Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The decision to make mask wearing in shops compulsory dominate

SystemSystem Posts: 11,020
edited July 2020 in General
imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The decision to make mask wearing in shops compulsory dominates the front pages

So the decision has last been made that shoppers in England should be forced by law to wear masks in shops but not till July 24th. Like other elements in Britain’s attempt to to contain the pandemic the big political issue has been on the timing. Should this have been brought in earlier?

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • Options
    state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,417
    edited July 2020
    Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190

    Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out

    Yes, we know for a fact that masks aren't necessary for reducing cases of COVID-19.

    It could be that they're thinking that we need to get into the habit of wearing them ahead of the autumn. Pubs and restaurants could easily be shutdown again in October as a precautionary measure.

    I do think this is a killer for commuting, though. As long as masks are required on public transport, I think workers have every right to say they won't go to the office.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,735
    Im continually amazed by the low percentage of dont knows in opinion polling. On masks in shops there is a case either way, and the answer will depend on a detailed review of the science combined with economic modelling. Surely the right answer for the vast majority is dont know and will follow the guidance?
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,375
    It is all a bit odd. Cynics might wonder if compulsory masks are a dead cat to distract the media from post-Brexit customs arrangements. At the very least, government messaging on Covid-19 has become less coherent. Is this because SAGE and PHE are less prominent? Shifting science on airborne transmission would indeed seem to favour masks but, I don't know, the government's recent steps all seem a bit arbitrary. I doubt Boris's face will be covered for PMQs.
  • Options
    alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    edited July 2020
    This latest measure applies to just in shops and I wonder whether it will spill over into most aspects of life outside the home. It is a bit of a faff getting masks on and off so if you are going shopping you’ll probably wear it all the time
    Have you left the house yet Mike? Because regardless of the merits or otherwise of the new measure I think all observation based experience of people’s approach when needing to wear masks is that the above is absolutely not true. Most people don’t like wearing masks, and will remove them at the first opportunity. Maybe it’s different in Bedford.

  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190
    So who will be the first politician caught breaking this law? And will they resign?
  • Options
    state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,417
    edited July 2020
    tlg86 said:

    So who will be the first politician caught breaking this law? And will they resign?

    that is a good point , as we have seen the GBP dont like hypocrites. Decision makers in this need to be careful . If they impose something so depressing as this they need to share the misery or they are gone
  • Options
    MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    edited July 2020
    alex_ said:

    This latest measure applies to just in shops and I wonder whether it will spill over into most aspects of life outside the home. It is a bit of a faff getting masks on and off so if you are going shopping you’ll probably wear it all the time

    Have you left the house yet Mike? Because regardless of the merits or otherwise of the new measure I think all observation based experience of people’s approach when needing to wear masks is that the above is absolutely not true. Most people don’t like wearing masks, and will remove them at the first opportunity. Maybe it’s different in Bedford.

    Every day I go for cycle ride of about an hour (now wearing a mask) and I am just reporting what I notice
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,987
    tlg86 said:

    Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out

    Yes, we know for a fact that masks aren't necessary for reducing cases of COVID-19.

    It could be that they're thinking that we need to get into the habit of wearing them ahead of the autumn. Pubs and restaurants could easily be shutdown again in October as a precautionary measure.

    I do think this is a killer for commuting, though. As long as masks are required on public transport, I think workers have every right to say they won't go to the office.
    This is clearly some new meaning of the word "fact" that I was previously unaware of.
  • Options
    state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,417
    alex_ said:

    This latest measure applies to just in shops and I wonder whether it will spill over into most aspects of life outside the home. It is a bit of a faff getting masks on and off so if you are going shopping you’ll probably wear it all the time

    Have you left the house yet Mike? Because regardless of the merits or otherwise of the new measure I think all observation based experience of people’s approach when needing to wear masks is that the above is absolutely not true. Most people don’t like wearing masks, and will remove them at the first opportunity. Maybe it’s different in Bedford.
    and if you are removing them and then putting them back on they are at best ineffective and probably spreading germs more. This is such a stupid policy that it beggars belief so many people are happy with it
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,926
    But is this another pandemic measure that should have been brought in earlier?

    Probably. Unlike a restriction on travelling to and from say France it does make sense to bring it in now mind.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,735
    Pulpstar said:

    But is this another pandemic measure that should have been brought in earlier?

    Probably. Unlike a restriction on travelling to and from say France it does make sense to bring it in now mind.

    The argument that it should have been done earlier so cant be done now is as robust as over 75s should get a free tv license mainly because they have had one in the past. We are not tied to the past and are allowed to change things for the better!
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,611

    alex_ said:

    This latest measure applies to just in shops and I wonder whether it will spill over into most aspects of life outside the home. It is a bit of a faff getting masks on and off so if you are going shopping you’ll probably wear it all the time

    Have you left the house yet Mike? Because regardless of the merits or otherwise of the new measure I think all observation based experience of people’s approach when needing to wear masks is that the above is absolutely not true. Most people don’t like wearing masks, and will remove them at the first opportunity. Maybe it’s different in Bedford.
    and if you are removing them and then putting them back on they are at best ineffective and probably spreading germs more. This is such a stupid policy that it beggars belief so many people are happy with it
    Yes, fiddling with masks by taking them on and off constantly with contaminated hands, particularly fiddling with the nose bit is likely to contaminate more.

    It takes time to adapt to the no touch techniques that professional mask wearers adopt. Micropore along the top, change every few hours, dispose of properly, wash hands or sanitise whenever handling them etc. I have got used to it over the decades.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,329

    Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out

    Couldn't agree more.

    The issue with Covid-19 is what happens behind the scenes in textile and meat factories and care homes (not this).

    I think this isn't about the science. It's the Government gambling it will increase consumer confidence to go out to boost the economy.

    I must say I have my doubts about that.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,735
    Foxy said:

    alex_ said:

    This latest measure applies to just in shops and I wonder whether it will spill over into most aspects of life outside the home. It is a bit of a faff getting masks on and off so if you are going shopping you’ll probably wear it all the time

    Have you left the house yet Mike? Because regardless of the merits or otherwise of the new measure I think all observation based experience of people’s approach when needing to wear masks is that the above is absolutely not true. Most people don’t like wearing masks, and will remove them at the first opportunity. Maybe it’s different in Bedford.
    and if you are removing them and then putting them back on they are at best ineffective and probably spreading germs more. This is such a stupid policy that it beggars belief so many people are happy with it
    Yes, fiddling with masks by taking them on and off constantly with contaminated hands, particularly fiddling with the nose bit is likely to contaminate more.

    It takes time to adapt to the no touch techniques that professional mask wearers adopt. Micropore along the top, change every few hours, dispose of properly, wash hands or sanitise whenever handling them etc. I have got used to it over the decades.
    Went on the tube for first time since lockdown yesterday.

    Had N95 mask, used hand gel on hands before putting on and taking off, no adjusting or touching whilst on was needed, put away in resealable food bag. Re-used for return journey and plan to re-use a half dozen times again. Is the re-use part terrible?
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,329

    Pulpstar said:

    But is this another pandemic measure that should have been brought in earlier?

    Probably. Unlike a restriction on travelling to and from say France it does make sense to bring it in now mind.

    The argument that it should have been done earlier so cant be done now is as robust as over 75s should get a free tv license mainly because they have had one in the past. We are not tied to the past and are allowed to change things for the better!
    This is not a change for the better.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,329

    alex_ said:

    This latest measure applies to just in shops and I wonder whether it will spill over into most aspects of life outside the home. It is a bit of a faff getting masks on and off so if you are going shopping you’ll probably wear it all the time

    Have you left the house yet Mike? Because regardless of the merits or otherwise of the new measure I think all observation based experience of people’s approach when needing to wear masks is that the above is absolutely not true. Most people don’t like wearing masks, and will remove them at the first opportunity. Maybe it’s different in Bedford.

    Every day I go for cycle ride of about an hour (now wearing a mask) and I am just reporting what I notice
    Why would you do that?

    You must be the only one. I don't see any cyclists wearing a mask - and nor do I think they need to.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,735

    Pulpstar said:

    But is this another pandemic measure that should have been brought in earlier?

    Probably. Unlike a restriction on travelling to and from say France it does make sense to bring it in now mind.

    The argument that it should have been done earlier so cant be done now is as robust as over 75s should get a free tv license mainly because they have had one in the past. We are not tied to the past and are allowed to change things for the better!
    This is not a change for the better.
    Perfectly fine to argue that, its just some are arguing we shouldnt do it now simply because we didnt do it earlier, that makes no sense. I can see both sides on face masks, its complex and therefore happy for the govt to make the decision for me. There are definitely disadvantages to the policy as well as definite advantages.
  • Options
    alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518

    Foxy said:

    alex_ said:

    This latest measure applies to just in shops and I wonder whether it will spill over into most aspects of life outside the home. It is a bit of a faff getting masks on and off so if you are going shopping you’ll probably wear it all the time

    Have you left the house yet Mike? Because regardless of the merits or otherwise of the new measure I think all observation based experience of people’s approach when needing to wear masks is that the above is absolutely not true. Most people don’t like wearing masks, and will remove them at the first opportunity. Maybe it’s different in Bedford.
    and if you are removing them and then putting them back on they are at best ineffective and probably spreading germs more. This is such a stupid policy that it beggars belief so many people are happy with it
    Yes, fiddling with masks by taking them on and off constantly with contaminated hands, particularly fiddling with the nose bit is likely to contaminate more.

