UK face coverings discussion

[Grecian 1998]

I still can't see any likelihood of masks being mandated outdoors. If they were it would be enforced as frequently as the laws prohibiting riding bikes on pavements or smoking weed in parks i.e. almost never even if the police see it. There aren't enough police to rigorously enforce the laws in shops or on public transport (not that I think there should be, just that there aren't). How would the police enforce it in the great outdoors?

In any case, if people aren't carrying ID (which they aren't required to do) and all appear to be called Mr D Cummings / Dom C / D Cummings Esq, what are the police going to do? You can hand someone a fine but it's completely unenforceable. You can't tell someone to go home if there isn't a stay at home rule and how would it possible to determine if they were going there anyway? Whilst arrest powers could probably be invoked for one of many vague offences if desired, it might seem slight overkill for walking down a street in possession of an unconcealed nose and lips. Particularly when the paperwork is considered.

Even if it was mandated in specified town and city centre streets, the police probably have better things to do and the idea of COVID marshalls seems thankfully to have fizzled out. For now at least.

 

[bramling]

I still can't see any likelihood of masks being mandated outdoors. If they were it would be enforced as frequently as the laws prohibiting riding bikes on pavements or smoking weed in parks i.e. almost never even if the police see it. There aren't enough police to rigorously enforce the laws in shops or on public transport (not that I think there should be, just that there aren't). How would the police enforce it in the great outdoors?

In any case, if people aren't carrying ID (which they aren't required to do) and all appear to be called Mr D Cummings / Dom C / D Cummings Esq, what are the police going to do? You can hand someone a fine but it's completely unenforceable. You can't tell someone to go home if there isn't a stay at home rule and how would it possible to determine if they were going there anyway? Whilst arrest powers could probably be invoked for one of many vague offences if desired, it might seem slight overkill for walking down a street in possession of an unconcealed nose and lips. Particularly when the paperwork is considered.

Even if it was mandated in specified town and city centre streets, the police probably have better things to do and the idea of COVID marshalls seems thankfully to have fizzled out. For now at least.

These are all good reasons why it shouldn’t happen, however it’s already happening elsewhere in Europe, and not so long ago we were thinking “lockdown wouldn’t happen here”.

And whilst you are of course right over the practicalities of enforcement, I’m sure that wouldn’t worry Boris - we’d just see rubbish like Cressida Dick advocating shaming. There’s enough unpleasant vigilante types about who would be more than happy to take that on.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Now look at the graphic on that Tweet. As others on that thread suggests, it contradicts the text.

Well, quite. And repeatedly putting it on and off isn't going to do a lot to prevent you getting COVID all over your fingers.

By all means say to wear while reading the menu and (particularly, as that involves close contact) while ordering, but then off while the food and drink is there, and on at the end before you leave.

 

[kristiang85]

Now look at the graphic on that Tweet. As others on that thread suggests, it contradicts the text.

Ah sorry, I missed the text on that.

But they could word it better, unless Americans call meals "bites"?

 

[Richard Scott]

On the plus side, in the unlikely event you were prosecuted for being sat without a mask whilst waiting for your food to come, you would have a reasonable excuse that you were following the official government website.

Just been out for a meal and the notice on the door said masks were required whilst moving around but not expected to be worn at tables.

 

[big_rig]

These are all good reasons why it shouldn’t happen, however it’s already happening elsewhere in Europe, and not so long ago we were thinking “lockdown wouldn’t happen here”.

And whilst you are of course right over the practicalities of enforcement, I’m sure that wouldn’t worry Boris - we’d just see rubbish like Cressida Dick advocating shaming. There’s enough unpleasant vigilante types about who would be more than happy to take that on.

Oh, don’t worry about practicalities! That didn’t stop the Met driving their police van around my local common every single day for weeks during the height of the lockdown, barking at people to stop sitting down on the grass and keep moving. After that I don’t think there is anything they wouldn’t do, no matter how mad.

 

[island]

In any case, if people aren't carrying ID (which they aren't required to do) and all appear to be called Mr D Cummings / Dom C / D Cummings Esq, what are the police going to do? You can hand someone a fine but it's completely unenforceable. You can't tell someone to go home if there isn't a stay at home rule and how would it possible to determine if they were going there anyway? Whilst arrest powers could probably be invoked for one of many vague offences if desired, it might seem slight overkill for walking down a street in possession of an unconcealed nose and lips. Particularly when the paperwork is considered.

Section 24 (5) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act would cover an arrest, particularly of someone failing the attitude test by acting in the manner you describe.

 

[farleigh]

Sturgeon now announced it will be mandatory to wear face coverings in workplace corridors and communal areas (ie canteens)

Another pointless exercise.

Ridiculous IMO

Section 24 (5) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act would cover an arrest, particularly of someone failing the attitude test by acting in the manner you describe.

The police's job is to enforce the law,not to arrest people because they don't fancy their attitude.

