Facemasks in the pro shop?

[ScienceBoy]

thought it (social distancing 2m) didn't matter as they were wearing masks!

This is probably the only defence there is for not having made masks mandatory sooner.

I agree wearing one is good when shopping etc, protects others in case I transfer without knowing.

Although very much the same as trying to not get it my focus has been on trying not to spread it.

It seems backwards but preventing yourself getting it is actually a lot of work, I have felt its better to ensure you don’t spread it as you never know you have it until its too late!

My in-laws who are in the at risk age bracket are focussing more on not getting it, and we are focussing on not giving it to them. Sadly that meant them not seeing their grandson for months!

So how you approach it is really a personal choice, some need to focus on not spreading it and others not getting it. If we all get the balance right we will get though this together.

 

[User20205]

No, I don't think it is. I find that the one size masks don't actually fit all and are claustrophobic, so I understand people not wanting to wear them. I also wonder why, when the deaths have dropped below the national average for this time of year, we are now being asked to wear them? We've had them on public transport for a while; if they were that important why not earlier and why wait to the 24th? I'd be interested to see the scientific reasoning behind having them now, when the death rate has lowered so much without them, rather than the political point scoring reasons. I think you might find that's where some of the issues are coming from, not selfishness.

The biggest issue with everyone wearing them is you will no longer easily recognise those shoppers with no concept of social distancing whatsoever, as before the 24th they were the ones wearing the masks.

These stats are interesting;
Mask Compliance rate in U.K. 31% always/frequently. Spain 93% same metric. U.K. infection rate is 434/100k people, Spain 540/100k.
I’m not anti if there’s a good reason and it’s not because of some other agenda

 

[jim8flog]

I can’t believe the amount of people complaining about having to wear one.
I would rather wear one (as I currently do when I go into peoples homes) than die or be the cause of someone dieing of the virus.Is it not just selfishness by protesting and complaining about it?

There is one that point the scientists are fully agreed on - if you are only wearing a face covering such as a bandana, fabric mask, or a single layer face mask the you are not protected from getting the virus.

I presume you have some sort of fully certified mask. The current requirement is about give a small degree of protection for others from the wearer rather than the other way round.

 

[Grant85]

Is it really that cold north of the border that you are still wearing scarves and snoods in July? A face mask is far smaller, lighter and easier.

Just something I might dig out of my golf bag if I've left a mask at home

 

[Slab]

These stats are interesting;
Mask Compliance rate in U.K. 31% always/frequently. Spain 93% same metric. U.K. infection rate is 434/100k people, Spain 540/100k.
I’m not anti if there’s a good reason and it’s not because of some other agenda

Tough to compare though because Spain was already going through a much wider spread when cases in the UK were still (comparatively) in its infancy (by 10x as many people)

 

[moogie]

No, I don't think it is. I find that the one size masks don't actually fit all and are claustrophobic, so I understand people not wanting to wear them. I also wonder why, when the deaths have dropped below the national average for this time of year, we are now being asked to wear them? We've had them on public transport for a while; if they were that important why not earlier and why wait to the 24th? I'd be interested to see the scientific reasoning behind having them now, when the death rate has lowered so much without them, rather than the political point scoring reasons. I think you might find that's where some of the issues are coming from, not selfishness.

The biggest issue with everyone wearing them is you will no longer easily recognise those shoppers with no concept of social distancing whatsoever, as before the 24th they were the ones wearing the masks.

Add on the fact that you now must wear mask, face covering, in a shop...... But not in a pub.....??

Big huge B&Q warehouse..... Wear a mask

Little tiny pub...... No mask

I'd like to hear the govt reasons behind that one, well a reason that made sense anyway

 

[jim8flog]

A couple of months ago the biggest thing I noticed was that the majority of people wearing masks in supermarkets were useless at social distancing.