    It takes time to adapt to the no touch techniques that professional mask wearers adopt. Micropore along the top, change every few hours, dispose of properly, wash hands or sanitise whenever handling them etc. I have got used to it over the decades.
    Went on the tube for first time since lockdown yesterday.

    Had N95 mask, used hand gel on hands before putting on and taking off, no adjusting or touching whilst on was needed, put away in resealable food bag. Re-used for return journey and plan to re-use a half dozen times again. Is the re-use part terrible?
    People won’t care whether they are using masks properly, reusing non-reusable masks etc etc. They (mostly) will do what they are required to do to comply with the law, and that’s it.

    People like RCS were speculating that encouraging/mandating mask use made great sense economically if combined with other loosening measures like reducing guidance on 2m distancing etc. But is there any indication of that at all from the Govt? I’m not seeing that. Which does adds to the view that this is just govt by opinion poll, there no real coherent planning behind it at all.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,329

    Pulpstar said:

    But is this another pandemic measure that should have been brought in earlier?

    Probably. Unlike a restriction on travelling to and from say France it does make sense to bring it in now mind.

    The argument that it should have been done earlier so cant be done now is as robust as over 75s should get a free tv license mainly because they have had one in the past. We are not tied to the past and are allowed to change things for the better!
    This is not a change for the better.
    Perfectly fine to argue that, its just some are arguing we shouldnt do it now simply because we didnt do it earlier, that makes no sense. I can see both sides on face masks, its complex and therefore happy for the govt to make the decision for me. There are definitely disadvantages to the policy as well as definite advantages.
    I'm happy that you're happy but I'm not. I think masks are a terrible and depressing development.

    I will challenge and test Government policy at all times.

    I hope you do too.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190
    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out

    Yes, we know for a fact that masks aren't necessary for reducing cases of COVID-19.

    It could be that they're thinking that we need to get into the habit of wearing them ahead of the autumn. Pubs and restaurants could easily be shutdown again in October as a precautionary measure.

    I do think this is a killer for commuting, though. As long as masks are required on public transport, I think workers have every right to say they won't go to the office.
    This is clearly some new meaning of the word "fact" that I was previously unaware of.
    We reduced the number of COVID-19 cases without this measure:

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

    That is a fact.

    Now, it might be that we'd have reduced them further with masks, or perhaps to get them down even more we need to be wearing masks.

    But I'd be interested to know what the aim is. Clearly eradication is not the aim as we're resuming international travel. So why do we need to go even further to suppress cases when it appears to be pretty low at the moment and the NHS is coping well?

    As I said, it might be with a view to the autumn and winter, but right now I'm struggling to see the logic behind this.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,611

    Foxy said:

    alex_ said:

    This latest measure applies to just in shops and I wonder whether it will spill over into most aspects of life outside the home. It is a bit of a faff getting masks on and off so if you are going shopping you’ll probably wear it all the time

    Have you left the house yet Mike? Because regardless of the merits or otherwise of the new measure I think all observation based experience of people’s approach when needing to wear masks is that the above is absolutely not true. Most people don’t like wearing masks, and will remove them at the first opportunity. Maybe it’s different in Bedford.
    and if you are removing them and then putting them back on they are at best ineffective and probably spreading germs more. This is such a stupid policy that it beggars belief so many people are happy with it
    Yes, fiddling with masks by taking them on and off constantly with contaminated hands, particularly fiddling with the nose bit is likely to contaminate more.

    It takes time to adapt to the no touch techniques that professional mask wearers adopt. Micropore along the top, change every few hours, dispose of properly, wash hands or sanitise whenever handling them etc. I have got used to it over the decades.
    Went on the tube for first time since lockdown yesterday.

    Had N95 mask, used hand gel on hands before putting on and taking off, no adjusting or touching whilst on was needed, put away in resealable food bag. Re-used for return journey and plan to re-use a half dozen times again. Is the re-use part terrible?
    I think reuse is inevitable, due to the limited supply of masks. I would suggest storing them in a hot dry environment such as an airing cupboard for 72 hours before reusing. Dessicated heat is bad for the virus.
  • Options
    eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,891
    edited July 2020
    alex said:

    This latest measure applies to just in shops and I wonder whether it will spill over into most aspects of life outside the home. It is a bit of a faff getting masks on and off so if you are going shopping you’ll probably wear it all the time

    Have you left the house yet Mike? Because regardless of the merits or otherwise of the new measure I think all observation based experience of people’s approach when needing to wear masks is that the above is absolutely not true. Most people don’t like wearing masks, and will remove them at the first opportunity. Maybe it’s different in Bedford.

    You quickly learn how to easily put the masks on and take them off again. IThe general pracatice here in Berlin is when walking between shops, the mask stays on, but when walking to somewhere then the mask is off, unless it's very crowded. The pavements here, though, are luxuriosly wide, so it is easy to keep a good distance from pedestrians.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,735
    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out

    Yes, we know for a fact that masks aren't necessary for reducing cases of COVID-19.

    It could be that they're thinking that we need to get into the habit of wearing them ahead of the autumn. Pubs and restaurants could easily be shutdown again in October as a precautionary measure.

    I do think this is a killer for commuting, though. As long as masks are required on public transport, I think workers have every right to say they won't go to the office.
    This is clearly some new meaning of the word "fact" that I was previously unaware of.
    We reduced the number of COVID-19 cases without this measure:

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

    That is a fact.

    Now, it might be that we'd have reduced them further with masks, or perhaps to get them down even more we need to be wearing masks.

    But I'd be interested to know what the aim is. Clearly eradication is not the aim as we're resuming international travel. So why do we need to go even further to suppress cases when it appears to be pretty low at the moment and the NHS is coping well?

    As I said, it might be with a view to the autumn and winter, but right now I'm struggling to see the logic behind this.
    I think your last point is probably spot on. If global cases are still going up, we have international travel, people gradually get lax about social distancing, hygiene and restrictions, then it is hard to see how we avoid a second peak in the winter.
  • Options
    state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,417

    Pulpstar said:

    But is this another pandemic measure that should have been brought in earlier?

    Probably. Unlike a restriction on travelling to and from say France it does make sense to bring it in now mind.

    The argument that it should have been done earlier so cant be done now is as robust as over 75s should get a free tv license mainly because they have had one in the past. We are not tied to the past and are allowed to change things for the better!
    This is not a change for the better.
    Perfectly fine to argue that, its just some are arguing we shouldnt do it now simply because we didnt do it earlier, that makes no sense. I can see both sides on face masks, its complex and therefore happy for the govt to make the decision for me. There are definitely disadvantages to the policy as well as definite advantages.
    I'm happy that you're happy but I'm not. I think masks are a terrible and depressing development.

    I will challenge and test Government policy at all times.

    I hope you do too.
    Also the mess that mass use of masks will create is depressing ,littering the place and no doubt unhealthy. This is the worst decision of the covid 19 episode by the government. Illogical, illiberal and depressing.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,735

    Pulpstar said:

    But is this another pandemic measure that should have been brought in earlier?

    Probably. Unlike a restriction on travelling to and from say France it does make sense to bring it in now mind.

    The argument that it should have been done earlier so cant be done now is as robust as over 75s should get a free tv license mainly because they have had one in the past. We are not tied to the past and are allowed to change things for the better!
    This is not a change for the better.
    Perfectly fine to argue that, its just some are arguing we shouldnt do it now simply because we didnt do it earlier, that makes no sense. I can see both sides on face masks, its complex and therefore happy for the govt to make the decision for me. There are definitely disadvantages to the policy as well as definite advantages.
    I'm happy that you're happy but I'm not. I think masks are a terrible and depressing development.

    I will challenge and test Government policy at all times.

    I hope you do too.
    Wearing one is indeed a bit depressing. But its covid that is terrible, not the measures we need to manage it. Whether we need to do this or not, whether it is right to do this or not, is a balancing decision beyond most of our capability. It may even be beyond govt capability to get it right, but at least they are working on it full time with detailed advice and guidance that the public dont have.
  • Options
    eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,891
    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out

    Yes, we know for a fact that masks aren't necessary for reducing cases of COVID-19.

    It could be that they're thinking that we need to get into the habit of wearing them ahead of the autumn. Pubs and restaurants could easily be shutdown again in October as a precautionary measure.

    I do think this is a killer for commuting, though. As long as masks are required on public transport, I think workers have every right to say they won't go to the office.
    This is clearly some new meaning of the word "fact" that I was previously unaware of.
    We reduced the number of COVID-19 cases without this measure:

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

    That is a fact.

    Now, it might be that we'd have reduced them further with masks, or perhaps to get them down even more we need to be wearing masks.

    But I'd be interested to know what the aim is. Clearly eradication is not the aim as we're resuming international travel. So why do we need to go even further to suppress cases when it appears to be pretty low at the moment and the NHS is coping well?

    As I said, it might be with a view to the autumn and winter, but right now I'm struggling to see the logic behind this.
    You reduced the number of SARS-COV-2 cases by imposinng a fairly strict lockdown!

    Most people want that lockdown to be eased.

    If you want to keep the numbers down then you don't jump from lockdown straight to zero.

    Wearing masks in public spaces indoors helps. It might help avoid a second lockdown in your town.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 24,979

    Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out

    Couldn't agree more.

    The issue with Covid-19 is what happens behind the scenes in textile and meat factories and care homes (not this).

    I think this isn't about the science. It's the Government gambling it will increase consumer confidence to go out to boost the economy.

