they've done it, or get a hassled by the cashier in the petrol station. With masks a mandate was always going to lead to confrontations.

However, this is a completely different situation to that.

Except it's not - it's increasingly looking like this may end up being not a lot worse than a bad flu year

There is a clear reason for the introduction of masks,

No there isn't - there is no actual evidence that they work, and 'well, they might make some difference but there's no evidence for this' is not a 'clear reason'.

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.

Well, there are certainly plenty who do object, even if you've not encountered them,

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).

They were mandated a bit afterwards, meaning that any benefit should have been measureable. Nothing was observed.

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.

But this should not be about making people 'feel safer' - claiming that the masks make a difference, in order to try to calm the paranoia caused by months of government doom-mongering, is exceptionally bad policy - and all it does is reinforce the sense of danger and create a vicious circle where masks are demanded in more and more places by a loud minority. The correct way to deal with it is to try to get back to normal - and a highly visible step such as enforced masking is the antithesis of normal.

 

[yorkie]

As I noted, that part was a defacto separate post, not specifically addressed at you (usually I'd put it separately but the forum software automerges these days anyway)

Sorry I should probably have worded my post differently; I do not think these are commonly held views on this forum.

Regarding the first one I think most people think certain aspects of life should go back to normal but I doubt anyone thinks things should completely go back to normal.

Regarding the second point, I do not think anyone thinks "mask wearing" itself is an authoritarian measure but the mandating of it is; I am not convinced it's a commonly held view that track & trace is by itself authoritarian in principle, but our application of it is a cause for concern but I am not going to go into detail on this thread as this is the face coverings thread.

That is correct.
I get the impression that it's a majority of people that feel safer with mask-wearing, and that's why it probably makes sense to stay.
Personally I would be in favour of making it something along the lines of "strongly encouraged" rather than mandatory, but still...

I get the impression it's a minority of people but it is a majority of shouty people who make themselves heard. If the majority of people are for mandatory mask wearing in your workplace, I'd be curious to hear what sector this is in?

 

[bramling]

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.

That would all be well and good if masks were a shot to nothing. The problem is they aren’t - there’s a number of negatives associated with them. The whole thing is putting people at risk of conflict, even now potential workplace violence (my place has now had to take steps to mitigate against this), as well as for the possibility that masks actually do more harm than good by transferring germs to the face which wouldn’t otherwise have got there.

Much as I hate them if these negative consequences didn’t exist then I’d just about be prepared to give it a go. However with all these issues, which are real not unproven, for me that tips the scales firmly the other way.

I am not claiming that.

These are not my views either.

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.

The notion of *feeling* safer is a very dubious one. At some point these people are going to have to get used to seeing faces again.

 

[43066]

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.

Can you elaborate on what you mean there? The objection is that those who are unable to wear masks due to physical or mental health reasons are treated less favourably and/or shunned altogether as a result of their mandation. This is a significant downside to a measure which has no demonstrable upside

(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.

Out of interest, what was the reason for that? Presumably they think it makes transmission less likely, but the lack of evidence of that makes it a somewhat irrational belief (with all due respect to your family member!).

Most people I know who are going along are doing it to avoid confrontation or because they don’t want to break the law, rather than because they genuinely think it has any benefit.

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).

The mask mandation was introduced a few weeks before significant numbers began to return to work IIRC (this point was demonstrated upthread).

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.

I don’t see how those views are contradictory. Many people, myself included, are of the view that, given that the virus cannot be eliminated, we need to get in with things. That doesn’t necessarily mean allowing completely uncontrolled spread, but at least opening up to a greater extent than we have, and accepting that will sadly cause more Covid deaths.

I don’t think it’s controversial to regard
many of the measures that haven been introduced as extremely authoritarian, and indeed far more authoritarian than anything that has been seen in this country in living memory.

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"?

