[Captain.Remy]

Originally Posted by MTVN

France following behind the UK again eh

We have less cases and deaths than the UK though, so it's not a last minute thought but mainly to make sure the curve keeps being flattened. Wise choice by Macron.

[reece(:]

Such a farcical

[arista]

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by arista

Not surprisingly I agree with Dr Hilary Jones here.

[Tom4784]

It's a good move but I imagine it'll lead to a lot of **** for retail workers if they are expected to police it themselves.

It should have happened earlier.

[Cal.]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

It's a good move but I imagine it'll lead to a lot of **** for retail workers if they are expected to police it themselves.

It should have happened earlier.

I don’t think they have to enforce it.

A shop down the road from me put up a post on Facebook saying they won’t be enforcing it but if you’re caught by an enforcement officer that’s on you.

[user104658]

To be frr, they need to give it time for word to get around (not everyone follows the updates closely) and for people to actually get a suitable covering. They can't just implement immediately and stop people from buying their dinner.

[Beso]

I might pick up a raw steak and shove it on if they stop me.

[joeysteele]

I still just can't understand the fuss.

Again I stress, no need for Police involvement unless someone gets violent.
Really.

At lockdown.
Shop staff were ensuring trollies were wiped, that you went into the store in order.
Not in groups.

That all worked.
A store near me had people queueing in very long queues, as did Banks, waiting to get in.

That all worked.

The smaller shops did the same, only letting up to 2 people in at any time.

No real problems.

Just do that same format again now except on one aim.
No one admitted to shop or store who hasn't a facecovering, even just a scarf around their nose and mouth.

Where on earth is the problem.

If shops and stores were able to control how many even entered the store and had them queueing up outside for quite long periods.

How on earth can it be that difficult to just have it adhered to, as to no mask or facecovering, then no entry.

They could even have at the door scarfs or masks on sale outside, with a card payment set up for people to buy a scarf or mask before going in who hadn't them

As for those deaf, well they can usually see and talk.
Since staff won't have to wear masks, although some staff do I noticed yesterday for the first time.
They can still lipread and answer back.
What about sign language too.

Really though, who'd object to someone deaf just easing the facecovering if absolutely necessary.

I'm sorry however, anyone with serious health breathing problems, should be having their shopping done for them.
They shouldn't be in these environments at this time anyway.

Why do simple things need to be made so complicated.

[bots]

The big difference between then and now is that lockdown has ended. People don't like restrictions imposed upon them in a democracy. Lockdown was always only going to be effective for a few weeks and I predict that masks will be ignored more and more as confidence returns.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

The big difference between then and now is that lockdown has ended. People don't like restrictions imposed upon them in a democracy. Lockdown was always only going to be effective for a few weeks and I predict that masks will be ignored more and more as confidence returns.

This is the crux of the issue though. Wearing a mask doesn't really inconvenience anyone, most of the whining about it is really petty, and "what about deaf people!!" is just about the most disingenuous argument I've heard against it. It would be very easy and sensible to make an exception for deaf customers, ensure 2m distance, and lower the mask.

But you're right, it's about people not liking" another restriction"even though this one is barely restrictive. Just people feeling like powerless children, rebelling against what "mum and dad" are telling them they have to do.

This is the first thing they've asked us to do that will have NO negative effect on our free-falling economy and this is the one people have decided is a step too far? Pff. Derp.

[Vanessa]

It doesn't have to be a mask.
It can be a scarf of something similar.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Vanessa

It doesn't have to be a mask.
It can be a scarf of something similar.

I know.
It's crazy.

To go into a shop or store for a few minutes or half an hour whatever.

It's such a difficult thing to just have an even in courtesy to others, facecovering on while in there.

As things get eased and relaxed, this should be more important.
The level is still at level 3.
That means the virus is out there and transmissible.

With more back to work,school, and out and about now, it is in my view, and should be, an essential requirement to have a facecovering as you even outline..
Even just like a fashionable scarf.

If only out of respect for and courtesy to others.

Why there's a fuss astounds me.
When less people were out during lockdown, that's when facecoverings were less needed.
Now, opening things up.more, it's moreso needed.
In my view.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

This is the crux of the issue though. Wearing a mask doesn't really inconvenience anyone, most of the whining about it is really petty, and "what about deaf people!!" is just about the most disingenuous argument I've heard against it. It would be very easy and sensible to make an exception for deaf customers, ensure 2m distance, and lower the mask.

But you're right, it's about people not liking" another restriction"even though this one is barely restrictive. Just people feeling like powerless children, rebelling against what "mum and dad" are telling them they have to do.