 

[island]

The police's job is to enforce the law,not to arrest people because they don't fancy their attitude.

And someone refusing to give their correct name to the police is preventing them from enforcing the law.

 

[GodAtum]

I wonder what will happen if the gov removes the face covering rules. Will TOCs still say masks are compulsory to cover their backs? If they do i certainly would strongly protest.

Or will masks be like cycle helmets. Not compulsory but people frown upon you if you don't wear one.

 

[packermac]

I wonder what will happen if the gov removes the face covering rules. Will TOCs still say masks are compulsory to cover their backs? If they do i certainly would strongly protest.

Or will masks be like cycle helmets. Not compulsory but people frown upon you if you don't wear one.

Well that will be a long way off but I suspect like in the Far East you will see more mask wearing in the cold and flu season, out of consideration for others, even if Covid has a vaccine.

 

[greyman42]

All venues I have been to ask you only cover up when moving around, if suddenly people were expected to only remove them when about to take a bite or a drink the places would empty. I feel that the spirit of it is once sat down to eat or drink, you don't need them, and that it is just badly drafted.

That is correct.

Or will masks be like cycle helmets. Not compulsory but people frown upon you if you don't wear one.

I have never come across anyone who could care less if other people do or don't wear cycle helmets. It should be the same with masks.

 

[kristiang85]

TFL have just released a somewhat strongly worded tweet that is not going down well... https://twitter.com/TfL/status/1314226926589009922

Thank you to the majority of people for wearing face coverings

Our enforcement officers and the police are targeting the selfish minority who aren't wearing them, or who are wearing them incorrectly. We’d prefer people did the right thing but fines will be issued if needed.

I know they are limited to 280 characters, but there really needs to be a reference to exemptions there.

 

[bramling]

I wonder what will happen if the gov removes the face covering rules. Will TOCs still say masks are compulsory to cover their backs? If they do i certainly would strongly protest.

Or will masks be like cycle helmets. Not compulsory but people frown upon you if you don't wear one.

We didn’t have any frowning before it became law.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have never come across anyone who could care less if other people do or don't wear cycle helmets. It should be the same with masks.

I have, lots of times.

 

[DB]

TFL have just released a somewhat strongly worded tweet that is not going down well... https://twitter.com/TfL/status/1314226926589009922

I know they are limited to 280 characters, but there really needs to be a reference to exemptions there.

The usual aggressive attitude which is increasigly being shown towards us New Lepers.

 

[al78]

Ridiculous IMO


The police's job is to enforce the law,not to arrest people because they don't fancy their attitude.

There is probably a law that covers being verbally abusive to a police officer, if their attitude went that far.

I have never come across anyone who could care less if other people do or don't wear cycle helmets. It should be the same with masks.

I ride a bicycle for most local transport and the helmet wearing thing has come up plenty of times. Unfortunately, people are ignorant and haven't looked at the evidence, so like to mouth opinions on subjects they don't have a clue about. They then become emotionally attached to those opinions, which then become near impossible to alter with facts and evidence. Welcome to flawed human cognition. I do ride with a helmet but not because I believe it will make any significant difference in an accident, it is to ease the concern of those who care about me since I was nearly killed.

Back on topic, my gym has now regulated face coverings must be worn when moving about, but not required when exercising. I guess that means I have to put one on when I enter the building, take it off before I perform an exercise, and put it back on during rest periods between sets. All rather tedious, but whatever.

 

[35B]

There is probably a law that covers being verbally abusive to a police officer, if their attitude went that far.



I ride a bicycle for most local transport and the helmet wearing thing has come up plenty of times. Unfortunately, people are ignorant and haven't looked at the evidence, so like to mouth opinions on subjects they don't have a clue about. They then become emotionally attached to those opinions, which then become near impossible to alter with facts and evidence. Welcome to flawed human cognition. I do ride with a helmet but not because I believe it will make any significant difference in an accident, it is to ease the concern of those who care about me since I was nearly killed.

Back on topic, my gym has now regulated face coverings must be worn when moving about, but not required when exercising. I guess that means I have to put one on when I enter the building, take it off before I perform an exercise, and put it back on during rest periods between sets. All rather tedious, but whatever.

Just on the point about the effectiveness of helmets, my wife is living proof that they do work - having gone over the bonnet of a car, the helmet was split in two. Despite that, she walked away from the accident; had the helmet not been there, her skull would have had to absorb that energy instead.

And, coming back to masks, I would not extend from that empirical observation to an assertion that they will work in all circumstances.

 

[packermac]

TFL have just released a somewhat strongly worded tweet that is not going down well... https://twitter.com/TfL/status/1314226926589009922



I know they are limited to 280 characters, but there really needs to be a reference to exemptions there.

Not sure where you have worked if you believe if that tweet is strongly worded. It is just stating facts. For most of the bosses I ever worked for that type of remark would just have been a mild rebuke.

