Face coverings

[trigger_andy]

11 hours ago, Mark Bolam said:

It’s very, very simple.

 

If you want to go into a shop, wear a mask.

Ive been back in the UK three days now. Only been asked to wear a mask in one shop, I walked out and went to the one thatr did not insist on it. That to me is very very simple and works for me. I see the likes of Asda are not enforcing it which is some common sense at last. Tesco where happy for me to shop without one and with good reason, 70% of their staff was not wearing one either. 

 

Common sense will prevail eventually and we can put this charade behind us. 

[skyhuck]

14 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

 

These would be valid points but for the glaring omission.

 

Seat belts, chainsaw safety gear, drink driving, smoking ban...  All of these comparisons have been made but none of them are really appropriate or relevant to the face covering discussion.

 

Example:  The seat belt law  - it is the responsibility of the driver to ensure every passenger in a car is suitably belted (unless medically exempt)

 

For the comparison between seat belts and face coverings to be valid it would have to be like, the driver has to wear a seatbelt but the passenger doesn't if they are getting out in a minute, on their way to work, eating a sandwich or having a pint.  Clearly, totally ?ing bonkers and would rightly draw derision for the inability to enforce and police it and the obvious illogical nature of the "guidance."

 

Same with chainsaw PPE, same with drink driving etc etc....

 

The issue with the "guidance" for face coverings is that it is too late, too random, ineffective and not supported by factual data.  It is a question of credibility and on this matter the government has none - in my estimation.  

 

As for giving confidence to those that may have been shielding - I'd suggest it would be much more efficient and effective if those that feel vulnerable take proper measures to protect themselves rather than seeking to impose improper measures on everyone else.  I know that might be seen as more of a self centred position (and it is) but it is also a much more logical position IMHO.  Better to properly protect the vulnerable than to improperly fail to protect everyone.  

 

I still maintain that this has nothing to do with personal discomfort, inconvenience or awkwardness (well, maybe a bit of awkwardness) but it is entirely an issue of the lack of credibility to support the requirement.

 

The net result of this poorly conceived, delayed implementation will be that morons rely upon bad advice to implement unnecessary measures in an inappropriate manner such that risk will likely be increased through bad practice in relation to face coverings and an increasing apathy towards other, better, countermeasures such as hand washing and distancing.

 

Think about it - what's next?  All the lemmings will be piling into airplanes and ?ing off to Marmaris to get sunburned and marinaded in Watney's Red Barrel - it'll all be OK though even though they are packed in like sardines they'll be perfectly 'safe' because they've been wearing gran's crusty nicks on their head for the past 3 weeks.... 

The way I see it, earlier there was a shortage of PPE, so the government did not want joe pubic buying it. Plus as others have said there a pro’s and con’s to wearing them, improper use, handling etc. 
 Lock down has been eased and still many are nervous about going out. So face coverings may help them feel a little more confident.

 Nervous people are not likely to want to go to the boozer etc.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

20 minutes ago, Mark Bolam said:

Totally with you on the handwashing and distancing thing Kevin, and I agree that the usual idiots will simply crack on thinking a mask means they are bulletproof.

It's a credibility issue for me Mark - like there ain't none...  

 

I suspect we will find, with the benefit of hindsight, that poor "mask discipline" (cleanliness, disposal frequency, storage between uses etc) will create more problems than it is supposed to solve.

 

I don't buy it because I feel it being peddled as a false narrative in order to get people out and about again rather than as a real and tangible aid to infection control.

 

It's the perceived dishonesty behind it and the belief that the general public are so gullible as to believe it that really tugs my sack.

[woodwizzard]

5 hours ago, Mark Bolam said:

What do you suggest doing about it then, you ****************wit?

A society walking around with face coverings on can only really enforce the belief that there is a danger out there. Add that with all the mixed messages about face coverings and I can't see how it will entice anyone vulnerable or scared out.

[Mark Bolam]

I’m not suggesting it’s perfect mate, far from it, but it might help a bit and I really don’t see it as a big deal when popping into a shop.

 

Apologies for the name calling earlier.

[TIMON]

I was still wearing them in the 90s, and would still be wearing them now if i could get away with it. They were very comfortable once you had broken them in. Irons like horse shoes on the sole and heel.
There were only a handful of clogmakers left locally by that time, and they tended to buy the soles in and build the tops on. £27 a pair at that time. Still one or two makers around , but they are nearer £200 a pair now .

I think you can still get them at New Model Army gigs .... [emoji41]

[Khriss]

Its more New Rocks now @TIMON  *coff* not sayin i been or anything * coff coff*  K

[TIMON]

Its more New Rocks now @TIMON  *coff* not sayin i been or anything * coff coff*  K

It’s been a while.. still think the clogs were cooler and certainly more ‘authentic’ .
New Rocks are more the preserve of ‘mummy’s little antifa’ types.

[Khriss]

Dunno wot you mean... Is that some sort of pasta  ? K

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

1 hour ago, TIMON said:

 

It’s been a while.. still think the clogs were cooler and certainly more ‘authentic’ .
New Rocks are more the preserve of ‘mummy’s little antifa’ types.

 

That's the Q!