This is the first thing they've asked us to do that will have NO negative effect on our free-falling economy and this is the one people have decided is a step too far? Pff. Derp.

yes during lockdown they wanted the government to hold their hand..

and they were constantly confused, mainly because they didn't avail themselves of the information freely available but took their info off twatter.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

The big difference between then and now is that lockdown has ended. People don't like restrictions imposed upon them in a democracy. Lockdown was always only going to be effective for a few weeks and I predict that masks will be ignored more and more as confidence returns.

Everyone was very on board with distancing and capacity limiting as well whereas there is a significant minority very opposed to masks and its currently something only a minority of people are doing. This law will increase that no doubt but I still think compliance will only be around 75% and that would leave a shop turning away a quarter of its custom, a portion of which would be quite aggressive about it. Look at Desmond Swayne in Parliament yesterday calling it 'a monstrous imposition'. And again as I said earlier, permanent door staff are not a feature of the vast majority of shops. By all means there should be notices in the windows and inside but I would not put staff in a position where they had to refuse service to anyone not wearing a mask

[user104658]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Everyone was very on board with distancing and capacity limiting as well whereas there is a significant minority very opposed to masks and its currently something only a minority of people are doing. This law will increase that no doubt but I still think compliance will only be around 75% and that would leave a shop turning away a quarter of its custom, a portion of which would be quite aggressive about it. Look at Desmond Swayne in Parliament yesterday calling it 'a monstrous imposition'. And again as I said earlier, permanent door staff are not a feature of the vast majority of shops. By all means there should be notices in the windows and inside but I would not put staff in a position where they had to refuse service to anyone not wearing a mask

Losing a quarter of their custom? ... are they so opposed to masks that they'll starve? I just don't see it.

Even if 25% don't want to do it at first (which I think is an over-estimate) it'll be once. They'll go without their mask, be told they need a mask, kick off a bit, go away, and come back muttering under their masks while they buy their pot noodle.

I can't see any more than a TINY percentage being so adamant about it that they just "don't go to shops any more". This is Britain. People like to talk a big talk and mouth off on Facebook but when it comes down to it, we're apathetic and compliant. They'll wear masks.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Losing a quarter of their custom? ... are they so opposed to masks that they'll starve? I just don't see it.

Even if 25% don't want to do it at first (which I think is an over-estimate) it'll be once. They'll go without their mask, be told they need a mask, kick off a bit, go away, and come back muttering under their masks while they buy their pot noodle.

I can't see any more than a TINY percentage being so adamant about it that they just "don't go to shops any more". This is Britain. People like to talk a big talk and mouth off on Facebook but when it comes down to it, we're apathetic and compliant. They'll wear masks.

I'm not just talking about supermarkets, in fact those are the ones I'm least talking about as they probably would find it easier to enforce as they do still have door staff a lot of the time and people do need to visit them. The problem will be the shopping that's done more for pleasure than for necessity and those are the shops that can least afford to lose out on any custom.

I might be wrong on this and it might actually help if more people now feel comfortable going out shopping but it could go either way. Tbh if compliance is 75% I think that would be a reasonable success as it'd more than double the number currently wearing masks, I don't think this is a law where its absolutely imperative that its enforced to 100% compliance

[bots]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Losing a quarter of their custom? ... are they so opposed to masks that they'll starve? I just don't see it.

Even if 25% don't want to do it at first (which I think is an over-estimate) it'll be once. They'll go without their mask, be told they need a mask, kick off a bit, go away, and come back muttering under their masks while they buy their pot noodle.

I can't see any more than a TINY percentage being so adamant about it that they just "don't go to shops any more". This is Britain. People like to talk a big talk and mouth off on Facebook but when it comes down to it, we're apathetic and compliant. They'll wear masks.

in a free market economy, there will be shops that will not refuse people not wearing masks, so the ones that refuse entry will lose revenue. Money talks

[Jessica.]

All of the shops here have signs outside saying "do not enter without a mask" and they turn people away if they're not wearing them.

[Liam-]

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Liam-

No arguing with that

[user104658]

It doesn't affect your oxygen intake, it does make your breathing "feel" stifled though, it's more a psychological/instinctual thing. You get used to it, eventually your subconscious will realise you're not suffocating and the panicky feelings will stop. People just don't like to be psychologically uncomfortable .

[bots]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It doesn't affect your oxygen intake, it does make your breathing "feel" stifled though, it's more a psychological/instinctual thing. You get used to it, eventually your subconscious will realise you're not suffocating and the panicky feelings will stop. People just don't like to be psychologically uncomfortable .

my glasses do steam up a bit, so i have to fiddle with mask positioning quite a lot to get the sweet spot

[Cherie]

Wear a bandana its much more comfortable

[Vanessa]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Wear a bandana its much more comfortable

Yes, or a scarf.