    I must say I have my doubts about that.
    Looks at the news about Kent and massive border controls - I wonder if the mask announcement hid another piece of news...
  • Options
    eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,891

    alex_ said:

    This latest measure applies to just in shops and I wonder whether it will spill over into most aspects of life outside the home. It is a bit of a faff getting masks on and off so if you are going shopping you’ll probably wear it all the time

    Have you left the house yet Mike? Because regardless of the merits or otherwise of the new measure I think all observation based experience of people’s approach when needing to wear masks is that the above is absolutely not true. Most people don’t like wearing masks, and will remove them at the first opportunity. Maybe it’s different in Bedford.

    Every day I go for cycle ride of about an hour (now wearing a mask) and I am just reporting what I notice
    Why would you do that?

    You must be the only one. I don't see any cyclists wearing a mask - and nor do I think they need to.
    I cycle without a mask. Even in the height of lockdown I didn't wear one. Just avoid pulling up alongside another cyclist at traffic lights and you'll well distanced from everone else.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190
    eristdoof said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out

    Yes, we know for a fact that masks aren't necessary for reducing cases of COVID-19.

    It could be that they're thinking that we need to get into the habit of wearing them ahead of the autumn. Pubs and restaurants could easily be shutdown again in October as a precautionary measure.

    I do think this is a killer for commuting, though. As long as masks are required on public transport, I think workers have every right to say they won't go to the office.
    This is clearly some new meaning of the word "fact" that I was previously unaware of.
    We reduced the number of COVID-19 cases without this measure:

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

    That is a fact.

    Now, it might be that we'd have reduced them further with masks, or perhaps to get them down even more we need to be wearing masks.

    But I'd be interested to know what the aim is. Clearly eradication is not the aim as we're resuming international travel. So why do we need to go even further to suppress cases when it appears to be pretty low at the moment and the NHS is coping well?

    As I said, it might be with a view to the autumn and winter, but right now I'm struggling to see the logic behind this.
    You reduced the number of SARS-COV-2 cases by imposinng a fairly strict lockdown!

    Most people want that lockdown to be eased.

    If you want to keep the numbers down then you don't jump from lockdown straight to zero.

    Wearing masks in public spaces indoors helps. It might help avoid a second lockdown in your town.
    That strict lockdown didn't stop people going into Sainsbury's!

    Of course, others have suggested that wearing masks can be combined with reducing social distancing. So perhaps another reason for getting this going now is to reduce the need for queuing outside in the autumn/winter.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,231
    The government is trying to cover something up?

    Pause.

    Ah, my deluxe PPE mask...
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 24,979
    edited July 2020

    Pulpstar said:

    But is this another pandemic measure that should have been brought in earlier?

    Probably. Unlike a restriction on travelling to and from say France it does make sense to bring it in now mind.

    The argument that it should have been done earlier so cant be done now is as robust as over 75s should get a free tv license mainly because they have had one in the past. We are not tied to the past and are allowed to change things for the better!
    This is not a change for the better.
    Perfectly fine to argue that, its just some are arguing we shouldnt do it now simply because we didnt do it earlier, that makes no sense. I can see both sides on face masks, its complex and therefore happy for the govt to make the decision for me. There are definitely disadvantages to the policy as well as definite advantages.
    I'm happy that you're happy but I'm not. I think masks are a terrible and depressing development.

    I will challenge and test Government policy at all times.

    I hope you do too.
    Nope, I will challenge a policy if I don't agree with it.

    Wearing masks isn't great but it will allow provide a means for shops to stop restricting numbers - the rather large Next in town could only have 43 customers in it last weekend (and this was a Next Sale weekend).

    And as I stated already Social distancing has completely disappeared in shops and personally telling people to keep away is going to cause far more anger than a security guard telling someone to wear a mask.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 24,979
    tlg86 said:

    eristdoof said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out

    Yes, we know for a fact that masks aren't necessary for reducing cases of COVID-19.

    It could be that they're thinking that we need to get into the habit of wearing them ahead of the autumn. Pubs and restaurants could easily be shutdown again in October as a precautionary measure.

    I do think this is a killer for commuting, though. As long as masks are required on public transport, I think workers have every right to say they won't go to the office.
    This is clearly some new meaning of the word "fact" that I was previously unaware of.
    We reduced the number of COVID-19 cases without this measure:

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

    That is a fact.

    Now, it might be that we'd have reduced them further with masks, or perhaps to get them down even more we need to be wearing masks.

    But I'd be interested to know what the aim is. Clearly eradication is not the aim as we're resuming international travel. So why do we need to go even further to suppress cases when it appears to be pretty low at the moment and the NHS is coping well?

    As I said, it might be with a view to the autumn and winter, but right now I'm struggling to see the logic behind this.
    You reduced the number of SARS-COV-2 cases by imposinng a fairly strict lockdown!

    Most people want that lockdown to be eased.

    If you want to keep the numbers down then you don't jump from lockdown straight to zero.

    Wearing masks in public spaces indoors helps. It might help avoid a second lockdown in your town.
    That strict lockdown didn't stop people going into Sainsbury's!

    Of course, others have suggested that wearing masks can be combined with reducing social distancing. So perhaps another reason for getting this going now is to reduce the need for queuing outside in the autumn/winter.
    That second step thinking regarding queuing and autumn / winter is far too complex for this Government.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,231
    eek said:

    tlg86 said:

    eristdoof said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out

    Yes, we know for a fact that masks aren't necessary for reducing cases of COVID-19.

    It could be that they're thinking that we need to get into the habit of wearing them ahead of the autumn. Pubs and restaurants could easily be shutdown again in October as a precautionary measure.

    I do think this is a killer for commuting, though. As long as masks are required on public transport, I think workers have every right to say they won't go to the office.
    This is clearly some new meaning of the word "fact" that I was previously unaware of.
    We reduced the number of COVID-19 cases without this measure:

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

    That is a fact.

    Now, it might be that we'd have reduced them further with masks, or perhaps to get them down even more we need to be wearing masks.

    But I'd be interested to know what the aim is. Clearly eradication is not the aim as we're resuming international travel. So why do we need to go even further to suppress cases when it appears to be pretty low at the moment and the NHS is coping well?

    As I said, it might be with a view to the autumn and winter, but right now I'm struggling to see the logic behind this.
    You reduced the number of SARS-COV-2 cases by imposinng a fairly strict lockdown!

    Most people want that lockdown to be eased.

    If you want to keep the numbers down then you don't jump from lockdown straight to zero.

    Wearing masks in public spaces indoors helps. It might help avoid a second lockdown in your town.
    That strict lockdown didn't stop people going into Sainsbury's!

    Of course, others have suggested that wearing masks can be combined with reducing social distancing. So perhaps another reason for getting this going now is to reduce the need for queuing outside in the autumn/winter.
    That second step thinking regarding queuing and autumn / winter is far too complex for this Government.
    FTFY
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,274

    alex_ said:

    This latest measure applies to just in shops and I wonder whether it will spill over into most aspects of life outside the home. It is a bit of a faff getting masks on and off so if you are going shopping you’ll probably wear it all the time

    Have you left the house yet Mike? Because regardless of the merits or otherwise of the new measure I think all observation based experience of people’s approach when needing to wear masks is that the above is absolutely not true. Most people don’t like wearing masks, and will remove them at the first opportunity. Maybe it’s different in Bedford.

    Every day I go for cycle ride of about an hour (now wearing a mask) and I am just reporting what I notice
    Why would you do that?

    You must be the only one. I don't see any cyclists wearing a mask - and nor do I think they need to.
    Clearly you havent been walking along the pavement when some panting cyclist goes by.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,106
    Why do people hate wearing masks so much? My wife made masks for all of us and they're quite comfortable. I feel much more comfortable going shopping when other shoppers are wearing them. Such a strange hill for the libertarian right to die on, but then people who think Ayn Rand is a great writer and that leaving the EU single market reduces red tape are bound to make odd choices.
  • Options
    NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,347
    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out

    Yes, we know for a fact that masks aren't necessary for reducing cases of COVID-19.

    It could be that they're thinking that we need to get into the habit of wearing them ahead of the autumn. Pubs and restaurants could easily be shutdown again in October as a precautionary measure.

    I do think this is a killer for commuting, though. As long as masks are required on public transport, I think workers have every right to say they won't go to the office.
    This is clearly some new meaning of the word "fact" that I was previously unaware of.
    We reduced the number of COVID-19 cases without this measure:

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

    That is a fact.

    Now, it might be that we'd have reduced them further with masks, or perhaps to get them down even more we need to be wearing masks.

    But I'd be interested to know what the aim is. Clearly eradication is not the aim as we're resuming international travel. So why do we need to go even further to suppress cases when it appears to be pretty low at the moment and the NHS is coping well?

    As I said, it might be with a view to the autumn and winter, but right now I'm struggling to see the logic behind this.
    Go to a pub, drink beer, get tipsy, don't wear a mask.

    Go to a shop to buy a pint of milk, wear a mask.

    There is not much logic to this position.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 24,979

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out

    Yes, we know for a fact that masks aren't necessary for reducing cases of COVID-19.

    It could be that they're thinking that we need to get into the habit of wearing them ahead of the autumn. Pubs and restaurants could easily be shutdown again in October as a precautionary measure.

    I do think this is a killer for commuting, though. As long as masks are required on public transport, I think workers have every right to say they won't go to the office.
    This is clearly some new meaning of the word "fact" that I was previously unaware of.
    We reduced the number of COVID-19 cases without this measure:

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

    That is a fact.

    Now, it might be that we'd have reduced them further with masks, or perhaps to get them down even more we need to be wearing masks.

