UK face coverings discussion

[Richard Scott]

And doctors are likely to refuse, because they have better things to eb doing. Businesses who behave like this deserve to go bust.

Exactly, you won't get one from the doctor, they just don't do it.

 

[stuartl]

A pub near me says that customers who are exempt from wearing a facemask will have to show a letter from their doctor. An exemption card will not be excepted because anybody can get one. Safe to say i wont be drinking in there.

As far as I know you cannot get an exemption letter from your doctor ( or anyone else), my GP has a message on their website to that effect. It's sufficient for someone to self declare as per govt guidance.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As far as I know you cannot get an exemption letter from your doctor ( or anyone else), my GP has a message on their website to that effect. It's sufficient for someone to self declare as per govt guidance.

I know of a pub who is asking people wishing to visit without a mask to phone or FB message them to say so in advance of showing up, the basis presumably being that most casual objectors wouldn't be that brazen.

 

[Darandio]

A pub near me says that customers who are exempt from wearing a facemask will have to show a letter from their doctor. An exemption card will not be excepted because anybody can get one. Safe to say i wont be drinking in there.

Name and shame the hovel so everyone else can avoid it as well.

 

[yorkie]

Unfortunately i suspect mandatory face covering in all indoor workplaces will be the next step...

I believe my workplace may be mandating it in certain settings; I am going to resign from at least one of my jobs (I have many jobs and regularly turn work down; I am very lucky in that respect but not everyone is so lucky) if this happens in the way I fear it might happen....

 

[Ascotroyal]

Name and shame the hovel so everyone else can avoid it as well.

The station tap in Wokingham. Iv also put it on my Facebook

 

[VauxhallandI]

The station tap in Wokingham. Iv also put it on my Facebook

You can barely get to see a Dr full stop never mind for certificates.

 

[43066]

Yet a paltry £10 off a meal brought people out in droves. Doesn’t exactly imply lack of confidence.

And a few short weeks later we’re all being chased out of the restaurants and hostelries by 10pm. There’s nothing like clear and consistent messaging!

 

[STINT47]

A pub near me says that customers who are exempt from wearing a facemask will have to show a letter from their doctor. An exemption card will not be accepted because anybody can get one. Safe to say I won't be drinking in there.

My exemption is related to mental health. For a letter I doubt my GP has the specialist knowledge do an accurate diagnosis and I would need to see a psychiatrist at a mental health clinic.

Hate to break it to the pub but NHS mental health services were rather overstretched before covid increased their workload. I doubt I would get a letter any time soon.

 

[bramling]

And a few short weeks later we’re all being chased out of the restaurants and hostelries by 10pm. There’s nothing like clear and consistent messaging!

And of course half a billion pounds later, which was the cost of the eat out to spread virus scheme, as it now seems to be universally known.

And this man is now tipped to be next PM?!

My hotel restaurant was interesting this evening. The staff have now gone from visors to masks, and whilst they’re putting on a brave face it’s obvious they’re not comfortable nor happy. The Perspex round the bar is now superfluous as it’s table service only, yet what’s happening in practice is people are naturally going up to the end of the bar (where there isn’t Perspex!), and the staff are hurriedly putting their masks on. And there’s a card appeared on each table saying raise hands for service. Of course this is all so much safer than last night...

 

[island]

The law on mask wearing doesn't apply if you are exempt, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that that exempts them from distancing (which is now a legal requirement for businesses to enforce, for the first time) - have you?

No, I haven't seen a specific exemption - but my reading of it would be that the exempt person should be treated the same as a non-exempt one and therefore measures should be the same. This could be a grey area though - which wouldn't be unexpected given how badly all this legislation has been drafted.

In England, distancing is only legally mandatory for restaurants, pubs and cafés. (Wales is stricter.)

