Marginal benefit, but for minimal personal cost, so I'm not too fussed albeit I hope this requirement is lifted for the spring.
Sixteen pages on the other current thread about face coverings. Sixteen pages in 24 hours. If the PM had stood-up and said 'no masks, but schools closed until February', I doubt it would have attracted a tenth of the interest here.
More posts is not necessarily an indicator of more
interest; in this case it is more
conflict.
There was very little conflict on this forum about schools; some people disagreed with me in the early days about whether or not schools should be open but as time went on it became less of a conflict and more of a universal agreement that schools should remain open.
Not really relevant - my point is that you have said the following:
Being told to stay at home and self-isolate is a restriction. Should we disregard those restrictions as well?
You then say that we should stay at home if unwell, so going against your own advice of never ‘allowing ourselves to be restricted again in any form whatsoever’.
I do not think there should be any legal restrictions relating to this. If someone is ill they should choose to stay at home. It is not appropriate to insist someone isolates just because they have been in close contact with someone who tested positive; if you accept that level of authoritarianism you are part of the problem this country faces at the moment.
Of course, if people are hit hard by Covid they will have no choice to stay at home as they will barely be able to move, but other people with Covid have just minor symptoms or are asymtomatic. If they feel ok, but have a positive test, should they just disregard the restrictions?
There should be no such restriction. Obviously at some point it
will go (perhaps around April), but it should not exist now.
I feel like the use of ‘virtue signalling’ here is inaccurate and dismissive (of course, I know my opinion will be ‘wrong’).
How is it not virtue signalling if you have been wearing face coverings in shops (when not required to) then go to a pub and don't wear one? It's an absolutely blatant example of virtue signalling.
Many people wearing masks won’t be ‘virtue signallers’ but will simply be following government guidance,
If they are legally required to wear a mask except if exempt and do not feel an exemption applies or feel uncomfortable about claiming one, that is not virtue signalling on the part of the wearer; it is virtue signalling on the part of the policy and those who called for, support and created such policies.
and guidance by medical professionals and scientists (and I’m well aware there is mixed views on this in the scientific community). Sure, maybe some will wear masks simply to look good, as you may argue. You will also argue that the guidance is wrong, but my point is people will do it because that’s what the guidance says, not necessarily because they are ‘virtue signallers’.
Any decent scientist who understands that Sars-CoV-2 is transmitted through tiny aerosol particles will understand that if the aim is to avoid transmission, an effective tight fitting mask that is designed to filter such particles would be required, and that wearing loose fitting, flimsy masks which are not designed to filter aerosol particles will not protect anyone from transmission of the virus.
And we wonder how totalitarian regimes gained power. I despair!
That is not a fair criticism.
I admire people who will not be going to shops or travelling by public transport during this time and I also admire people who will be claiming exemptions or simply refusing to comply, but it is simply not realistic to expect that everyone is going to be in a position to do either of these things.
The reality is that most people will still be in shops and on public transport and most of those people are going to be reluctantly wearing a face covering (even if that means wearing an incredibly thin useless piece of cloth)
I wish it wasn't so, but we have to be realistic.
I understand your frustration but we cannot blame people for going along with this.
By all means blame those who called for it, and those who implemented it, and those who are happy for it to be this way. But not ordinary people who just want to avoid hassle in their lives.