 

[User20205]

Tough to compare though because Spain was already going through a much wider spread when cases in the UK were still (comparatively) in its infancy (by 10x as many people)

Maybe, face mask wearing in Denmark is even lower, with 1/2 the infection rate we have. I’ve yet to see any stats that show they prevent infection, but I’d wear one if it provides others with some kind of security/peace of mind

 

[Slab]

Maybe, face mask wearing in Denmark is even lower, with 1/2 the infection rate we have. I’ve yet to see any stats that show they prevent infection, but I’d wear one if it provides others with some kind of security/peace of mind

At what point in time though?
We've been mandated to wear masks here since it started (near full compliance for first 3 months, its waning now since we've no cases) but the deaths here are about 1% of what it would need to be to compare to Uk, with a population density way higher than the UK

I cant say its due to masks of course but i'm sure it plays its part

 

[Deleted member 21258]

Maybe, face mask wearing in Denmark is even lower, with 1/2 the infection rate we have. I’ve yet to see any stats that show they prevent infection, but I’d wear one if it provides others with some kind of security/peace of mind

Plenty of cases out there, where a virus positive person didn't infect others within closed environments, here is one such case :-

https://www.cmaj.ca/content/192/15/E410

Whether that proves a point or not, I don't know as it could have been fate. But there are various examples like above, so not a one off. There are loads of examples of super spreader events inside without masks, but again that doesn't prove the point. Just adds weight to wearing helps.

Also quite a few of the countries were it is 'normal' to wear them, appear to be doing better from the outset but again if it proves the point, is another matter, as there is much more involved than just masks in other country examples.

I suppose the thing that I think is more questionable or plan weird, is the lack of consistently in the application. Why only apply to shops, seems arbitrary to me? As I am far more likely to catch or pass it on without a mask in an office or Gym environment even with social distancing, hairdressers or a home environment when you have people round or in the pub sitting with others for a long time. Just weird to apply to just shops that are probably slightly less risky than the other examples that popped into my head...

Also I can not help to wonder, given how 'lowish' the cases are now, will it ever be reversed? And how low would the cases have to be to reverse it(Slabs post kind of adds weight to this)

I hope it will never be applicable outside with an element of social distancing, I would not like to wear one whilst playing golf for instance, would probably stop me playing tbh(outside appears to be super low risk, as kind of proved by no big spikes over the beaches, parks, protests and very few cases ever reported in the outside situation)

 

[Sports_Fanatic]

Add on the fact that you now must wear mask, face covering, in a shop...... But not in a pub.....??

Big huge B&Q warehouse..... Wear a mask

Little tiny pub...... No mask

I'd like to hear the govt reasons behind that one, well a reason that made sense anyway

The steps/precautions put in place are designed to minimise risk where possible rather than remove risk altogether (which isn't realistic) by shutting everything down and creating additional issues for the economy and health (e.g. mental health, delayed appointments etc).

It's perfectly easy to wear a mask in a "big huge B&Q warehouse" as you don't need to take it on or off for the activities you are planning to do in there i.e. picking up a product, taking it to the till to pay or even asking questions. The risk of catching Covid 19 at B&Q assuming normal level of shoppers is probably quite low given the space in the building, but if they started to distinguish which shops you should and shouldn't wear a mask in either by category of shop or floor space divided by number of people, then they'd get crucified for not delivering clear messaging. People can not cope with that sort of messaging as we've seen by your post and the public generally. so if masks have a 5% impact of reducing cases (made up figure) then why wouldn't you introduce them to improve the situation? If you think about all the safety features cars have, they didn't stop developing the crumple zones on impact, air bags etc just because you had a seat belt in them - the small margins of improvement can still have an impact.

A pub isn't practical for a mask to be worn as you'll be touching it to take on and off constantly in order to drink and eat. The additional amount of touching of the mask/face is likely to create a higher risk than having it off in these circumstances (e.g. rather than being required to wear it when waiting for food/drink which you could). Recognising pubs are higher risk areas, they've had to introduce different measures in order to try and reduce the risk such as table spacing, screens on the bar for staff, additional cleaning etc. Again, it's not realistic to remove 100% risk, just take potential steps to reduce it, which masks in shops are a pretty harmless protocol even if they don't have as much impact as standing 2m, 3m, 5m away etc).

Now don't come back with I'd like to see social distancing happen when people are drunk unless you are going to argue that lockdown for example shouldn't happen as we can't police that every single person was following the rules. The guidance is there to have an impact and to reduce the risk whilst opening up the economy - it won't be perfect but then I don't think anyone is claiming there is no risk whatsoever and perhaps we need to make people take a bit of personal responsibility.

On other areas of society being delayed behind pubs, I can sympathise with arguments but the purpose is to do a slower phasing of opening up the economy whilst tracking the impact of the changes. By doing it in stages (by any order deemed appropriate) then it gives a chance. Keeping groups and meetings in houses delayed is probably as that's areas where people are most likely to revert to old habits (e.g. close contact) and would trigger the biggest change in behaviour as everyone would want to visit someone i expect - hence rules easing but still perhaps "seen" as being daft if you could meet in a pub.