The requirement to treat disabled customers the same as non-disabled customers is not absolute. It is qualified in several ways. It must be remembered that providers have a duty of care to their staff and other customers as well as to disabled customers. Firstly, providers are only required to make adjustments if they are reasonable. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances; it has been held for example that making ancient premises wheelchair-accessible at immense cost is not a reasonable adjustment. So to the provider of a rather small boat, if it is infeasible to carry someone who cannot wear a face covering because maintaining the necessary distance between them and other passengers is impossible, the provider is unlikely to be required to buy a new boat, or operate a special crossing without other passengers, or so on.

Secondly, a provider may treat a disabled customer less favourably if this is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. It is a possibility that refusing to serve a customer who by reason of disability is unable to wear a face covering may come under this qualification, as may requesting the customer to book an appointment when no other customers are present, or asking that the customer wait outside whilst whatever it is they are wanting is brought to them.

It is trivially true that safeguarding public health by reducing the spread of COVID19 will be seen as a legitimate aim by any court. The question we must ask ourselves here is whether this is proportionate. Depending on the individual circumstances, it seems to me that it may well be proportionate to take the above actions in respect of a particularly small shop. But the outcome will depend on the particular facts of the case.

Exactly, you won't get one from the doctor, they just don't do it.

As far as I know you cannot get an exemption letter from your doctor ( or anyone else), my GP has a message on their website to that effect. It's sufficient for someone to self declare as per govt guidance.

My exemption is related to mental health. For a letter I doubt my GP has the specialist knowledge do an accurate diagnosis and I would need to see a psychiatrist at a mental health clinic.

Hate to break it to the pub but NHS mental health services were rather overstretched before covid increased their workload. I doubt I would get a letter any time soon.

It is the policy of my local NHS trust, and several others that I am aware of, not to issue certificates of mask exemption, as government guidance is that these are not required.

A shop that I frequent made it known that it would be requesting certificates from people claiming exemption. I contacted them privately and politely pointed out that this was contrary to government guidance, and they promptly withdrew the policy. They now say words to the effect of “we request that customers exempt from wearing a mask who are comfortable doing so display an exemption card which can be obtained from us or printed off online, so as to avoid the need to explain themselves repeatedly to different staff members who may not be aware of their conditions”. I think this is fine.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

I think the situation with pubs and restaurants in August very much demonstrates that: a short-term incentive, and people were straight back out in sizeable numbers.

The fact that it was August and it was warm was the key factor.
Imagine if the timeline were different, and the pandemic had started 5 months later than it did.
If such a scheme were tried in, say, a wet / snowbound and windy January, would people have the appetite for dining al fresco, or with all the restaurant windows open (to assist ventilation) ?

 

[DB]

The fact that it was August and it was warm was the key factor.
Imagine if the timeline were different, and the pandemic had started 5 months later than it did.
If such a scheme were tried in, say, a wet / snowbound and windy January, would people have the appetite for dining al fresco with all the restaurant windows open (to assist ventilation) ?

Thr timing certainly helped - but it does demonstrate that it doesn't take much to get people back into normal habits despite all the bleating about lack of 'confidence'.

 

[35B]

Thr timing certainly helped - but it does demonstrate that it doesn't take much to get people back into normal habits despite all the bleating about lack of 'confidence'.

Were they normal, though. Any statistics I saw suggested demand was still brittle.

 

[birchesgreen]

This article will put the cat amongst the pigeons. The gist is that wearing a mask reduces the viral load people receive when they are infected which reduces the severity of it.

Face masks could be giving people Covid-19 immunity, researchers suggest

Mask wearing might also be reducing the severity of the virus and ensuring that a greater proportion of new infections are asymptomatic

www.telegraph.co.uk

The commentary, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, advances the unproven but promising theory that universal face mask wearing might be helping to reduce the severity of the virus and ensuring that a greater proportion of new infections are asymptomatic.

If this hypothesis is borne out, the academics argue, then universal mask-wearing could become a form of variolation (inoculation) that would generate immunity and “thereby slow the spread of the virus in the United States and elsewhere” as the world awaits a vaccine.

It comes as increasing evidence suggests that the amount of virus someone is exposed to at the start of infection - the “infectious dose” - may determine the severity of their illness. Indeed, a large study published in the Lancet last month found that “viral load at diagnosis” was an “independent predictor of mortality” in hospital patients.