 

[43066]

If they were it would be enforced as frequently as the laws prohibiting riding bikes on pavements or smoking weed in parks i.e. almost never

So just as frequently as the current masking requirements are enforced! It’s a nasty policy which relies heavily on peer pressure and virtue signalling. That is entirely deliberate, of course.

Not sure where you have worked if you believe if that tweet is strongly worded. It is just stating facts. For most of the bosses I ever worked for that type of remark would just have been a mild rebuke.

I disagree. Describing non wearers as a “selfish minority” is a value judgment rather than a factual statement. It’s completely inappropriate for a public body such as TfL to use emotive language such as this, which will only encourage victimisation of those who are not wearing coverings, often for perfectly valid reasons.

 

[bramling]

Describing non wearers as a “selfish minority” is a value judgment rather than a factual statement. It’s completely inappropriate for a public body such as TfL to use emotive language such as this, which will only encourage victimisation of those who are not wearing coverings, often for perfectly valid reasons.

Spot on. In fact, I’d go further - not only is it completely inappropriate, it’s downright disgusting.

No doubt this is emanating from Sadiq Khan, who seems fixated with masks.

 

[al78]

Just on the point about the effectiveness of helmets, my wife is living proof that they do work - having gone over the bonnet of a car, the helmet was split in two. Despite that, she walked away from the accident; had the helmet not been there, her skull would have had to absorb that energy instead.

And, coming back to masks, I would not extend from that empirical observation to an assertion that they will work in all circumstances.

If the helmet split in two, it did nothing. A helmet is made of polystyrene and it takes minimal force to snap polystyrene (try it next time you buy something wrapped in it). Helmets work by absorbing the force through crushing of the polystyrene, which is much harder to do (again, try it). I therefore suggest there is no way you can claim the helmet did anything substantial in mitigating more serious injuries (maybe if there was evidence of crushing). It is very likely your wife's skull would have been able to absorb that impact, the human skull is extremely tough.

A helmet saved my life!

A helmet saved my life!

www.cyclehelmets.org

 

[island]

Back on topic, my gym has now regulated face coverings must be worn when moving about, but not required when exercising. I guess that means I have to put one on when I enter the building, take it off before I perform an exercise, and put it back on during rest periods between sets. All rather tedious, but whatever.

That’s a complete nonsense and if mine did that I would be finding another gym. There are plenty crying out for members.

 

[35B]

If the helmet split in two, it did nothing. A helmet is made of polystyrene and it takes minimal force to snap polystyrene (try it next time you buy something wrapped in it). Helmets work by absorbing the force through crushing of the polystyrene, which is much harder to do (again, try it). I therefore suggest there is no way you can claim the helmet did anything substantial in mitigating more serious injuries (maybe if there was evidence of crushing). It is very likely your wife's skull would have been able to absorb that impact, the human skull is extremely tough.

A helmet saved my life!

A helmet saved my life!

www.cyclehelmets.org

We will need to agree to disagree; the split was down the centreline of a helmet being worn, and with plastic coating acting to restrain fracture, so not a snap fracture. I also defer to the police and A&E staff whose comments were of grave surprise (and relief) that she was walking wounded, not a stretcher case or worse.

 

[Kingspanner]

The main purpose of any helmet is to distribute forces so that no part of the skull is subject to a pressure sufficient to fracture it. Also the padding allows for a little deceleration space so that peak deceleration of the brain is reduced. It is particularly important to have that force distributing effect when striking hard surfaces especially those with edges.
As for the human skull being very tough, well I'll not put that to the test if I can help it.
Leaving aside other sites mentioned upthread, I will take this document as an authority https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598379/ It is a report on the findings of a systematic review of published data on cyclists and helmets and includes this "

This review included five well conducted case‐control studies and found that helmets provide a 63–88% reduction in the risk of head, brain and severe brain injury for all ages of bicyclists".

But of course, enforced helmet wearing discourages cycling and thus reduces the health benefits of cycling overall.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

The only thing masks and cycling helmets have in common is that both seem to make the wearer think they're invincible!

I wonder if, like Italy, the UK government makes wearing masks outdoors compulsory, cyclists will be exempt?

 

[Kingspanner]

And incidentally, the reason why cycle helmets and masks are not remotely equivalent is this. Whether I wear a helmet or not will have an utterly trivial effect on anyone else.

 

[Richard Scott]

And incidentally, the reason why cycle helmets and masks are not remotely equivalent is this. Whether I wear a helmet or not will have an utterly trivial effect on anyone else.

As will the mask

 

[Horizon22]

TFL have just released a somewhat strongly worded tweet that is not going down well... https://twitter.com/TfL/status/1314226926589009922



I know they are limited to 280 characters, but there really needs to be a reference to exemptions there.

Already deleted?

 

[johnnychips]

Can we put a discussion about cycle helmets somewhere else?