Hope that helps.

 

[User20205]

I’m not especially anti, I’d rather not but I get it could be part of a joined up approach. The timing to me just feels odd. The point was made earlier on tv that this could absolve the govt if any second spike happens.
It feels like a calculated political move rather than a public heath policy

 

[Slab]

I’m not especially anti, I’d rather not but I get it could be part of a joined up approach. The timing to me just feels odd. The point was made earlier on tv that this could absolve the govt if any second spike happens.
It feels like a calculated political move rather than a public heath policy

Yeah I cant say the UK timing/approach makes for easy understanding

In the clubhouse I wear one on arrival to drop my bag at player services, in the pro shop to pay etc & when being served in the bar/restaurant
When sitting (socially distanced) drinking/eating then no mask but when the waiter comes over then mask back on for a minute to place order
Not worn at all on the course

 

[moogie]

The steps/precautions put in place are designed to minimise risk where possible rather than remove risk altogether (which isn't realistic) by shutting everything down and creating additional issues for the economy and health (e.g. mental health, delayed appointments etc).

It's perfectly easy to wear a mask in a "big huge B&Q warehouse" as you don't need to take it on or off for the activities you are planning to do in there i.e. picking up a product, taking it to the till to pay or even asking questions. The risk of catching Covid 19 at B&Q assuming normal level of shoppers is probably quite low given the space in the building, but if they started to distinguish which shops you should and shouldn't wear a mask in either by category of shop or floor space divided by number of people, then they'd get crucified for not delivering clear messaging. People can not cope with that sort of messaging as we've seen by your post and the public generally. so if masks have a 5% impact of reducing cases (made up figure) then why wouldn't you introduce them to improve the situation? If you think about all the safety features cars have, they didn't stop developing the crumple zones on impact, air bags etc just because you had a seat belt in them - the small margins of improvement can still have an impact.

A pub isn't practical for a mask to be worn as you'll be touching it to take on and off constantly in order to drink and eat. The additional amount of touching of the mask/face is likely to create a higher risk than having it off in these circumstances (e.g. rather than being required to wear it when waiting for food/drink which you could). Recognising pubs are higher risk areas, they've had to introduce different measures in order to try and reduce the risk such as table spacing, screens on the bar for staff, additional cleaning etc. Again, it's not realistic to remove 100% risk, just take potential steps to reduce it, which masks in shops are a pretty harmless protocol even if they don't have as much impact as standing 2m, 3m, 5m away etc).

Now don't come back with I'd like to see social distancing happen when people are drunk unless you are going to argue that lockdown for example shouldn't happen as we can't police that every single person was following the rules. The guidance is there to have an impact and to reduce the risk whilst opening up the economy - it won't be perfect but then I don't think anyone is claiming there is no risk whatsoever and perhaps we need to make people take a bit of personal responsibility.

On other areas of society being delayed behind pubs, I can sympathise with arguments but the purpose is to do a slower phasing of opening up the economy whilst tracking the impact of the changes. By doing it in stages (by any order deemed appropriate) then it gives a chance. Keeping groups and meetings in houses delayed is probably as that's areas where people are most likely to revert to old habits (e.g. close contact) and would trigger the biggest change in behaviour as everyone would want to visit someone i expect - hence rules easing but still perhaps "seen" as being daft if you could meet in a pub.

Hope that helps.

Whoosh
What a load of patronising waffle
Thanks..... But I knew all that ?

Just trying to point out with the comparison that there was no real logic and certainly no medical reason/research to make 1 compulsory and the other not

I know the reason why pubs and other businesses have opened, it's basic economics

Thanks though

 

[TheJezster]

I mean I'll wear one, as it will be required, but I honestly don't see the point.

It's VERY much after the horse has bolted.

The number of cases are far below when we went into lockdown, and this is only coming in now!! And even then, not for another 10 days!!

Frankly I think its pathetic the way its been handled. If masks help (which I don't have strong feelings for either side) then they should have been made mandatory 2 months ago!

 

[Blue in Munich]

Add on the fact that you now must wear mask, face covering, in a shop...... But not in a pub.....??

Big huge B&Q warehouse..... Wear a mask

Little tiny pub...... No mask

I'd like to hear the govt reasons behind that one, well a reason that made sense anyway

I think the reason is Nicola Sturgeon.