That’s an irrational viewpoint because those who aren’t vulnerable are just as “safe” from this virus as they are doing many other every day activities. The problem is that many people behave irrationally when it comes to their health and are extremely poor at assessing risk. Sunak’S recent comment that we need to learn to live “without fear” were bang on.

I certainly do not believe we should all be mandated to wear masks just to assuage some peoples’ irrational fears, as I suspect is the real motive behind the policy (and if it is the government should be more honest about that).

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

I’m in complete agreement with you here.

 

[py_megapixel]

I don't think there's a huge amount of point in me going through and responding individually to everyone who responded to my original post, namely @bramling, @yorkie, @DavidB and @43066, as they make fairly similar points. However, I do have some further comments to make:

I am not really in favour of a mask mandation (slight change in my opinion from a while ago), however I don't believe masks are bad, per-se. Advising that they are worn would be an entirely proportionate measure. However, the equality issues must be addressed. In my opinion, challenging someone not wearing a mask should not be considered acceptable, especially more than once. It's humiliating for those who have a genuine reason not to.

I don't believe the aforementioned equality issues are a problem with the masks themselves. Rather, the masks have brought out many of the underlying stigmas in society, that many people thought were close to elimination, and which have since transpired not to be - for example, the expectation that someone with a condition requring specific support will be easily identifiable. Of course removing the mask requirement would be a good start to eliminating these, but ultimately it's like putting a sticky plaster on a broken leg. The societal issues will still remain, ready to rear their ugly heads as soon as anything else unusual happens.

As for the actual effectiveness of masks, we really need a proper scientific study on this. But it's unclear how one could happen. Infect a load of people with Covid, have them cough on others, and then measure the success rate of the masks? Doesn't sound particularly humane to me.

 

[DB]

As for the actual effectiveness of masks, we really need a proper scientific study on this. But it's unclear how one could happen. Infect a load of people with Covid, have them cough on others, and then measure the success rate of the masks? Doesn't sound particularly humane to me.

It's probably going to be impossible to do a study now, but if they worked to any extent there would be circumstantial evidence by now - and there simply isn't any.

 

[43066]

I don't think there's a huge amount of point in me going through and responding individually to everyone who responded to my original post, namely @bramling, @yorkie, @DavidB and @43066, as they make fairly similar points. However, I do have some further comments to make:

I am not really in favour of a mask mandation (slight change in my opinion from a while ago), however I don't believe masks are bad, per-se. Advising that they are worn would be an entirely proportionate measure. However, the equality issues must be addressed. In my opinion, challenging someone not wearing a mask should not be considered acceptable, especially more than once. It's humiliating for those who have a genuine reason not to.

I don't believe the aforementioned equality issues are a problem with the masks themselves. Rather, the masks have brought out many of the underlying stigmas in society, that many people thought were close to elimination, and which have since transpired not to be - for example, the expectation that someone with a condition requring specific support will be easily identifiable. Of course removing the mask requirement would be a good start to eliminating these, but ultimately it's like putting a sticky plaster on a broken leg. The societal issues will still remain, ready to rear their ugly heads as soon as anything else unusual happens.

As for the actual effectiveness of masks, we really need a proper scientific study on this. But it's unclear how one could happen. Infect a load of people with Covid, have them cough on others, and then measure the success rate of the masks? Doesn't sound particularly humane to me.

I actually agree with much of the above. Out of interest, what has caused you to alter your view on mandation?

I’d be a lot more comfortable with a recommendation rather than a mandation. That would also tie in better with the “might make a difference, but we aren’t sure” nature of masks.

It would also deal with making people “feel safe” which, even if it is irrational, is a good thing if it persuades people to come out and start spending money again. I’m convinced that many people who wear masks do so because they believe it somehow makes them safer. I suppose a the mask is seen as a physical barrier between them and the virus.

The trouble is any relaxation of the mandation requirement would mean the government having to admit they got something wrong (or at least jumped the gun), so I’m afraid we will be stuck with them for the foreseeable.

