Generic Virus Thread

[Stevo985]

38 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I know it wasn't directed to me but my answer is that I'm not averse to wearing a mask in the current situation (I certainly wouldn't want it to become an ingrained thing, however) - indeed I bought a pack of disposable ones from the Co-op last week in preparation for them making it compulsory - but I do think the whole message around them is very, very confused.

You have the questions as posed above - how about in pubs/restaurants? If not (for the practical reasons) then why does that outweigh the public health reasons for compulsion elsewhere? And also, how about workplaces like offices? Will they/should they not be compulsory in those environments?

Are the government actually bringing it in as a public health measure or are they brining it in for economic reasons, i.e. as a psychological reassurance to people to get out and 'shop'?

If the latter then it may well work but it also brings with it the risk of a lackaidaisical attitude towards the wider risks ('I've got a mask on therefore I'm safe' or 'Only compulsory in shops so it's only shops that are a risk'). It also ignores the idea that it may well put people off from 'popping' to a shop to casually buy something (I wouldn't be using a one-off disposable mask to go and buy a pint of milk) or that it leaves those small, local shops at risk of not enforcing the mask-wearing and is the corner shop where you want people to be failing to observe this if it's for public health reasons?

 

I understand the questions like these. Personally I think they should be mandatory in any indoor, public space. And should have been for the past 3 months.

I just don't understand the attitude of people who refuse to wear masks

[Stevo985]

16 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

By this, do you mean that you don't want the law/regulation to remain once the pandemic is over, or that you hope the cultural norm of wearing a mask doesn't last?

I certainly wouldn't want it to be a long-term enforced regulation, but as a cultural norm I don't mind it during the height of flu season.

I said ages ago in this thread that I think it's going to become common place now.

Not mandatory (long term) but in terms of people wearing them while travelling or in built up areas etc I think it'll be a far more regular occurence in Western countries. Just as you see people from Asian countries now in airports etc wearing them, I think that will become totally normal now in the west.

[choffer]

[Stevo985]

44 minutes ago, fightoffyour said:

I don't know if they will be made mandatory in pubs and restaurants, but they should be. In Poland you wear a mask until you sit at your table, i.e. at the bar or in the toilet. Then you're only at the table with the people you're with anyway, distanced from others, and you can take it off. The staff still wear theirs In shops everyone is mingling close to each other all the time, that's the difference.

This is very simple and obvious, I don't see what the fuss is or how the UK govt could make such a mess of it (well ok they're a complete shambles).

This is what I was thinking. Bars and restaurants make the mandatory for when you are in public areas like the toilets, or walking through the pub, or at the bar ordering (if they're allowing that).

If you're sat down at your own socially distanced table then you can take them off.

[Clarry]

21 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Personal choice, I don’t like wearing them and I’m not convinced of their worth. As with a lot of the past few months I feel it’s an over reaction from a government who literally have no idea what they’re doing.

The government have not overreacted on anything. If anything it is the total opposite. Lockdown could have been earlier and mask wearing mandatory from that time. 

It does look like they just want to be seen to be doing something.

[Stevo985]

20 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

But if you’re maintaining social distancing in shops - as you’re supposed to be doing - then what’s the need and why are you suddenly less vulnerable being sat at a table with a meal or drink?

It's to prevent particles from your mouth/nose spreading. So it's not just about spreading directly onto someone stood next to you. It's about spreading onto surfaces where the virus can remain, or spreading into the air that someone can then walk into even though they're more than 2 metres away.

21 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

In fact, I’d guess that being sat in the same place for an hour or longer (as opposed to shopping and therefore being on the move) would make you more susceptible to catching it, maybe.

If you're sat at a disinfected table, socially distanced from other people in the bar and restaurant then I disagree. But in the public areas like I said above I think masks should be worn.

[chrisp65]

Wear a mask in shops for a couple of months you pussies.

You’re not being asked to give blood or have a trace chip planted in your arm or submit travel plans to the authorities.

 

[Davkaus]

It's a good decision. But Gove was on the telly 2 days ago saying there was no need for mandatory masks, and British public and their good old fashioned common sense could be trusted.

This government doesn't arrive at any decision without a series of embarrassing u turns. 

[Davkaus]

And shop staff are exempt. What the ****. The people who are in there most, in contact with the general public all day, and they don't need to wear masks? 

**** hell this government is incompetent.

[chrisp65]

I’m guessing the theory is that you go in a couple of shops for 10 minutes each.

Someone working in a shop is in there for 8 hours and interacts with 100 people.

Remembering masks are to stop you giving the virus to others, so the shop staff have more exposure to ‘us’ then we do to ‘them’.

There’s far more chance of 1 punter coughing on the staff, than the staff coughing on you personally.

It’s flimsy, but that might be the logic?

A sort of extrapolated version of the viral theory.

Whatever happened to viral load? We were all saying that 3 months ago and now its gone.

 

Edited July 14, 2020 by chrisp65

[bannedfromHandV]

1 hour ago, ml1dch said:

(Said only half in jest)...

Surely then as they've spent the last three months saying they are unnecessary you should have assumed they were wrong and been wearing one?

Ha yeah fair point!