Wearing masks could therefore reduce the infectious dose that the wearer is exposed to and, subsequently, the impact of the disease, as masks filter out some virus-containing droplets.

 

[Darandio]

This article will put the cat amongst the pigeons. The gist is that wearing a mask reduces the viral load people receive when they are infected which reduces the severity of it.

Not really. It's an article containing buzzwords such as unproven, theory and could. Maybe in the long run theories might turn out to be proven correct and some evidence might actually be provided but until then they are just that, theories.

The problem the world over seems to be that people read these articles and class them as evidence, then start shouting about them and the powers that be take notice and use theories as a basis for their actions.

 

[birchesgreen]

Well everything is a theory until proven or otherwise, tends to be how science works.

 

[Darandio]

Well everything is a theory until proven or otherwise, tends to be how science works.

Indeed, we therefore shouldn't make such potentially damaging decisions based on it.

 

[yorkie]

I'm not convinced masks make much - if any - difference; there are many other variables at play.

If they made that much difference, how do we explain infection rates in Sweden (no face coverings) vs France (strict rules on face coverings)?

(I know I've asked this before, but so far no-one has answered that, so I am assuming that they don't make much difference)

What punishment should be given to school pupils who are caught without a face covering on in a school that has mandated it, but where the Government are not advising it (i.e. not a local lockdown area)? e.g. would a school be able to say if a student does this 3 times in a week (or any other 3 misbehaviours), they get a 1 hour detention?

Can/should school staff be disciplined for not handing out the agreed punishment for this?

(My answers are "No they should not be, and they shouldn't be!" but I'd like to hear others views on this)

 

[DB]

Were they normal, though. Any statistics I saw suggested demand was still brittle.

Round here they were certainly busy, and Pizza Express had queues outside. It's reported as costing something like half a billion quid - so clearly there was a lot of take-up.

Well everything is a theory until proven or otherwise, tends to be how science works.

Indeed, but not all theories are equal - some have so much evidence that they are as close to 'facts' as you can get in science. Some have sufficient evidence that they are a sound basis on which to make decisions. And some, like this, are more a hypothesis which hasn't really been demonstrated (yet, at least) - and certainly not to a level where it should be used in making important decisions.

 

[DustyBin]

I'm not convinced masks make much - if any - difference; there are many other variables at play.

If they made that much difference, how do we explain infection rates in Sweden (no face coverings) vs France (strict rules on face coverings)?

(I know I've asked this before, but so far no-one has answered that, so I am assuming that they don't make much difference)

What punishment should be given to school pupils who are caught without a face covering on in a school that has mandated it, but where the Government are not advising it (i.e. not a local lockdown area)? e.g. would a school be able to say if a student does this 3 times in a week (or any other 3 misbehaviours), they get a 1 hour detention?

Can/should school staff be disciplined for not handing out the agreed punishment for this?

(My answers are "No they should not be, and they shouldn't be!" but I'd like to hear others views on this)

I’m certain that if there was any evidence whatsoever that masks make a difference we’d be having it shoved down our throats left right and centre! As it stands we’re not, so presumably there isn’t. I’m willing to accept that if somebody stands directly facing you and coughs or sneezes, they may well reduce viral load, but who does that? And isn’t that why tissues were invented? The same tissues incidentally that we’re told to put safely in the nearest bin....

 

[MikeWM]

This article will put the cat amongst the pigeons. The gist is that wearing a mask reduces the viral load people receive when they are infected which reduces the severity of it.

Face masks could be giving people Covid-19 immunity, researchers suggest

Mask wearing might also be reducing the severity of the virus and ensuring that a greater proportion of new infections are asymptomatic

www.telegraph.co.uk

But then, also in the Telegraph, they're saying the virus may be getting more contagious due to mask-wearing!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ation-could-evolving-get-around-mask-wearing/

Covid-19 may have become more contagious as it has mutated, the largest genetic study carried out in the US into the virus has suggested, as scientists warn it could be adapting to interventions such as mask-wearing and social distancing.