 

[yorkie]

I am not really in favour of a mask mandation (slight change in my opinion from a while ago), however I don't believe masks are bad, per-se. Advising that they are worn would be an entirely proportionate measure. However, the equality issues must be addressed. In my opinion, challenging someone not wearing a mask should not be considered acceptable....

I don't think our views are that different actually

 

[Yew]

Of course removing the mask requirement would be a good start to eliminating these, but ultimately it's like putting a sticky plaster on a broken leg. The societal issues will still remain, ready to rear their ugly heads as soon as anything else unusual happens.

By that logic, why bother doing anything?

 

[Skimpot flyer]

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 be introduced when it has not been proved effective, and ‘potentially does more harm than good’* is frankly laughable in the scenario of a fast-moving pandemic.
* repeated frequently by Jenny Harries, Deputy Chief Medical Officer... until she was leaned on to get ‘on message’ if she had ambitions to become Chief Medical Officer

 

[Bikeman78]

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

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

So anyone under 11 that can ride a bike isn't exempt?

 

[43066]

So anyone under 11 that can ride a bike isn't exempt?

That’s yet another egregious example of railway staff on a power trip behaving absolutely appallingly. Sadly there have been far too many similar examples recently. The number of times I’ve heard guards on my trains making incorrect announcements, stating people need to display exemption certificates etc.

At times I’ve been very tempted to chime in with PA announcements of my own contradicting them: “This is your driver speaking, unfortunately what you’ve just been told by our ignorant guard is incorrect, you don’t need an exemption certificate etc.” But that wouldn’t be a smart move. That’s fair enough, to an extent, because passenger announcements are their domain, and I certainly don’t want them to be mine, but it winds me up no end when I hear factually incorrect announcements being made.

As a side note, full credit to that Twitter poster for calling it out. I hope it’s not out of line to mention that he was previously a fairly prolific contributor to this forum (I won’t mention his handle), who was generally bang on in his postings, and is sadly missed.

 

[Bantamzen]

I don't think there's a huge amount of point in me going through and responding individually to everyone who responded to my original post, namely @bramling, @yorkie, @DavidB and @43066, as they make fairly similar points. However, I do have some further comments to make:

I am not really in favour of a mask mandation (slight change in my opinion from a while ago), however I don't believe masks are bad, per-se. Advising that they are worn would be an entirely proportionate measure. However, the equality issues must be addressed. In my opinion, challenging someone not wearing a mask should not be considered acceptable, especially more than once. It's humiliating for those who have a genuine reason not to.

I don't believe the aforementioned equality issues are a problem with the masks themselves. Rather, the masks have brought out many of the underlying stigmas in society, that many people thought were close to elimination, and which have since transpired not to be - for example, the expectation that someone with a condition requring specific support will be easily identifiable. Of course removing the mask requirement would be a good start to eliminating these, but ultimately it's like putting a sticky plaster on a broken leg. The societal issues will still remain, ready to rear their ugly heads as soon as anything else unusual happens.

As for the actual effectiveness of masks, we really need a proper scientific study on this. But it's unclear how one could happen. Infect a load of people with Covid, have them cough on others, and then measure the success rate of the masks? Doesn't sound particularly humane to me.

Part of the problem with mandating is that politicians hide behind the science, even though in reality there is little to back up their claims. Politicians often now point to the "growing evidence" of the effectiveness of masks, yet offer nothing new to back that up. Indeed the more widespread mask us becomes, the less effective they at least appear to be. And there are even dissenting voices coming out of the medical and scientific communities. However what purpose they might serve is a way to shift blame, so if the infection continues to spread (and it will) they can just mandate mask wearing in more & more places, as has already happened in pubs and restaurants.

 

[py_megapixel]

I actually agree with much of the above. Out of interest, what has caused you to alter your view on mandation?

The fact that I've seen how intolerant people are to those with genuine exemptions not wearing them (and for the record - no, people don't always "look autistic", and yes, there are plenty of people who can ride a bike but not wear a mask). I assumed - perhaps naively - that in such difficult times, people would have better things to do than harass people for not wearing a mask, but it seems the Karen brigade are as active as ever.