    But I'd be interested to know what the aim is. Clearly eradication is not the aim as we're resuming international travel. So why do we need to go even further to suppress cases when it appears to be pretty low at the moment and the NHS is coping well?

    As I said, it might be with a view to the autumn and winter, but right now I'm struggling to see the logic behind this.
    Go to a pub, drink beer, get tipsy, don't wear a mask.

    Go to a shop to buy a pint of milk, wear a mask.

    There is not much logic to this position.
    I don't need to go to the pub, I do need to go to shops even were I to try to purchase most things from Amazon
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out

    Yes, we know for a fact that masks aren't necessary for reducing cases of COVID-19.

    It could be that they're thinking that we need to get into the habit of wearing them ahead of the autumn. Pubs and restaurants could easily be shutdown again in October as a precautionary measure.

    I do think this is a killer for commuting, though. As long as masks are required on public transport, I think workers have every right to say they won't go to the office.
    This is clearly some new meaning of the word "fact" that I was previously unaware of.
    We reduced the number of COVID-19 cases without this measure:

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

    That is a fact.

    Now, it might be that we'd have reduced them further with masks, or perhaps to get them down even more we need to be wearing masks.

    But I'd be interested to know what the aim is. Clearly eradication is not the aim as we're resuming international travel. So why do we need to go even further to suppress cases when it appears to be pretty low at the moment and the NHS is coping well?

    As I said, it might be with a view to the autumn and winter, but right now I'm struggling to see the logic behind this.
    Go to a pub, drink beer, get tipsy, don't wear a mask.

    Go to a shop to buy a pint of milk, wear a mask.

    There is not much logic to this position.
    There is not much logic to anything this government does. Wait till you hear about Brexit. That one’s a corker.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,710

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out

    Yes, we know for a fact that masks aren't necessary for reducing cases of COVID-19.

    It could be that they're thinking that we need to get into the habit of wearing them ahead of the autumn. Pubs and restaurants could easily be shutdown again in October as a precautionary measure.

    I do think this is a killer for commuting, though. As long as masks are required on public transport, I think workers have every right to say they won't go to the office.
    This is clearly some new meaning of the word "fact" that I was previously unaware of.
    We reduced the number of COVID-19 cases without this measure:

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

    That is a fact.

    Now, it might be that we'd have reduced them further with masks, or perhaps to get them down even more we need to be wearing masks.

    But I'd be interested to know what the aim is. Clearly eradication is not the aim as we're resuming international travel. So why do we need to go even further to suppress cases when it appears to be pretty low at the moment and the NHS is coping well?

    As I said, it might be with a view to the autumn and winter, but right now I'm struggling to see the logic behind this.
    Go to a pub, drink beer, get tipsy, don't wear a mask.

    Go to a shop to buy a pint of milk, wear a mask.

    There is not much logic to this position.
    There isn't. The risk-based logic is to close the pubs and insist on masks, unfortunately.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out

    Yes, we know for a fact that masks aren't necessary for reducing cases of COVID-19.

    It could be that they're thinking that we need to get into the habit of wearing them ahead of the autumn. Pubs and restaurants could easily be shutdown again in October as a precautionary measure.

    I do think this is a killer for commuting, though. As long as masks are required on public transport, I think workers have every right to say they won't go to the office.
    This is clearly some new meaning of the word "fact" that I was previously unaware of.
    We reduced the number of COVID-19 cases without this measure:

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

    That is a fact.

    Now, it might be that we'd have reduced them further with masks, or perhaps to get them down even more we need to be wearing masks.

    But I'd be interested to know what the aim is. Clearly eradication is not the aim as we're resuming international travel. So why do we need to go even further to suppress cases when it appears to be pretty low at the moment and the NHS is coping well?

    As I said, it might be with a view to the autumn and winter, but right now I'm struggling to see the logic behind this.
    We did that with a lockdown. Do you want to stay locked down forever?

    Do I wish in an ideal world we needed masks? Of course not! But we don't live in an ideal world.

    If the choice though is between locking us down and stopping our civil liberties ... Or saying we can go out and about and get on with our lives but wear a mask ... Then the mask is the lesser evil.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    My son saw a bloke smoking. He had cut a small fag shaped hole in his face mask. 🤷‍♂️
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out

    Yes, we know for a fact that masks aren't necessary for reducing cases of COVID-19.

    It could be that they're thinking that we need to get into the habit of wearing them ahead of the autumn. Pubs and restaurants could easily be shutdown again in October as a precautionary measure.

    I do think this is a killer for commuting, though. As long as masks are required on public transport, I think workers have every right to say they won't go to the office.
    This is clearly some new meaning of the word "fact" that I was previously unaware of.
    We reduced the number of COVID-19 cases without this measure:

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

    That is a fact.

    Now, it might be that we'd have reduced them further with masks, or perhaps to get them down even more we need to be wearing masks.

    But I'd be interested to know what the aim is. Clearly eradication is not the aim as we're resuming international travel. So why do we need to go even further to suppress cases when it appears to be pretty low at the moment and the NHS is coping well?

    As I said, it might be with a view to the autumn and winter, but right now I'm struggling to see the logic behind this.
    We did that with a lockdown. Do you want to stay locked down forever?

    Do I wish in an ideal world we needed masks? Of course not! But we don't live in an ideal world.

    If the choice though is between locking us down and stopping our civil liberties ... Or saying we can go out and about and get on with our lives but wear a mask ... Then the mask is the lesser evil.
    I won't be going to football if I have to wear a mask. I mean, I can't go to Arsenal without changes to public transport rules anyway, but still.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,274
    Jonathan said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out

    Yes, we know for a fact that masks aren't necessary for reducing cases of COVID-19.

    It could be that they're thinking that we need to get into the habit of wearing them ahead of the autumn. Pubs and restaurants could easily be shutdown again in October as a precautionary measure.

    I do think this is a killer for commuting, though. As long as masks are required on public transport, I think workers have every right to say they won't go to the office.
    This is clearly some new meaning of the word "fact" that I was previously unaware of.
    We reduced the number of COVID-19 cases without this measure:

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

    That is a fact.

    Now, it might be that we'd have reduced them further with masks, or perhaps to get them down even more we need to be wearing masks.

    But I'd be interested to know what the aim is. Clearly eradication is not the aim as we're resuming international travel. So why do we need to go even further to suppress cases when it appears to be pretty low at the moment and the NHS is coping well?

    As I said, it might be with a view to the autumn and winter, but right now I'm struggling to see the logic behind this.
    Go to a pub, drink beer, get tipsy, don't wear a mask.

    Go to a shop to buy a pint of milk, wear a mask.

    There is not much logic to this position.
    There is not much logic to anything this government does. Wait till you hear about Brexit. That one’s a corker.
    According to the news, shop workers themselves will be exempted from the mask rules.
  • Options
    NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,347
    eek said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out

    Yes, we know for a fact that masks aren't necessary for reducing cases of COVID-19.

    It could be that they're thinking that we need to get into the habit of wearing them ahead of the autumn. Pubs and restaurants could easily be shutdown again in October as a precautionary measure.

    I do think this is a killer for commuting, though. As long as masks are required on public transport, I think workers have every right to say they won't go to the office.
    This is clearly some new meaning of the word "fact" that I was previously unaware of.
    We reduced the number of COVID-19 cases without this measure:

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

    That is a fact.

    Now, it might be that we'd have reduced them further with masks, or perhaps to get them down even more we need to be wearing masks.

    But I'd be interested to know what the aim is. Clearly eradication is not the aim as we're resuming international travel. So why do we need to go even further to suppress cases when it appears to be pretty low at the moment and the NHS is coping well?

    As I said, it might be with a view to the autumn and winter, but right now I'm struggling to see the logic behind this.
    Go to a pub, drink beer, get tipsy, don't wear a mask.

    Go to a shop to buy a pint of milk, wear a mask.

    There is not much logic to this position.
    I don't need to go to the pub, I do need to go to shops even were I to try to purchase most things from Amazon
    The Government is activley encouraging people to go to pubs and restaurants in August.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,735
    FF43 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out

    Yes, we know for a fact that masks aren't necessary for reducing cases of COVID-19.

    It could be that they're thinking that we need to get into the habit of wearing them ahead of the autumn. Pubs and restaurants could easily be shutdown again in October as a precautionary measure.

    I do think this is a killer for commuting, though. As long as masks are required on public transport, I think workers have every right to say they won't go to the office.
    This is clearly some new meaning of the word "fact" that I was previously unaware of.
    We reduced the number of COVID-19 cases without this measure:

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

    That is a fact.

    Now, it might be that we'd have reduced them further with masks, or perhaps to get them down even more we need to be wearing masks.

    But I'd be interested to know what the aim is. Clearly eradication is not the aim as we're resuming international travel. So why do we need to go even further to suppress cases when it appears to be pretty low at the moment and the NHS is coping well?

    As I said, it might be with a view to the autumn and winter, but right now I'm struggling to see the logic behind this.
    Go to a pub, drink beer, get tipsy, don't wear a mask.

    Go to a shop to buy a pint of milk, wear a mask.

    There is not much logic to this position.
    There isn't. The risk-based logic is to close the pubs and insist on masks, unfortunately.
    I think that logic only works if you consider risk=covid specific health. There are other risks, very much including health ones, by keeping the hospitality sector closed. Its all a balancing act, not a clear cut decision either way.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    To be fair, it’s hard to eat a meal or drink a pint wearing a mask. Buying underpants at M&S or chicken soup at Sainsbury’s is very easy with a mask.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,735
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out

    Yes, we know for a fact that masks aren't necessary for reducing cases of COVID-19.