...although I'm not convinced the article really reflects the headline.

Basically, it is all a load of 'we don't know', which effectively sums up the entire mask debate.

 

[DB]

I’m certain that if there was any evidence whatsoever that masks make a difference we’d be having it shoved down our throats left right and centre! As it stands we’re not, so presumably there isn’t.

It's quite noticeable that the 'growing evidence', claimed as the justification for the masks in shops mandate back in July, still doesn't seem to have appeared!

 

[island]

But then, also in the Telegraph, they're saying the virus may be getting more contagious due to mask-wearing!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/24/new-coronavirus-mutation-could-evolving-get-around-mask-wearing/


...although I'm not convinced the article really reflects the headline.

Basically, it is all a load of 'we don't know', which effectively sums up the entire mask debate.

I was very much hoping to read the Telegraph article you linked to, but the link does not seem to work. Can you try posting it again please?

 

[MikeWM]

I was very much hoping to read the Telegraph article you linked to, but the link does not seem to work. Can you try posting it again please?

Yes (though, while I agree it didn't work, I'm not sure why...) I've edited my post and it appears to work now.

 

[yorkie]

But then, also in the Telegraph, they're saying the virus may be getting more contagious due to mask-wearing!

I am not a fan of mask wearing but I think it's far fetched to suggest it is more contagious due to this.

However there have been a lot of reports to suggest the new strain may be more contagious but result in milder symptoms (which is, evolutionary, to the benefit of the virus)

 

[trebor79]

It's quite noticeable that the 'growing evidence', claimed as the justification for the masks in shops mandate back in July, still doesn't seem to have appeared!

Yes, funny that. And the "growing evidence" is never referred to now, it's just "Do as I say or be slapped with a £200 fine".

I am not a fan of mask wearing but I think it's far fetched to suggest it is more contagious due to this.

However there have been a lot of reports to suggest the new strain may be more contagious but result in milder symptoms (which is, evolutionary, to the benefit of the virus)

It's not unimaginable. IF masks have an effect in reducing viral load, then it is reasonable to assume that strains which need a larger viral load to result in a self-sustaining infection will be less likely to enter a new host in sufficient numbers to cause infection. Whereas a more virulent strain might stand a better chance of causing infection. In that circumstance the less virulent strain will tend to fade away and the more virulent strain to predominate.

It's for similar reasons that viruses tend over time to become less harmful, as very ill and dead people don't tend to be as good at spreading virus particles, and therefore the strains which kill people find fewer new hosts than strains which kill less people.

 

[DustyBin]

Yes, funny that. And the "growing evidence" is never referred to now, it's just "Do as I say or be slapped with a £200 fine".

Which seems to be the general approach of this government to all things Covid related.

 

[MikeWM]

I am not a fan of mask wearing but I think it's far fetched to suggest it is more contagious due to this.

Yes, I agree! As I suggested, I don't think even the article suggests what the headline does.

However there have been a lot of reports to suggest the new strain may be more contagious but result in milder symptoms (which is, evolutionary, to the benefit of the virus)

Yes, I agree with that too (despite Whitty/Valance rather oddly dismissing the idea earlier this week - though I guess that would diminish the need for a money-generating vaccine, so had to be dismissed...)

 

[yorkie]

Yes, funny that. And the "growing evidence" is never referred to now, it's just "Do as I say or be slapped with a £200 fine".


It's not unimaginable. IF masks have an effect in reducing viral load, then it is reasonable to assume that strains which need a larger viral load to result in a self-sustaining infection will be less likely to enter a new host in sufficient numbers to cause infection. Whereas a more virulent strain might stand a better chance of causing infection. In that circumstance the less virulent strain will tend to fade away and the more virulent strain to predominate.

It's for similar reasons that viruses tend over time to become less harmful, as very ill and dead people don't tend to be as good at spreading virus particles, and therefore the strains which kill people find fewer new hosts than strains which kill less people.

Interesting suggestion but is it actually a different strain?

I do agree with your last paragraph but I'm not sure that any change in strains will be down to mask wearing. I'd be interested to hear virologists views.