The other factor is my complete loss of trust in this government. It was already in sharp decline when the masks came in, but at that point there still seemed to be a small amount of having peoples' interests at heart. Now that is entirely gone.
My opinion of them went from "Yes they're stupid - no, Boris Johnson isn't fit to be Prime Minister - but they are introducing measures with a view to keeping the population a little safer" a few months ago to "They are entirely incompetent and don't have a clue what they are talking about" now.

 

[Huntergreed]

The fact that I've seen how intolerant people are to those with genuine exemptions not wearing them (and for the record - no, people don't always "look autistic", and yes, there are plenty of people who can ride a bike but not wear a mask). I assumed - perhaps naively - that in such difficult times, people would have better things to do than harass people for not wearing a mask, but it seems the Karen brigade are as active as ever.

The other factor is my complete loss of trust in this government. It was already in sharp decline when the masks came in, but at that point there still seemed to be a small amount of having peoples' interests at heart. Now that is entirely gone.
My opinion of them went from "Yes they're stupid - no, Boris Johnson isn't fit to be Prime Minister - but they are introducing measures with a view to keeping the population a little safer" a few months ago to "They are entirely incompetent and don't have a clue what they are talking about" now.

I have respect for the fact you’re able to change your opinion/stance like that, as many people are very one-sided and will not. I think that’s a very rational and logical viewpoint to take and one which most of us share on here.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have respect for the fact you’re able to change your opinion/stance like that, as many people are very one-sided and will not. I think that’s a very rational and logical viewpoint to take and one which most of us share on here.

I'm heading that way, but to me the key reason not to go "all the way" is that masks (other than N95s) are believed to help others, and so that isn't a matter for personal choice. If they helped the individual, I would fully agree - I oppose for example cycle helmet legislation for that reason, even though I do wear one myself.

 

[Huntergreed]

I'm heading that way, but to me the key reason not to go "all the way" is that masks (other than N95s) are believed to help others, and so that isn't a matter for personal choice. If they helped the individual, I would fully agree - I oppose for example cycle helmet legislation for that reason, even though I do wear one myself.

I think that's also very fair enough.

The problem I have with them is the way they were mandated without any proof/evidence shown whatsoever. If there was clear proof that they would reduce spread (or indeed reduce viral load) I would support their use (at least, I would support their use given our current strategy, which I think is wrong, but that is beside the point).

The main issue I have with the mandate is the way it's been done. Self-appointed vigilantes are harassing those with invisible physical and mental health conditions is just so so wrong, as is the constant harassment for 'exemption certificates' by staff members in various industries. If the mandate was slightly less aggressive/authoritarian in these ways I don't think it would be so bad.

 

[bramling]

That’s yet another egregious example of railway staff on a power trip behaving absolutely appallingly. Sadly there have been far too many similar examples recently. The number of times I’ve heard guards on my trains making incorrect announcements, stating people need to display exemption certificates etc.

At times I’ve been very tempted to chime in with PA announcements of my own contradicting them: “This is your driver speaking, unfortunately what you’ve just been told by our ignorant guard is incorrect, you don’t need an exemption certificate etc.” But that wouldn’t be a smart move. That’s fair enough, to an extent, because passenger announcements are their domain, and I certainly don’t want them to be mine, but it winds me up no end when I hear factually incorrect announcements being made.

As a side note, full credit to that Twitter poster for calling it out. I hope it’s not out of line to mention that he was previously a fairly prolific contributor to this forum (I won’t mention his handle), who was generally bang on in his postings, and is sadly missed.

The Underground has now put out PA scripts (there’s no problem on the Underground which can’t be solved by an announcement, it seems!). The script mentions exemptions, but then ends with “it’s there to protect us all”. That I find utterly inflammatory, as it’s just encouraging people to turn on those not in a mask, exempt or otherwise.