    It could be that they're thinking that we need to get into the habit of wearing them ahead of the autumn. Pubs and restaurants could easily be shutdown again in October as a precautionary measure.

    I do think this is a killer for commuting, though. As long as masks are required on public transport, I think workers have every right to say they won't go to the office.
    This is clearly some new meaning of the word "fact" that I was previously unaware of.
    We reduced the number of COVID-19 cases without this measure:

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

    That is a fact.

    Now, it might be that we'd have reduced them further with masks, or perhaps to get them down even more we need to be wearing masks.

    But I'd be interested to know what the aim is. Clearly eradication is not the aim as we're resuming international travel. So why do we need to go even further to suppress cases when it appears to be pretty low at the moment and the NHS is coping well?

    As I said, it might be with a view to the autumn and winter, but right now I'm struggling to see the logic behind this.
    We did that with a lockdown. Do you want to stay locked down forever?

    Do I wish in an ideal world we needed masks? Of course not! But we don't live in an ideal world.

    If the choice though is between locking us down and stopping our civil liberties ... Or saying we can go out and about and get on with our lives but wear a mask ... Then the mask is the lesser evil.
    I won't be going to football if I have to wear a mask. I mean, I can't go to Arsenal without changes to public transport rules anyway, but still.
    PSG were allowed 5000 fans in their stadium this week. Id imagine something similar will be allowed in the UK in time for the season starting in September.

    No idea how the clubs will allocate those tickets, highest bidder vs season tickets on rotation?
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,217
    Another day, another batshit announcement from the government. Lets talk about masks. I haven't work one in anger yet, and I was going into shops (sometimes several in an afternoon to check stock availability / how people are shopping etc to help us keep food on the shelves) for both shopping and work reasons without a mask. When supermarkets were strictly limiting the number of punters in circulation and enforcing one way systems it felt OK. Yesterday lunchtime in Aldi was the first time it really didn't feel OK and I decided I'd need a mask on next time.

    So do I support masks? Yes. But straight away. A lot of people have bought masks. Every supermarket now sells masks. You can make one out of a sock in a minute for temporary use. Mask up. Not a week on Friday. Where as I and others have pointed out we have the absurdity of it being safe to not wear a mask to go into the pub and get hammered but not safe to not wear a mask when you buy a bag of crisps at the shop on the way home.

    You can't make distinctions between "essential" and "non-essential" either. This is either being done for public health reasons or it is not. We're trying to crush the virus or we're not. Half-arsed wear one here here and here but not there there or there is stupid. I suspect the call now is that unless we wear a mask we're going to carry on with infection levels well above our neighbours including Scotland and therefore we either squash it or we will be on no-travel lists quickly.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out

    Yes, we know for a fact that masks aren't necessary for reducing cases of COVID-19.

    It could be that they're thinking that we need to get into the habit of wearing them ahead of the autumn. Pubs and restaurants could easily be shutdown again in October as a precautionary measure.

    I do think this is a killer for commuting, though. As long as masks are required on public transport, I think workers have every right to say they won't go to the office.
    This is clearly some new meaning of the word "fact" that I was previously unaware of.
    We reduced the number of COVID-19 cases without this measure:

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

    That is a fact.

    Now, it might be that we'd have reduced them further with masks, or perhaps to get them down even more we need to be wearing masks.

    But I'd be interested to know what the aim is. Clearly eradication is not the aim as we're resuming international travel. So why do we need to go even further to suppress cases when it appears to be pretty low at the moment and the NHS is coping well?

    As I said, it might be with a view to the autumn and winter, but right now I'm struggling to see the logic behind this.
    We did that with a lockdown. Do you want to stay locked down forever?

    Do I wish in an ideal world we needed masks? Of course not! But we don't live in an ideal world.

    If the choice though is between locking us down and stopping our civil liberties ... Or saying we can go out and about and get on with our lives but wear a mask ... Then the mask is the lesser evil.
    I won't be going to football if I have to wear a mask. I mean, I can't go to Arsenal without changes to public transport rules anyway, but still.
    You won't be going to football while there's transmission anyway. If masks bring transmission to an end sooner then you can start seeing your Gunners sooner.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    eek said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out

    Yes, we know for a fact that masks aren't necessary for reducing cases of COVID-19.

    It could be that they're thinking that we need to get into the habit of wearing them ahead of the autumn. Pubs and restaurants could easily be shutdown again in October as a precautionary measure.

    I do think this is a killer for commuting, though. As long as masks are required on public transport, I think workers have every right to say they won't go to the office.
    This is clearly some new meaning of the word "fact" that I was previously unaware of.
    We reduced the number of COVID-19 cases without this measure:

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

    That is a fact.

    Now, it might be that we'd have reduced them further with masks, or perhaps to get them down even more we need to be wearing masks.

    But I'd be interested to know what the aim is. Clearly eradication is not the aim as we're resuming international travel. So why do we need to go even further to suppress cases when it appears to be pretty low at the moment and the NHS is coping well?

    As I said, it might be with a view to the autumn and winter, but right now I'm struggling to see the logic behind this.
    Go to a pub, drink beer, get tipsy, don't wear a mask.

    Go to a shop to buy a pint of milk, wear a mask.

    There is not much logic to this position.
    I don't need to go to the pub, I do need to go to shops even were I to try to purchase most things from Amazon
    The Government is activley encouraging people to go to pubs and restaurants in August.
    Because people's jobs, livelihoods and mental health rely upon that being an option. But it's still a choice whereas shopping is essential.

    Plus at a restaurant I sit at a table and don't come into contact with lots of other diners. In a shop I'm constantly moving around and going into the air stream of other shoppers or having them come into mine even while trying to keep a distance.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out

    Yes, we know for a fact that masks aren't necessary for reducing cases of COVID-19.

    It could be that they're thinking that we need to get into the habit of wearing them ahead of the autumn. Pubs and restaurants could easily be shutdown again in October as a precautionary measure.

    I do think this is a killer for commuting, though. As long as masks are required on public transport, I think workers have every right to say they won't go to the office.
    This is clearly some new meaning of the word "fact" that I was previously unaware of.
    We reduced the number of COVID-19 cases without this measure:

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

    That is a fact.

    Now, it might be that we'd have reduced them further with masks, or perhaps to get them down even more we need to be wearing masks.

    But I'd be interested to know what the aim is. Clearly eradication is not the aim as we're resuming international travel. So why do we need to go even further to suppress cases when it appears to be pretty low at the moment and the NHS is coping well?

    As I said, it might be with a view to the autumn and winter, but right now I'm struggling to see the logic behind this.
    We did that with a lockdown. Do you want to stay locked down forever?

    Do I wish in an ideal world we needed masks? Of course not! But we don't live in an ideal world.

    If the choice though is between locking us down and stopping our civil liberties ... Or saying we can go out and about and get on with our lives but wear a mask ... Then the mask is the lesser evil.
    I won't be going to football if I have to wear a mask. I mean, I can't go to Arsenal without changes to public transport rules anyway, but still.
    You won't be going to football while there's transmission anyway. If masks bring transmission to an end sooner then you can start seeing your Gunners sooner.
    Why not? I'm struggling to see why being in a football ground on a much reduced capacity is more dangerous than being in a shop to be honest.

    But I'm more than happy to let other go who really really want to see games live. Being at a game is better than watching on TV as you can see the whole pitch all of the time, but it won't be especially enjoyable if I'm not able to go with my friends. Going to football is a social occasion.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,231

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out

    Yes, we know for a fact that masks aren't necessary for reducing cases of COVID-19.

    It could be that they're thinking that we need to get into the habit of wearing them ahead of the autumn. Pubs and restaurants could easily be shutdown again in October as a precautionary measure.

    I do think this is a killer for commuting, though. As long as masks are required on public transport, I think workers have every right to say they won't go to the office.
    This is clearly some new meaning of the word "fact" that I was previously unaware of.
    We reduced the number of COVID-19 cases without this measure:

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

    That is a fact.

    Now, it might be that we'd have reduced them further with masks, or perhaps to get them down even more we need to be wearing masks.

    But I'd be interested to know what the aim is. Clearly eradication is not the aim as we're resuming international travel. So why do we need to go even further to suppress cases when it appears to be pretty low at the moment and the NHS is coping well?

    As I said, it might be with a view to the autumn and winter, but right now I'm struggling to see the logic behind this.
    We did that with a lockdown. Do you want to stay locked down forever?

    Do I wish in an ideal world we needed masks? Of course not! But we don't live in an ideal world.

    If the choice though is between locking us down and stopping our civil liberties ... Or saying we can go out and about and get on with our lives but wear a mask ... Then the mask is the lesser evil.
    I won't be going to football if I have to wear a mask. I mean, I can't go to Arsenal without changes to public transport rules anyway, but still.
    And there's little point going to the Emirates at the moment even when Arsenal are playing
    Unless you’re supporting the away team.
  • Options
    MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Jonathan said:

    To be fair, it’s hard to eat a meal or drink a pint wearing a mask. Buying underpants at M&S or chicken soup at Sainsbury’s is very easy with a mask.

    In Bedford they want money or your card. A mask won't suffice
  • Options
    state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,417
    edited July 2020
    There are no excess deaths at the moment
    . Why on earth is something so depressing ,going to cause aggression and disgusting litter (with little upside as people -especially people who don't want to - wear masks wrongly and keep fiddling with them?) being imposed now? It will cause economic damage as well . There must be lots of people like me who have been deliberately going out (not using public transport due to needing to wear a mask) walking to shops some distance away to buy stuff (clothes ,books , electrics) who wont be doing that after this rule comes in.

