CalamariFritti wrote: » This virus is not going to die out. All scientists have said this pretty much from day one. We will not be able to eradicate it. When I say 'nothing happened' I meant we didnt get any significant number of infections from supermarkets and shops. Without masks. And we've been in there all along in the case of supermarkets and as soon as we could in case of other shops. More importantly the staff have not gotten infected. And they were in there amongst us all day long stacking shelves handling our goods and money. So clearly the actual risk is blown a bit out of proportion in those settings. Which is not me saying there isn't any risk in other scenarios. And a 'tiny bit less likely' is not enough to turn over society. Not in my opinion anyway.
gmisk wrote: » There is a world of difference though between a large supermarket with limited numbers, and a packed bus or dart.
odyssey06 wrote: » It is a reasonable objection though to a general policy of masks in shops - unless it's small shops that don't have the physical space to afford much social distancing.
CalamariFritti wrote: » There is now evidence that the aerosols might stay in the air for longer than they thought and that there is no proof they cant infect people. Under lab conditions. Very different.
Deleted User wrote: » If I had Covid-19 and was standing next to you, would you prefer if I wore a mask or no?
ginoginelli wrote: » Indoor spaces over a prolonged period are one of the most dangerous times for these viruses. Now with with the increasing evidence of aerosol transmission scoical distancing isnt enoughto keep people safe. Masks are essential in these conditions.
ednwireland wrote: » seen clusters of case from people doing there regular shopping ? or huge numbers of shop assistants getting it ?
skelly22 wrote: » Mask-wearing won't even be up for debate for much longer. Their use will soon be mandatory in all retail scenarios and, shortly thereafter, in all outdoor settings. "Gradualism", the approach that has clearly been adopted.
ShyMets wrote: » I agree we'll see them in a retail setting sooner rather then later. I'm not convinced we'll see them mandatory outdoors anytime soon. It would be almost impossible to police
skelly22 wrote: » Not when you stick extortionate fines of EUR2.5K and/or 6 months imprisonment for non-compliance!
ShyMets wrote: » How about if someone is sitting on a parkbench or outside a cafe eating a sandwich or drinking a coffee. They'll obviously have removed their mask to do this. Should they be fined
Patrick2010 wrote: » Thats never going to happen, everyone knows that. But if it was a 100 euro on the spot fine then people might take notice.
skelly22 wrote: » Like I said, we haven't seen the wording of the law yet, I'm just presuming it'll be similar to that currently in existence for public transport.
CalamariFritti wrote: » And because of that tendency I am very much afraid of the whole masks debate. There will be the kind of people who will argue reducing risk by a tiny bit justifies everything and before you know it we are all running around with masks everywhere ten years going with no virus in sight.
CalamariFritti wrote: » Once it becomes the done thing and a whole industry evolves around it its very hard to turn back. And because of that tendency I am very much afraid of the whole masks debate. There will be the kind of people who will argue reducing risk by a tiny bit justifies everything and before you know it we are all running around with masks everywhere ten years going with no virus in sight.
timetogo1 wrote: » Rubbish. The virus will go away or will be more manageable (i.e. people won't die from it). Rolling back from wearing masks will not be hard. Can you elaborate on why you think this is incorrect.
CalamariFritti wrote: » Well thankfully because you say so won't make it so. All indoor settings blankly would be massive overkill, all outdoor settings would be insanity. And this is why I am so vehemently against it. Sorry nothing personal but its because of people like you. Advocating for something without thinking it through, without thinking about the rationale and most importantly not thinking about the consequences. We as a society love bullsh1t, we just do. Just look at the security theatre in airports. 20 years after 9/11 with scanners that can see your microbes we still have to take shoes and belts off and are not allowed to bring a bottle of water. Not in the same ballpark but you'll get my drift. Once it becomes the done thing and a whole industry evolves around it its very hard to turn back. And because of that tendency I am very much afraid of the whole masks debate. There will be the kind of people who will argue reducing risk by a tiny bit justifies everything and before you know it we are all running around with masks everywhere ten years going with no virus in sight. Sorry, but fvck that. We need sobriety and rationale not hysteria and 'reducing risk by a tiny bit justifies everything'.
Patrick2010 wrote: » Can you see anyone on a bus getting a 2,500 fine?
GT89 wrote: » I should hope they don't expect retail staff to wear masks if they are made mandatory in shops. I work in a shop and would find it extremely uncomfortable to wear a mask for long periods. Bus drivers don't have to wear them and rightly so as they have to be on the bus for long periods but nor should retail workers or any workers for that matter unless their actually dealing directly with CV19 patients or would use a mask in the course of their work anyway due to dust or spray paint.
We’ve looked at ONS data on deaths registered involving coronavirus in England and Wales in the working age population (those aged 20 to 64 years) between 9 March and 25 May. It shows that sales and retail assistants had high mortality rates when compared with rates among the working age population: 34.2 deaths per 100,000 men, and 15.7 deaths per 100,000 women. This compares with 19.1 deaths per 100,000 men and 9.7 deaths per 100,000 women in the entire working age population. But there are higher rates in other occupations (such as factory workers, taxi drivers and care workers) and the data has not been adjusted for factors such as ethnic group and place of residence.
It won't be compulsory for shop workers in England to wear a face covering because "it won't always be right for every setting in a retail environment", according to government minister George Eustice. However, Mr Eustice says that many workers already wear coverings or are protected by a screen. He argues that retailers "have been making the right judgements". The face-covering requirement for customers will help to protect shop workers, according to Heath Secretary Matt Hancock. Speaking in Parliament, he said that shop workers had suffered disproportionately and that "the death rate of sales and retail assistants is 75% higher amongst men and 60% higher amongst women than in the general population". In Scotland, where face coverings for customers have been compulsory since 10 July, shop staff also do not have to wear them, but it is "strongly recommended" in the guidance that they do.
