Mask wearing logic

If masks are only compulsory in shops and public transport, then the government *doesn't* need to provide compensation for hospitality venues, etc where masks aren't required. The net effect of increasing the regulations for some settings is that many companies and individuals will take the view that Christmas parties, etc are too high risk and will cancel or postpone them. So the likely effect is a fall in income for pubs, restaurants, etc in the period when they traditionally make the most money.

I know my employer has already cancelled Christmas parties, and I doubt they are the only ones - not that I could/would go anyway as it would have been in London.

 

I bet wearing a mask to walk into a pub/restaurant then to take it off while seated saved loads of lives.

 

It isn't being enforced strictly anyway since the rules changed. I went into a store after the change of rules and most staff didn't have them on nor did many shoppers.

 

I think it is the Government moving from Defcon 4 to Defcon 3. We are now on a higher level of alert. It's a cheap and easy thing to do with little obstruction in your daily life. In secondary schools mask wearing is now compulsory in the classroom and corridors unless you have an exemption.

 

The only people scared of the new variant are those who believe the scaremongering and depressing media. Not one person in UK hospitals has the new variant. Not one person anywhere in the world has yet died of the new variant. Other parts of the UK that have much tougher restrictions including mask wearing in far more places and the discriminatory vaccine passports are doing worse than us.

 

From the linked paper copied without comment or opinion:

Caveat here's a comment for context. They've modelled proportion of passengers potentially exposed and factored appropriateness of (a) the mask and (b) how the mask is worn.

'During peak hours, the number of exposed individuals decreased by 64.4%, when social distancing policies were implemented, 93.5%, when wearing of masks is mandatory, and 98.1%, when both polices are implemented (see Supplementary Materials, section 4.2, and Fig. 4). In conclusion, wearing a mask in public transportation can substantially reduce the number of exposures to the infection. This result is similar to that in a previous study that recommended a guideline of a 6-foot distance when wearing a mask to prevent indoor airborne transmission of COVID-19 (24). Social distancing is also shown to be effective. The model results reflect the current situation in South Korea, where most passengers wear masks consistently and properly (25) and there is a low probability of infection on public transport. Hence, the probability of exposure to infection decreased by wearing a mask and implementing social distancing policies, such as parallel work system and telecommuting.'

 

I'm not a fan of this government but I don't agree with your statement. All steps to reduce transmission will have some impact, only doing some will clearly reduce that impact. Commuters and shoppers are not necessarily the same people who go to bars and restaurants. But as you and others correctly state, some of the measures to reduce transmission have dire consequences elsewhere in other aspects of our lives.

 

Well done that man

 

On reflection it's fair comment that unlicensed transport may be a higher risk setting. But full pubs must be worse than half empty shops.

 

Half the folk on here, are. Makes me feel quite inadequate at times..

 

I know what you mean. It makes you wonder why the medical profession ever bother to wear masks at all given what an utter waste of time they are

 

If you haven’t done the LLB Politics Epidemiology Michelin Star Brewing UEFA Coaching Certificate course , you shouldn’t really be posting on here !!

 

Legal experts n’all. Makes me wonder what I’ve been doing with my life..

 

"We determined that the mandatory wearing of masks exhibits effects similar to maintaining 2-m social distancing in preventing COVID-19. Mandatory wearing of masks and practicing social distancing with masks during peak hours reduced infection rates by 93.5 and 98.1%, respectively."

 

Exactly. I've started to pull my scarf over my face as I get anxiety wearing a mask. I could get a disability lanyard, but my girlfriend wears one for the same reason and we would be more likely to be questioned if we both went without, and i wouldn't want the extra stress for her. But it just shows that scarf or no scarf there is no difference - if i didn't wear one but had the lanyard people would say 'it's fine, he's exempt.' If I wear the scarf people say it's not a proper mask. Most people don't wear them properly anyway. I went into Holland & Barrett, scarf up. I walked down to Bristol Harbourside, Saturday night, absolutely heaving with people. No doubt mass drunkenness given the noise levels, and of course no masks, no distancing, staggering about etc. We are way past the point of being shown to a table, ordering on an app, social distancing etc. But having to wear a mask in shops, where most people aren't drunk and loutish, but then have a free-for-all, no-mask policy in bars is insane. Then again the majority of people in Bristol aren't super-spreading/dying every Saturday night, so I don't know what to think anymore. It doesn't add up.

 

We have compulsory masks at work now. Nobody can understand what I'm saying. And the mask will make it worse.

 

It’s only compulsory in the corridors. The classrooms are not compulsory….