    Maybe a big reason why high streets are not that well populated at the moment with people is the requirement to use masks on public transport. Extending this to shops will mean people who are happy to go out (its what the government says we should do ) will be less keen to do so and it will still mean people who do not currently visit shops (like Mike ) do not
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,231

    Jonathan said:

    To be fair, it’s hard to eat a meal or drink a pint wearing a mask. Buying underpants at M&S or chicken soup at Sainsbury’s is very easy with a mask.

    In Bedford they want money or your card. A mask won't suffice
    Although masks would be an excellent opportunity for nickers.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    To be fair, it’s hard to eat a meal or drink a pint wearing a mask. Buying underpants at M&S or chicken soup at Sainsbury’s is very easy with a mask.

    In Bedford they want money or your card. A mask won't suffice
    Ah, mask shopping the old fashioned way. Stand and deliver has its merits, it can be quite socially distanced.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,534
    edited July 2020
    Who will be the first person to report a sighting of a bank displaying one notice saying you must wear a mask along with another notice saying that you must remove masks before entering?
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out

    Yes, we know for a fact that masks aren't necessary for reducing cases of COVID-19.

    It could be that they're thinking that we need to get into the habit of wearing them ahead of the autumn. Pubs and restaurants could easily be shutdown again in October as a precautionary measure.

    I do think this is a killer for commuting, though. As long as masks are required on public transport, I think workers have every right to say they won't go to the office.
    This is clearly some new meaning of the word "fact" that I was previously unaware of.
    We reduced the number of COVID-19 cases without this measure:

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

    That is a fact.

    Now, it might be that we'd have reduced them further with masks, or perhaps to get them down even more we need to be wearing masks.

    But I'd be interested to know what the aim is. Clearly eradication is not the aim as we're resuming international travel. So why do we need to go even further to suppress cases when it appears to be pretty low at the moment and the NHS is coping well?

    As I said, it might be with a view to the autumn and winter, but right now I'm struggling to see the logic behind this.
    We did that with a lockdown. Do you want to stay locked down forever?

    Do I wish in an ideal world we needed masks? Of course not! But we don't live in an ideal world.

    If the choice though is between locking us down and stopping our civil liberties ... Or saying we can go out and about and get on with our lives but wear a mask ... Then the mask is the lesser evil.
    I won't be going to football if I have to wear a mask. I mean, I can't go to Arsenal without changes to public transport rules anyway, but still.
    PSG were allowed 5000 fans in their stadium this week. Id imagine something similar will be allowed in the UK in time for the season starting in September.

    No idea how the clubs will allocate those tickets, highest bidder vs season tickets on rotation?
    Away credits might come into it I guess. It might not be a good look to only let in the prawn sandwich brigade.

    But I'm really not fussed about going so I'll stay away until we can get back to something like normal. It could be a long time, but I just don't see much enjoyment in driving to north London on my own to sit in the ground on my own and pay £50+ for the privilege.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    There are no excess deaths at the moment
    . Why on earth is something so depressing ,going to cause aggression and disgusting litter (with little upside as people -especially people who don't want to - wear masks wrongly and keep fiddling with them?) being imposed now? It will cause economic damage as well . There must be lots of people like me who have been deliberately going out (not using public transport due to needing to wear a mask) walking to shops some distance away to buy stuff (clothes ,books , electrics) who wont be doing that after this rule comes in.

    My expectation is you'll keep going out and just get used to wearing a mask.

    Wearing a mask during a pandemic is more libertarian than having a lockdown or other solutions. That so many people are blithely saying 'why don't we shut the pubs again instead of having masks' really bothers me. So people should be driven into penury because some people can't be arsed to wear a mask?
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,983
    I'm off to the local hospital for a blood test this morning. So a mask is a definite. Worse one yesterday while shopping and, as I posted, was about the only one in town actually wearing one.
    Would I wear one to the pub? On Wednesday, when we go out for wife's birthday celebratory meal; probably not, as we won't speak directly to anyone and one can't wear one while eating. Might do so, though until we sit down to eat.
  • Options
    state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,417

    There are no excess deaths at the moment
    . Why on earth is something so depressing ,going to cause aggression and disgusting litter (with little upside as people -especially people who don't want to - wear masks wrongly and keep fiddling with them?) being imposed now? It will cause economic damage as well . There must be lots of people like me who have been deliberately going out (not using public transport due to needing to wear a mask) walking to shops some distance away to buy stuff (clothes ,books , electrics) who wont be doing that after this rule comes in.

    My expectation is you'll keep going out and just get used to wearing a mask.

    Wearing a mask during a pandemic is more libertarian than having a lockdown or other solutions. That so many people are blithely saying 'why don't we shut the pubs again instead of having masks' really bothers me. So people should be driven into penury because some people can't be arsed to wear a mask?
    Except most people and especially those forced to wear a mask do not wear them correctly and keep fiddling with them and taking them off . If its not even effective it is stupid to impose.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    It’s funny how much people here object to wearing a mask. It’s like they find it personally embarrassing.

    It’s such a tiny thing to do that primary benefits others. I can’t see what the fuss is. Just get on with it and carry on.

    In any case we’re already obliged to wear fabric coverings in shops, just somewhat lower down. Perhaps these too are controversial with the anti mask crowd. Maybe they like other things to breathe freely in Tesco.
  • Options
    Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,060
    Scott_xP said:
    I wonder if, technically, we won’t actually have a recession this year. It requires two quarters of negative growth, and it looks like all that will be concentrated in a very small time span.

    Or is it going to e split between Q1 an Q2?
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,274
    Jonathan said:

    It’s funny how much people here object to wearing a mask. It’s like they find it personally embarrassing.

    It’s such a tiny thing to do that primary benefits others. I can’t see what the fuss is. Just get on with it and carry on.

    In any case we’re already obliged to wear fabric coverings in shops, just somewhat lower down. Perhaps these too are controversial with the anti mask crowd. Maybe they like other things to breathe freely in Tesco.

    Judging by some of the videos on Youtube, the same cloth can double as either.
  • Options
    state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,417
    Jonathan said:

    It’s funny how much people here object to wearing a mask. It’s like they find it personally embarrassing.

    It’s such a tiny thing to do that primary benefits others. I can’t see what the fuss is. Just get on with it and carry on.

    In any case we’re already obliged to wear fabric coverings in shops, just somewhat lower down. Perhaps these too are controversial with the anti mask crowd. Maybe they like other things to breathe freely in Tesco.

    Well if we are getting into snide remarks then I would say that a lot of people on here do not have much of a social life (lots seem obsessed by daily deaths stats ) and hence do not mind becoming anti social by wearing masks over mouths (its what people usually talk through) . I am a socially chap and like the opportunity to talk to people when out ,not live in some creepy ,cowering misery of a place
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Scott_xP said:
    This government does the right thing as a last resort and only after exhausting all other options.
  • Options
    nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    edited July 2020
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    To be fair, it’s hard to eat a meal or drink a pint wearing a mask. Buying underpants at M&S or chicken soup at Sainsbury’s is very easy with a mask.

    In Bedford they want money or your card. A mask won't suffice
    Ah, mask shopping the old fashioned way. Stand and deliver has its merits, it can be quite socially distanced.
    Sign in our bar

    Wear a mask if you go inside or we will have to take your temperature
    We only have rectal thermometers.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    It’s funny how much people here object to wearing a mask. It’s like they find it personally embarrassing.

    It’s such a tiny thing to do that primary benefits others. I can’t see what the fuss is. Just get on with it and carry on.

    In any case we’re already obliged to wear fabric coverings in shops, just somewhat lower down. Perhaps these too are controversial with the anti mask crowd. Maybe they like other things to breathe freely in Tesco.

    Well if we are getting into snide remarks then I would say that a lot of people on here do not have much of a social life (lots seem obsessed by daily deaths stats ) and hence do not mind becoming anti social by wearing masks over mouths (its what people usually talk through) . I am a socially chap and like the opportunity to talk to people when out ,not live in some creepy ,cowering misery of a place
    Top tip. You can still talk wearing a mask. And if you want to have a big visual chin wag you can step outside. It’s no problem really.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,942
    The EU, much better at this than the Little Englanders...

    https://twitter.com/JenniferMerode/status/1282939687871676416
  • Options
    nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    Jonathan said:

    It’s funny how much people here object to wearing a mask. It’s like they find it personally embarrassing.

    It’s such a tiny thing to do that primary benefits others. I can’t see what the fuss is. Just get on with it and carry on.

    In any case we’re already obliged to wear fabric coverings in shops, just somewhat lower down. Perhaps these too are controversial with the anti mask crowd. Maybe they like other things to breathe freely in Tesco.

    Well if we are getting into snide remarks then I would say that a lot of people on here do not have much of a social life (lots seem obsessed by daily deaths stats ) and hence do not mind becoming anti social by wearing masks over mouths (its what people usually talk through) . I am a socially chap and like the opportunity to talk to people when out ,not live in some creepy ,cowering misery of a place
    Do you talk bollox when you are out as well?
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,983
    Mr. Nichomar, sounds like some fetish establishments will end up doing a roaring trade.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,628
    Comparing USA numbers each day for same day a week ago is not encouraging. Monday is 30% up on cases, 20% up on deaths. Big increases on previous day's. Tues - Fri are peak days so I assume some new records will be set this week. Surely Trump can't keep ignoring?
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,377

    Scott_xP said:
    I wonder if, technically, we won’t actually have a recession this year. It requires two quarters of negative growth, and it looks like all that will be concentrated in a very small time span.

