ChatterBank5 mins ago
The Compulsory Wearing Of Masks In Shops And Pubs
The wearing of masks/coverings could be made compulsory is shops and pubs.
I understand how it could work in shops (even though I don’t think it’s necessary) but how would it work in pubs?
Lifting the mask up or down every time you sup is daft.
I understand how it could work in shops (even though I don’t think it’s necessary) but how would it work in pubs?
Lifting the mask up or down every time you sup is daft.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Deskdiary. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//watched some athletics yesterday where three runners used the outside and centre lanes re social distancing.//
Leaving aside the hugging at the end, the notion that a sprint race needs to be arranged so that the athletes can remain "socially distanced" is so laughable as to be untrue. The WHO's original guidance was that there is a risk if people remain within a metre of each other for a period of 15mins or more and that the risk is greater indoors than outside. Athletes running in a short race have just about no chance whatsoever of infecting each other and the entire social distancing circus is just that - a load of clowns leading a load of sheep.
Leaving aside the hugging at the end, the notion that a sprint race needs to be arranged so that the athletes can remain "socially distanced" is so laughable as to be untrue. The WHO's original guidance was that there is a risk if people remain within a metre of each other for a period of 15mins or more and that the risk is greater indoors than outside. Athletes running in a short race have just about no chance whatsoever of infecting each other and the entire social distancing circus is just that - a load of clowns leading a load of sheep.
^^^Indeed.
Hitchens, with his tongue firmly wedged in his cheek, has suggested a register of “relaxed” people.
Despite it being TIC, I think he has a point.
Let those of us who have a better grip on reality, and who are able to objectively understand the small risk, should register on a database as being more robust than those quivering like jelly with fear (some of whom are on this site) and get on with life normally. Normal normal, not ‘new’ normal. An added benefit is that we’ll be easy from a T&T point of view.
The fact is, and it is an undeniable fact, it is low risk, and to royally screw the economy for such a low risk is folly.
0.06% of the population have died; as sad as that is, it’s a small risk; the vast vast majority of those were old and/or vulnerable, and they should be protected.
0.0007% of the population under 40 have died. That is so tiny as to negligible.
The fact of the matter is, you are unlikely to catch Covid. If you are unlucky and do catch Covid, the fact of the matter is if you are in reasonable health, you are unlikely to die.
The madness has to stop.
Hitchens, with his tongue firmly wedged in his cheek, has suggested a register of “relaxed” people.
Despite it being TIC, I think he has a point.
Let those of us who have a better grip on reality, and who are able to objectively understand the small risk, should register on a database as being more robust than those quivering like jelly with fear (some of whom are on this site) and get on with life normally. Normal normal, not ‘new’ normal. An added benefit is that we’ll be easy from a T&T point of view.
The fact is, and it is an undeniable fact, it is low risk, and to royally screw the economy for such a low risk is folly.
0.06% of the population have died; as sad as that is, it’s a small risk; the vast vast majority of those were old and/or vulnerable, and they should be protected.
0.0007% of the population under 40 have died. That is so tiny as to negligible.
The fact of the matter is, you are unlikely to catch Covid. If you are unlucky and do catch Covid, the fact of the matter is if you are in reasonable health, you are unlikely to die.
The madness has to stop.
That is part of the problem David, if you have the temerity to suggest the risk is small (which it undeniably is) you are met with, at best scorn, and more typically, aggression.
Gromit, who I note is not on this thread, always cites the number of deaths, but conveniently for him he never puts the number of deaths in context; when I pointed out the context to him last week, his response (and to be fair it’s a stock response from a lot of people) was that I don’t care about the deaths.
Let’s say, purely for the sake of the argument, that we went back to normal normal tomorrow and it resulted in an additional 20,000 deaths, but this ensured the economy survived, I would argue that would be a small price to pay.
Mercenary? Yes, completely. But also true.
Gromit, who I note is not on this thread, always cites the number of deaths, but conveniently for him he never puts the number of deaths in context; when I pointed out the context to him last week, his response (and to be fair it’s a stock response from a lot of people) was that I don’t care about the deaths.
Let’s say, purely for the sake of the argument, that we went back to normal normal tomorrow and it resulted in an additional 20,000 deaths, but this ensured the economy survived, I would argue that would be a small price to pay.
Mercenary? Yes, completely. But also true.
//“What about if it was somebody you knew etc...”//
The usual response from those with no idea of the scale of the risk (absolutely minimal) and the scale of the damage which continues to be inflicted (absolutely huge).
People die all the time. Around 1,900 a day in the UK. The government cannot protect them from all the risks that are presented which could cause them to die and it certainly cannot protect them from Covid. What is happening is people believe that either they can or at the very least they should go to any measure to try. The damage being done to the country by this continued madness will ultimately see far more deaths and serious problems than Covid will ever produce. Compulsory face masks in shops will see a continuation of that damage and shops which reopened on June 15th will be closing again quite soon if this lunacy persists. Only this time it will be for good. Here's a paragraph from the government's explanation about why it imposed mandatory face coverings on public transport. Note what it says about shops:
"When necessary to use public transport people may be more likely to be in enclosed spaces for longer periods of time where we know there is a greater risk of the spread of the virus and social distancing is likely to be difficult to follow consistently. This differs from enclosed spaces like shops, for example, where people can more easily go outside if social distancing is not possible and where shop owners can place limits on the number of customers allowed inside at any one time. The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) has set out that using face coverings in this setting can provide some small additional protection to fellow passengers and can help people to avoid unknowingly spreading the virus if they are suffering from coronavirus, but not showing symptoms."
But of course that was then. Since that publication "mission creep" has occurred and so the goalposts have been conveniently shifted.
The usual response from those with no idea of the scale of the risk (absolutely minimal) and the scale of the damage which continues to be inflicted (absolutely huge).
People die all the time. Around 1,900 a day in the UK. The government cannot protect them from all the risks that are presented which could cause them to die and it certainly cannot protect them from Covid. What is happening is people believe that either they can or at the very least they should go to any measure to try. The damage being done to the country by this continued madness will ultimately see far more deaths and serious problems than Covid will ever produce. Compulsory face masks in shops will see a continuation of that damage and shops which reopened on June 15th will be closing again quite soon if this lunacy persists. Only this time it will be for good. Here's a paragraph from the government's explanation about why it imposed mandatory face coverings on public transport. Note what it says about shops:
"When necessary to use public transport people may be more likely to be in enclosed spaces for longer periods of time where we know there is a greater risk of the spread of the virus and social distancing is likely to be difficult to follow consistently. This differs from enclosed spaces like shops, for example, where people can more easily go outside if social distancing is not possible and where shop owners can place limits on the number of customers allowed inside at any one time. The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) has set out that using face coverings in this setting can provide some small additional protection to fellow passengers and can help people to avoid unknowingly spreading the virus if they are suffering from coronavirus, but not showing symptoms."
But of course that was then. Since that publication "mission creep" has occurred and so the goalposts have been conveniently shifted.
Michael Gove appeared to play down the idea this morning.
In town yesterday afternoon I’d say at most 1 in 15 people were wearing masks so there‘a a huge cultural barrier there if nothing else. And it wasn’t exactly packed (pleasant for the shopper less good for the shop owners).
The worry might be that it put more people off than it encouraged.
In town yesterday afternoon I’d say at most 1 in 15 people were wearing masks so there‘a a huge cultural barrier there if nothing else. And it wasn’t exactly packed (pleasant for the shopper less good for the shop owners).
The worry might be that it put more people off than it encouraged.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles26 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles27 mins ago
ChatterBank32 mins ago
Crosswords35 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.