 

[Bunkermagnet]

There is one that point the scientists are fully agreed on - if you are only wearing a face covering such as a bandana, fabric mask, or a single layer face mask the you are not protected from getting the virus.

I presume you have some sort of fully certified mask. The current requirement is about give a small degree of protection for others from the wearer rather than the other way round.

No. I wear a 2 ply cotton mask made by my daughter. The biggest thing I find wearing it is that people tend to stay further away from you in their home when I have my mask on than when I don't.

Just as responses on here show on this and other issues with the virus, people are only interested in getting what they want done.

 

[Sports_Fanatic]

I mean I'll wear one, as it will be required, but I honestly don't see the point.

It's VERY much after the horse has bolted.

The number of cases are far below when we went into lockdown, and this is only coming in now!! And even then, not for another 10 days!!

Frankly I think its pathetic the way its been handled. If masks help (which I don't have strong feelings for either side) then they should have been made mandatory 2 months ago!

I'm definitely agree it's not been handled brilliantly but I think the points are a bit off.

Not coming in for 10 days - presumably laws take time to pass, the change needs to be promoted through media to give people time to adjust and they also need to give people a chance to purchase masks before implementing something where you could be fined £100. Can you imagine the uproar for those against it, that wake up one day missing the news, pop into a shop and get fined £100. Beating the Government up over not bringing it in for 10 days therefore the rule is pointless (not your comment, i've seen it a lot on social media) seems a bit daft. Perhaps though they could have done it in a slightly earlier period although everyone knowing the rule should now be wearing them anyway if they take some personal responsibility i.e. we don't actually need to wait 10 days to apply it.

Infection rates are low but the aim is to keep it down so still a clear risk and therefore any measures still worth introducing especially with concern on second wave so I don't think that point stands.

On the 2 months ago point, they probably should have introduced it when you look at other countries, but presumably there was a) concern against that stock would be removed from frontline even if you state normal cotton mask is fine when they were getting PPE issues sorted and b) less benefit of masks as people were in lockdown in their own home not seeing anyone. It surely becomes more relevant now numbers are picking up where you can pass people in shops (previously closed), public transport (strongly encouraged against) etc. Yes there was still people working so get your point, but perhaps still had less impact then when people could more easily keep 2m apart or were staying in.

As a side point, it's a bit like the concern in Mar/Apr about airports not being shut when in practice they were bringing people home who then had to go home and lockdown/isolate anyway, it's not as if tourists would be coming in to sight see as hotels and sights were closed, so would there have been benefit to either closing or paying for hotel quarantine. May be more accurately would the benefit be marginal enough to warrant the cost/time taken over it.

 

[KenL]

I'm definitely agree it's not been handled brilliantly but I think the points are a bit off.

Not coming in for 10 days - presumably laws take time to pass, the change needs to be promoted through media to give people time to adjust and they also need to give people a chance to purchase masks before implementing something where you could be fined £100. Can you imagine the uproar for those against it, that wake up one day missing the news, pop into a shop and get fined £100. Beating the Government up over not bringing it in for 10 days therefore the rule is pointless (not your comment, i've seen it a lot on social media) seems a bit daft. Perhaps though they could have done it in a slightly earlier period although everyone knowing the rule should now be wearing them anyway if they take some personal responsibility i.e. we don't actually need to wait 10 days to apply it.

Infection rates are low but the aim is to keep it down so still a clear risk and therefore any measures still worth introducing especially with concern on second wave so I don't think that point stands.

On the 2 months ago point, they probably should have introduced it when you look at other countries, but presumably there was a) concern against that stock would be removed from frontline even if you state normal cotton mask is fine when they were getting PPE issues sorted and b) less benefit of masks as people were in lockdown in their own home not seeing anyone. It surely becomes more relevant now numbers are picking up where you can pass people in shops (previously closed), public transport (strongly encouraged against) etc. Yes there was still people working so get your point, but perhaps still had less impact then when people could more easily keep 2m apart or were staying in.

As a side point, it's a bit like the concern in Mar/Apr about airports not being shut when in practice they were bringing people home who then had to go home and lockdown/isolate anyway, it's not as if tourists would be coming in to sight see as hotels and sights were closed, so would there have been benefit to either closing or paying for hotel quarantine. May be more accurately would the benefit be marginal enough to warrant the cost/time taken over it.

Gosh, you like a long post.

 

[Sports_Fanatic]

Gosh, you like a long post.

Yes