    Or is it going to e split between Q1 an Q2?
    Errrr. Looking at the actual numbers - right at the end of the graph in May, it records growth of 1.8% i believe.

    Right in the middle of lockdown...

    Now I am the first to say that a single swallow doesn't make a summer.

    But that isn't evidence *against* a V shaped recession, either.
  • Options
    geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,150
    Jonathan said:

    Scott_xP said:
    This government does the right thing as a last resort and only after exhausting all other options.
    We need a latter day Verdi to create a new opera, "The Masked Ballsup".

  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,150
    edited July 2020
    Jonathan said:

    Scott_xP said:
    This government does the right thing as a last resort and only after exhausting all other options.
    Yup, although TBF it seems to get there in the end, which can't be said for all countries.

    Rejoining the EU some time around 2024, I guess?
  • Options
    NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,347

    eek said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out

    Yes, we know for a fact that masks aren't necessary for reducing cases of COVID-19.

    It could be that they're thinking that we need to get into the habit of wearing them ahead of the autumn. Pubs and restaurants could easily be shutdown again in October as a precautionary measure.

    I do think this is a killer for commuting, though. As long as masks are required on public transport, I think workers have every right to say they won't go to the office.
    This is clearly some new meaning of the word "fact" that I was previously unaware of.
    We reduced the number of COVID-19 cases without this measure:

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

    That is a fact.

    Now, it might be that we'd have reduced them further with masks, or perhaps to get them down even more we need to be wearing masks.

    But I'd be interested to know what the aim is. Clearly eradication is not the aim as we're resuming international travel. So why do we need to go even further to suppress cases when it appears to be pretty low at the moment and the NHS is coping well?

    As I said, it might be with a view to the autumn and winter, but right now I'm struggling to see the logic behind this.
    Go to a pub, drink beer, get tipsy, don't wear a mask.

    Go to a shop to buy a pint of milk, wear a mask.

    There is not much logic to this position.
    I don't need to go to the pub, I do need to go to shops even were I to try to purchase most things from Amazon
    The Government is activley encouraging people to go to pubs and restaurants in August.
    Because people's jobs, livelihoods and mental health rely upon that being an option. But it's still a choice whereas shopping is essential.

    Plus at a restaurant I sit at a table and don't come into contact with lots of other diners. In a shop I'm constantly moving around and going into the air stream of other shoppers or having them come into mine even while trying to keep a distance.
    Why is going shopping essential?

    You can order anything online.

    Going shopping is a social thing to do. The high street will collapse now. British people will simply not go in shops.

    Take betting shops, why would anyone go in one now if you have to wear a mask.

    There will be mass redundancies.

    I live in the Eastleigh area, in the past month there have been 3 cases in the whole of the area, and now I have to wear a mask to go to Tesco's. When there were 1003 cases in a month I did not have to. Please explain that one.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,735
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out

    Yes, we know for a fact that masks aren't necessary for reducing cases of COVID-19.

    It could be that they're thinking that we need to get into the habit of wearing them ahead of the autumn. Pubs and restaurants could easily be shutdown again in October as a precautionary measure.

    I do think this is a killer for commuting, though. As long as masks are required on public transport, I think workers have every right to say they won't go to the office.
    This is clearly some new meaning of the word "fact" that I was previously unaware of.
    We reduced the number of COVID-19 cases without this measure:

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

    That is a fact.

    Now, it might be that we'd have reduced them further with masks, or perhaps to get them down even more we need to be wearing masks.

    But I'd be interested to know what the aim is. Clearly eradication is not the aim as we're resuming international travel. So why do we need to go even further to suppress cases when it appears to be pretty low at the moment and the NHS is coping well?

    As I said, it might be with a view to the autumn and winter, but right now I'm struggling to see the logic behind this.
    We did that with a lockdown. Do you want to stay locked down forever?

    Do I wish in an ideal world we needed masks? Of course not! But we don't live in an ideal world.

    If the choice though is between locking us down and stopping our civil liberties ... Or saying we can go out and about and get on with our lives but wear a mask ... Then the mask is the lesser evil.
    I won't be going to football if I have to wear a mask. I mean, I can't go to Arsenal without changes to public transport rules anyway, but still.
    PSG were allowed 5000 fans in their stadium this week. Id imagine something similar will be allowed in the UK in time for the season starting in September.

    No idea how the clubs will allocate those tickets, highest bidder vs season tickets on rotation?
    Away credits might come into it I guess. It might not be a good look to only let in the prawn sandwich brigade.

    But I'm really not fussed about going so I'll stay away until we can get back to something like normal. It could be a long time, but I just don't see much enjoyment in driving to north London on my own to sit in the ground on my own and pay £50+ for the privilege.
    If they are looking for highest bidders the market price might be closer to 500 than 50.
  • Options
    fox327fox327 Posts: 366
    I think this policy change is politically motivated as currently COVID cases are declining, so why do this now? There are a number of ways in which this policy could unravel such as shops losing business and the public staying at home.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,744
    edited July 2020
    In this particular case media and opposition have pretty valid criticisms of the confusion and delay in taking the decision. It seems awfully odd to open up then add more restrictions, making it less likely people will comply.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,216
    Jonathan said:

    It’s funny how much people here object to wearing a mask. It’s like they find it personally embarrassing.

    It’s such a tiny thing to do that primary benefits others. I can’t see what the fuss is. Just get on with it and carry on.

    In any case we’re already obliged to wear fabric coverings in shops, just somewhat lower down. Perhaps these too are controversial with the anti mask crowd. Maybe they like other things to breathe freely in Tesco.

    I agree, I really don't know what the fuss is about.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,744
    edited July 2020

    eek said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out

    Yes, we know for a fact that masks aren't necessary for reducing cases of COVID-19.

    It could be that they're thinking that we need to get into the habit of wearing them ahead of the autumn. Pubs and restaurants could easily be shutdown again in October as a precautionary measure.

    I do think this is a killer for commuting, though. As long as masks are required on public transport, I think workers have every right to say they won't go to the office.
    This is clearly some new meaning of the word "fact" that I was previously unaware of.
    We reduced the number of COVID-19 cases without this measure:

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

    That is a fact.

    Now, it might be that we'd have reduced them further with masks, or perhaps to get them down even more we need to be wearing masks.

    But I'd be interested to know what the aim is. Clearly eradication is not the aim as we're resuming international travel. So why do we need to go even further to suppress cases when it appears to be pretty low at the moment and the NHS is coping well?

    As I said, it might be with a view to the autumn and winter, but right now I'm struggling to see the logic behind this.
    Go to a pub, drink beer, get tipsy, don't wear a mask.

    Go to a shop to buy a pint of milk, wear a mask.

    There is not much logic to this position.
    I don't need to go to the pub, I do need to go to shops even were I to try to purchase most things from Amazon
    The Government is activley encouraging people to go to pubs and restaurants in August.
    Because people's jobs, livelihoods and mental health rely upon that being an option. But it's still a choice whereas shopping is essential.

    Plus at a restaurant I sit at a table and don't come into contact with lots of other diners. In a shop I'm constantly moving around and going into the air stream of other shoppers or having them come into mine even while trying to keep a distance.
    Why is going shopping essential?

    You can order anything online.

    Going shopping is a social thing to do. The high street will collapse now. British people will simply not go in shops.
    .
    Quite so. It was already less convenient and probably more expensive, now theres additional hassle and you'll get a virus to boot. Why go back even in 6 months?
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,174

    Scott_xP said:
    I wonder if, technically, we won’t actually have a recession this year. It requires two quarters of negative growth, and it looks like all that will be concentrated in a very small time span.

    Or is it going to e split between Q1 an Q2?
    Probably correct, but not an easy sell for the government with 3m unemployed.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,377
    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    But is this another pandemic measure that should have been brought in earlier?

    Probably. Unlike a restriction on travelling to and from say France it does make sense to bring it in now mind.

    The argument that it should have been done earlier so cant be done now is as robust as over 75s should get a free tv license mainly because they have had one in the past. We are not tied to the past and are allowed to change things for the better!
    This is not a change for the better.
    Perfectly fine to argue that, its just some are arguing we shouldnt do it now simply because we didnt do it earlier, that makes no sense. I can see both sides on face masks, its complex and therefore happy for the govt to make the decision for me. There are definitely disadvantages to the policy as well as definite advantages.
    I'm happy that you're happy but I'm not. I think masks are a terrible and depressing development.

    I will challenge and test Government policy at all times.

    I hope you do too.
    Nope, I will challenge a policy if I don't agree with it.

    Wearing masks isn't great but it will allow provide a means for shops to stop restricting numbers - the rather large Next in town could only have 43 customers in it last weekend (and this was a Next Sale weekend).

    And as I stated already Social distancing has completely disappeared in shops and personally telling people to keep away is going to cause far more anger than a security guard telling someone to wear a mask.
    I had someone try and tell a security guard I was scaring them.

    I was simply standing there, waiting for them to move. They were doing the classic IfIStareAtTheProductsAtDifferentDistanceFor5Minutes thing.

    Mind you, I was wearing a Biohazard bandana, mirror sunglasses and an N95 mask.

    Very good for keeping the zombies away.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,735

    eek said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out

    Yes, we know for a fact that masks aren't necessary for reducing cases of COVID-19.

    It could be that they're thinking that we need to get into the habit of wearing them ahead of the autumn. Pubs and restaurants could easily be shutdown again in October as a precautionary measure.