It seems revenue are indeed now being deployed on mask inspections. One wonders what measures have been taken to protect their own safety - since people devoid of masks are clearly *so* dangerous, is it really appropriate for such staff to be approaching and remonstrating with such people at close range?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The main issue I have with the mandate is the way it's been done. Self-appointed vigilantes are harassing those with invisible physical and mental health conditions is just so so wrong, as is the constant harassment for 'exemption certificates' by staff members in various industries. If the mandate was slightly less aggressive/authoritarian in these ways I don't think it would be so bad.

Or (and we'll possibly disagree here) a process was in place to obtain an exemption certificate.

 

[Huntergreed]

Or (and we'll possibly disagree here) a process was in place to obtain an exemption certificate.

I can see how this would work for physical health conditions, however, I cannot see it working for:

• People who have trauma surrounding past experiences of their faces being covered
• People with mental health conditions (ie 'severe distress') caused or worsened by the wearing of face coverings
• Those who can wear face coverings for a short period, but not for, say, a 5-hour train journey.
• Those who have no known hidden disability/health condition but that find it difficult (painful/hard to breathe etc) wearing a face covering.

 

[Bantamzen]

I can see how this would work for physical health conditions, however, I cannot see it working for:

• People who have trauma surrounding past experiences of their faces being covered
• People with mental health conditions (ie 'severe distress') caused or worsened by the wearing of face coverings
• Those who can wear face coverings for a short period, but not for, say, a 5-hour train journey.
• Those who have no known hidden disability/health condition but that find it difficult (painful/hard to breathe etc) wearing a face covering.

Also worth noting that there will be an increasing strain on a GP network still not fully operational (as my better half is continuing to find out) as we approach winter. We shouldn't need GPs to authorise exemptions, it should be the authoritarians and busybodies that need to learn to back off.

 

[kristiang85]

I don't understand what those staff asking for exemption certificates expect to be given, considering these certificates don't exist? Somebody can just make up any old piece of paper and be accepted, even though that's exactly the same as just saying "I am exempt".

 

[DB]

I don't understand what those staff asking for exemption certificates expect to be given, considering these certificates don't exist? Somebody can just make up any old piece of paper and be accepted, even though that's exactly the same as just saying "I am exempt".

In some cases the main aim seems to be to belittle and humiliate people.

This situation has really brought out the nasty side of some people.

 

[Yew]

In some cases the main aim seems to be to belittle and humiliate people.

This situation has really brought out the nasty side of some people.

Noticably worse, I've found, since the staff of many places have been mandated to wear them.

 

[island]

I was instructed to put a mask on on the (outdoor) platforms at St. Erth station this morning by someone who was apparently a member of GWR staff.

I replied “they aren’t required outdoors” and she said “they are, I’m afraid, on the platform”. I ignored her and walked away (without putting a face covering on), and nothing else happened.

 

[py_megapixel]

I have respect for the fact you’re able to change your opinion/stance like that, as many people are very one-sided and will not

I agree about the one-sidedness, unfortunately.

I will continue to wear a mask, as I don't find it all that unpleasant, and I'd still suggest that others should do so if they don't mind it, but honestly I'm sick to death of this government, and as such have progressively more sympathy for those who would prefer not to.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I will continue to wear a mask, as I don't find it all that unpleasant, and I'd still suggest that others should do so if they don't mind it, but honestly I'm sick to death of this government, and as such have progressively more sympathy for those who would prefer not to.

I am very much heading that way in terms of the Government, though in my quite strong view one major failing was failure to put in place a proper exemption process prior to introducing the rule (they had since March to design one on the basis that they might want it) which has caused endless harm.

 

[Scrotnig]

Self-appointed vigilantes

Strictly speaking they were appointed by the Met police who encouraged people to 'shame others into wearing masks'. Nice.

 

[Mag_seven]

I don't know if it related but since mask wearing became mandatory, I have been experiencing more niggling mouth ulcers than I can ever remember!