I’m aware I am a walking/talking contradiction.

[bannedfromHandV]

Also, am I right in thinking that beards render the face masks less effective?

 

So how long before compulsory shaving becomes a thing.

 

I know it seems ridiculous but this entire year has been ridiculous.

[fightoffyour]

15 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I’m guessing the theory is that you go in a couple of shops for 10 minutes each.

Someone working in a shop is in there for 8 hours and interacts with 100 people.

Remembering masks are to stop you giving the virus to others, so the shop staff have more exposure to ‘us’ then we do to ‘them’.

There’s far more chance of 1 punter coughing on the staff, than the staff coughing on you personally.

It’s flimsy, but that might be the logic?

A sort of extrapolated version of the viral theory.

Whatever happened to viral load? We were all saying that 3 months ago and now its gone.

 

It’s illogical to try to attribute logic to the government’s reasonings!

The staff should be wearing masks too, but perhaps the government (uh oh, see what I’ve done) are worried about some people not wanting to work for 8 hours in a mask compared to shoppers wearing them for 10 minutes from time to time.

[bannedfromHandV]

55 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

It's to prevent particles from your mouth/nose spreading. So it's not just about spreading directly onto someone stood next to you. It's about spreading onto surfaces where the virus can remain, or spreading into the air that someone can then walk into even though they're more than 2 metres away.

If you're sat at a disinfected table, socially distanced from other people in the bar and restaurant then I disagree. But in the public areas like I said above I think masks should be worn.

I think it’s all hypothetical, therefore I don’t like being told what to wear and when, it’s really that simple.

I live in an area with a very low rate of infection, honestly the chances of me getting it and/or passing it on to anyone else is more remote than the chances of me being hit by a car whilst walking, and yet I’m not out there wearing crash pads all over in case that happens.

Anyway, it’s an ‘unwinnable’ debate, people will have already made their minds up on the issue months ago and have acted accordingly since.

I just think this will be a further nail in the coffin for a lot of business, jobs, people’s mental and economic states.

But all to avoid the what? 1% or less chance you might get a virus which might be transmitted to someone vulnerable who might then die a little earlier than planned.

 

[blandy]

15 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

But all to avoid the what? 1% or less chance you might get a virus which might be transmitted to someone vulnerable who might then die a little earlier than planned.

100 people are in a (hypothetical) room. They are told "right, we're going to take one of you out and shoot them, and we're going to beat up another 15 badly, and punch another 50 OR if you all wear a mask, we'll leave you alone"

what should the people do?

[HanoiVillan]

15 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

I just think this will be a further nail in the coffin for a lot of business, jobs, people’s mental and economic states.

The logic of the decision is the opposite of this; the idea is that the reason businesses are struggling is that Brits are proving reluctant to return to 'normal' economic activity, and that masks might provide a level of reassurance that leads to more people going out shopping/visiting/doing whatever.

[bannedfromHandV]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

100 people are in a (hypothetical) room. They are told "right, we're going to take one of you out and shoot them, and we're going to beat up another 15 badly, and punch another 50 OR if you all wear a mask, we'll leave you alone"

what should the people do?

If only it was that simple though. 

[bannedfromHandV]

2 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

The logic of the decision is the opposite of this; the idea is that the reason businesses are struggling is that Brits are proving reluctant to return to 'normal' economic activity, and that masks might provide a level of reassurance that leads to more people going out shopping/visiting/doing whatever.

Okay, I can see some logic in that but I also see it reinforcing fear into people and turning them away from going out. 
 

Guess we’ll know in around 3-6 months time.

 

 

[Stevo985]

35 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

 

I live in an area with a very low rate of infection, honestly the chances of me getting it and/or passing it on to anyone else is more remote than the chances of me being hit by a car whilst walking, and yet I’m not out there wearing crash pads all over in case that happens.

 

This is the whole argument of people being selfish (no offence)

You are of course right. The chances of YOU getting it are incredibly slim. Let's say it's 1 in a hundred

But it's not about you. It's about everyone.

It might be 1 in a hundred for you to get it so you think it's pointless wearing a mask to rule out that chance. But if there's a  hundred people then one of them will get it. If there is a thousand people, then ten of them will get it. If there's 10 thousand then 100 will get it. etc etc

In a country of 70 million people, that remote chance of you getting it extrapolates to a LOT of people. 

 

If you were the only person at risk of getting this then your argument would make total sense. But there's millions and millions of people here. If they all take that 1 in a hundred chance then that's suddenly a lot of people with the virus.

(and also the car crash comparison doesn't work because car crashes aren't infectious. If you being hit by a car meant 10 people around you got hit by a car, and then they made other people get hit by a car, well then you see the problem)

Edited July 14, 2020 by Stevo985

[Stevo985]

19 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

The logic of the decision is the opposite of this; the idea is that the reason businesses are struggling is that Brits are proving reluctant to return to 'normal' economic activity, and that masks might provide a level of reassurance that leads to more people going out shopping/visiting/doing whatever.

And this is the crux as to why it's happening now and not 3 months ago. The government aren't doing it to protect people (even though it does protect people). They're doing it to get people back to work and back to shops and bars etc