    I do think this is a killer for commuting, though. As long as masks are required on public transport, I think workers have every right to say they won't go to the office.
    This is clearly some new meaning of the word "fact" that I was previously unaware of.
    We reduced the number of COVID-19 cases without this measure:

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

    That is a fact.

    Now, it might be that we'd have reduced them further with masks, or perhaps to get them down even more we need to be wearing masks.

    But I'd be interested to know what the aim is. Clearly eradication is not the aim as we're resuming international travel. So why do we need to go even further to suppress cases when it appears to be pretty low at the moment and the NHS is coping well?

    As I said, it might be with a view to the autumn and winter, but right now I'm struggling to see the logic behind this.
    Go to a pub, drink beer, get tipsy, don't wear a mask.

    Go to a shop to buy a pint of milk, wear a mask.

    There is not much logic to this position.
    I don't need to go to the pub, I do need to go to shops even were I to try to purchase most things from Amazon
    The Government is activley encouraging people to go to pubs and restaurants in August.
    Because people's jobs, livelihoods and mental health rely upon that being an option. But it's still a choice whereas shopping is essential.

    Plus at a restaurant I sit at a table and don't come into contact with lots of other diners. In a shop I'm constantly moving around and going into the air stream of other shoppers or having them come into mine even while trying to keep a distance.
    Why is going shopping essential?

    You can order anything online.

    Going shopping is a social thing to do. The high street will collapse now. British people will simply not go in shops.

    Take betting shops, why would anyone go in one now if you have to wear a mask.

    There will be mass redundancies.

    I live in the Eastleigh area, in the past month there have been 3 cases in the whole of the area, and now I have to wear a mask to go to Tesco's. When there were 1003 cases in a month I did not have to. Please explain that one.
    The govt have more scientific information available to them now than previously. Or heaven forbid they got it wrong previously and now want to correct it?
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    eek said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out

    Yes, we know for a fact that masks aren't necessary for reducing cases of COVID-19.

    It could be that they're thinking that we need to get into the habit of wearing them ahead of the autumn. Pubs and restaurants could easily be shutdown again in October as a precautionary measure.

    I do think this is a killer for commuting, though. As long as masks are required on public transport, I think workers have every right to say they won't go to the office.
    This is clearly some new meaning of the word "fact" that I was previously unaware of.
    We reduced the number of COVID-19 cases without this measure:

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

    That is a fact.

    Now, it might be that we'd have reduced them further with masks, or perhaps to get them down even more we need to be wearing masks.

    But I'd be interested to know what the aim is. Clearly eradication is not the aim as we're resuming international travel. So why do we need to go even further to suppress cases when it appears to be pretty low at the moment and the NHS is coping well?

    As I said, it might be with a view to the autumn and winter, but right now I'm struggling to see the logic behind this.
    Go to a pub, drink beer, get tipsy, don't wear a mask.

    Go to a shop to buy a pint of milk, wear a mask.

    There is not much logic to this position.
    I don't need to go to the pub, I do need to go to shops even were I to try to purchase most things from Amazon
    The Government is activley encouraging people to go to pubs and restaurants in August.
    Because people's jobs, livelihoods and mental health rely upon that being an option. But it's still a choice whereas shopping is essential.

    Plus at a restaurant I sit at a table and don't come into contact with lots of other diners. In a shop I'm constantly moving around and going into the air stream of other shoppers or having them come into mine even while trying to keep a distance.
    Why is going shopping essential?

    You can order anything online.

    Going shopping is a social thing to do. The high street will collapse now. British people will simply not go in shops.

    Take betting shops, why would anyone go in one now if you have to wear a mask.

    There will be mass redundancies.

    I live in the Eastleigh area, in the past month there have been 3 cases in the whole of the area, and now I have to wear a mask to go to Tesco's. When there were 1003 cases in a month I did not have to. Please explain that one.
    Because we want to keep it this way and not go back to lockdown.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,432

    eek said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out

    Yes, we know for a fact that masks aren't necessary for reducing cases of COVID-19.

    It could be that they're thinking that we need to get into the habit of wearing them ahead of the autumn. Pubs and restaurants could easily be shutdown again in October as a precautionary measure.

    I do think this is a killer for commuting, though. As long as masks are required on public transport, I think workers have every right to say they won't go to the office.
    This is clearly some new meaning of the word "fact" that I was previously unaware of.
    We reduced the number of COVID-19 cases without this measure:

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

    That is a fact.

    Now, it might be that we'd have reduced them further with masks, or perhaps to get them down even more we need to be wearing masks.

    But I'd be interested to know what the aim is. Clearly eradication is not the aim as we're resuming international travel. So why do we need to go even further to suppress cases when it appears to be pretty low at the moment and the NHS is coping well?

    As I said, it might be with a view to the autumn and winter, but right now I'm struggling to see the logic behind this.
    Go to a pub, drink beer, get tipsy, don't wear a mask.

    Go to a shop to buy a pint of milk, wear a mask.

    There is not much logic to this position.
    I don't need to go to the pub, I do need to go to shops even were I to try to purchase most things from Amazon
    The Government is activley encouraging people to go to pubs and restaurants in August.
    Because people's jobs, livelihoods and mental health rely upon that being an option. But it's still a choice whereas shopping is essential.

    Plus at a restaurant I sit at a table and don't come into contact with lots of other diners. In a shop I'm constantly moving around and going into the air stream of other shoppers or having them come into mine even while trying to keep a distance.
    Why is going shopping essential?

    You can order anything online.

    Going shopping is a social thing to do. The high street will collapse now. British people will simply not go in shops.

    Take betting shops, why would anyone go in one now if you have to wear a mask.

    There will be mass redundancies.

    I live in the Eastleigh area, in the past month there have been 3 cases in the whole of the area, and now I have to wear a mask to go to Tesco's. When there were 1003 cases in a month I did not have to. Please explain that one.
    Because, with hindsight (and probably with reasonable foresight) not requiring wearing a mask much earlier was a mistake. A mistake that contributed to the slow decline of the virus in the UK, causing more death and a delay to the unlocking.

    But just because we didn't do the right thing then isn't a reason to not do the right thing now. It's like the old adage about planting trees. The best time to do it was in the past, the next best time is now.

    And whilst infection numbers are low now, they are higher than most other parts of Europe. And unchecked, it took about a month to go from 3 cases to 1003 cases in the spring. If wearing a face covering helps keep case numbers low, it's surely worth doing.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,586
    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out

    Yes, we know for a fact that masks aren't necessary for reducing cases of COVID-19.

    It could be that they're thinking that we need to get into the habit of wearing them ahead of the autumn. Pubs and restaurants could easily be shutdown again in October as a precautionary measure.

    I do think this is a killer for commuting, though. As long as masks are required on public transport, I think workers have every right to say they won't go to the office.
    This is clearly some new meaning of the word "fact" that I was previously unaware of.
    On the contrary - we encounter such certainty on a daily basis.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,174
    kjh said:

    Comparing USA numbers each day for same day a week ago is not encouraging. Monday is 30% up on cases, 20% up on deaths. Big increases on previous day's. Tues - Fri are peak days so I assume some new records will be set this week. Surely Trump can't keep ignoring?

    They are just numbers not people to Trump.
  • Options
    Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,816
    Scott_xP said:
    Mock?
    Why would it "mock" a V-shaped recovery?
    It shows the down-slope. It doesn't show the recovery period. All right, arguably it shows the up-tick of the release of the harshest restrictions right at the furthest edge, but that's in no way incompatible with a v-shaped recovery. In fact, it shows exactly what you'd expect if you had not only a v-shaped recovery, but one beginning faster than you could plausibly expect, anyway.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,377
    algarkirk said:

    Who will be the first person to report a sighting of a bank displaying one notice saying you must wear a mask along with another notice saying that you must remove masks before entering?


    You mis-typed.

    What you meant to say is "the first instance of the police arresting someone in a bank for wearing a mask. At the same time as arresting someone else for not wearing a mask, in the same bank."
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,231

    Scott_xP said:
    I wonder if, technically, we won’t actually have a recession this year. It requires two quarters of negative growth, and it looks like all that will be concentrated in a very small time span.

    Or is it going to e split between Q1 an Q2?
    Probably correct, but not an easy sell for the government with 3m unemployed.
    I think that’s a classic case of ‘you can prove anything with statistics.’

    Remember, if your feet are in a furnace and your head’s in a bucket of liquid nitrogen, on average you’re perfectly comfortable.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,932
    tlg86 said:

    Really dont understand why this is being brought in now (cases are miniscule ) . If there is any gain (people just dont use masks properly in most cases) then it is highly marginal and negated by making the general atmosphere more miserable and depressing which leads to individual depression ,aggression (there will be lots of arguments and fights over this in the sense of why are you not wearing a mask etc) and also will lead to further economic decline as a fair proportion of people will just not be bothered to shop or go out

    Yes, we know for a fact that masks aren't necessary for reducing cases of COVID-19.

    It could be that they're thinking that we need to get into the habit of wearing them ahead of the autumn. Pubs and restaurants could easily be shutdown again in October as a precautionary measure.

    I do think this is a killer for commuting, though. As long as masks are required on public transport, I think workers have every right to say they won't go to the office.
    Then employers have the right to sack them also, not wanting to follow public safety rules is not an excuse to dodge work. No wages will focus their minds and government should also state that anyone losing their job due to this will be ineligible for any benefits. Time for fcukwits to have their horoscopes read.
This discussion has been closed.