[bots]

there is no point in having a law that is unenforceable, and wearing masks is unenforceable. We can't have police in every location checking people are wearing masks, it just won't work

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

While I'm sure there will be rare examples, I haven't seen any of these issues at all in Scotland, and since last Thursday when it became mandatory (admittedly a short period of time) I haven't seen anyone in - or even trying to enter - a shop without a face covering.

Maybe we're more civilised up here?

Pleased to hear that TS.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

While I'm sure there will be rare examples, I haven't seen any of these issues at all in Scotland, and since last Thursday when it became mandatory (admittedly a short period of time) I haven't seen anyone in - or even trying to enter - a shop without a face covering.

Maybe we're more civilised up here?

that may work for a short time, but it won't be upheld long term, particularly when the numbers with the virus now are so small

[arista]

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

there is no point in having a law that is unenforceable, and wearing masks is unenforceable. We can't have police in every location checking people are wearing masks, it just won't work

Oh for goodness sake.
Most Stores have security guards for one thing.

A smaller shop just needs to limit how many enter at a time, insisting on a facecovering.

It's not, nor even needs to be a problem.
Except for a minority of people who just like troublemaking.

It won't work because you say.
Yet TS has highlighted it has thus far in Scotland.

What's so different???

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

there is no point in having a law that is unenforceable, and wearing masks is unenforceable. We can't have police in every location checking people are wearing masks, it just won't work

There is a point if enough people will voluntarily comply to make some difference. If let's say 75% compliance would make a difference then it doesn't really matter that the other 25% can't be forced. The error here is assuming that less than 100% compliance makes it "pointless".

And I personally think that 75% compliance is an under-estimate, let alone MTVN's pessimistic 50% prediction. If I had to guess, I'd say if it's announced as mandatory, well over 80% will comply voluntarily.

[arista]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

there is no point in having a law that is unenforceable, and wearing masks is unenforceable. We can't have police in every location checking people are wearing masks, it just won't work

Sure but many more will have a mask on
in a shop
Like in Scotland

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

While I'm sure there will be rare examples, I haven't seen any of these issues at all in Scotland, and since last Thursday when it became mandatory (admittedly a short period of time) I haven't seen anyone in - or even trying to enter - a shop without a face covering.

Maybe we're more civilised up here?

Probably? as I have just said, East London no one wears a mask getting on the Tube

[The Slim Reaper]

Just refuse to serve people that don't wear masks. It's not as though these people don't face enraged customers every day, even when we didn't have covid. At some point we need to take the short term hit in order to be able to lay some ground rules that enables society to protect itself as much as possible.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

that may work for a short time, but it won't be upheld long term, particularly when the numbers with the virus now are so small

Maybe but that's an assumption based on zero data, and if the premise carries no downside, why the resistance? That's the part that really confuses me. I do understand the argument that widespread mask wearing might encourage people to get sloppy in other areas like social distancing and that's a valid concern... but I really don't think "We shouldn't do it at all because some people will probably refuse" is a strong argument. Like the most you can say is "Maybe, let's see".

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

There is a point if enough people will voluntarily comply to make some difference. If let's say 75% compliance would make a difference then it doesn't really matter that the other 25% can't be forced. The error here is assuming that less than 100% compliance makes it "pointless".

And I personally think that 75% compliance is an under-estimate, let alone MTVN's pessimistic 50% prediction. If I had to guess, I'd say if it's announced as mandatory, well over 80% will comply voluntarily.

the UK is right down the bottom of mask wearers, that the is evident from being out and about, if it were a toss up between someone wearing a mask and someone saying 6 ft away from me I would go for the latter if I am honest

https://sluggerotoole.com/2020/06/15...r-masksforall/

[user104658]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Just refuse to serve people that don't wear masks. It's not as though these people don't face enraged customers every day, even when we didn't have covid. At some point we need to take the short term hit in order to be able to lay some ground rules that enables society to protect itself as much as possible.

Indeed. When I worked retail we had a policy of not serving sweaty blokes who came in topless in summer. There were a number of them who didn't like that rule at all, and continued to try, and kicked off... but that didn't prompt us to say "Ahh well there are some people who are still trying to do it anyway so we'll just cancel the policy".

[bots]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Maybe but that's an assumption based on zero data, and if the premise carries no downside, why the resistance? That's the part that really confuses me. I do understand the argument that widespread mask wearing might encourage people to get sloppy in other areas like social distancing and that's a valid concern... but I really don't think "We shouldn't do it at all because some people will probably refuse" is a strong argument. Like the most you can say is "Maybe, let's see".

no, you are missing my point. Plenty people want to wear masks when going shopping at the moment ... that's great, but it doesn't need a commandment .... they do it because they want to. If it's enforced there will be much more resistance to it

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

the UK is right down the bottom of mask wearers, that the is evident from being out and about, if it were a toss up between someone wearing a mask and someone saying 6 ft away from me I would go for the latter if I am honest

https://sluggerotoole.com/2020/06/15...r-masksforall/

Right but that applied up here too (I would say MAYBE 10% in supermarkets were wearing masks before it was mandatory). As for the choice between the two, I agree, BUT I would counter that those who would argue about wearing a mask in a supermarket probably aren't arsed about adhering to the 2m distancing or one way systems in supermarkets either. They're the ones crotch-shuffling right past you while you're tying to pick up your Cheerios.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

no, you are missing my point. Plenty people want to wear masks when going shopping at the moment ... that's great, but it doesn't need a commandment .... they do it because they want to. If it's enforced there will be much more resistance to it

You think FEWER people will wear masks if it's enforced?

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

There is a point if enough people will voluntarily comply to make some difference. If let's say 75% compliance would make a difference then it doesn't really matter that the other 25% can't be forced. The error here is assuming that less than 100% compliance makes it "pointless".

And I personally think that 75% compliance is an under-estimate, let alone MTVN's pessimistic 50% prediction. If I had to guess, I'd say if it's announced as mandatory, well over 80% will comply voluntarily.

I'm kinda basing it on anecdotally about 25% of people currently wearing one here and thinking that making it compulsory might double that but not a huge amount more

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Cherie

the UK is right down the bottom of mask wearers, that the is evident from being out and about, if it were a toss up between someone wearing a mask and someone saying 6 ft away from me I would go for the latter if I am honest

https://sluggerotoole.com/2020/06/15...r-masksforall/

Nicky small nation worse that the UK

and Sweden right at the bottom

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Just refuse to serve people that don't wear masks. It's not as though these people don't face enraged customers every day, even when we didn't have covid. At some point we need to take the short term hit in order to be able to lay some ground rules that enables society to protect itself as much as possible.

Tbh that's putting quite a lot on minimum wage staff who will all tell you that the level of abuse and issues from customers have definitely risen since the epidemic

Making the wearing of face masks in shops in England compulsory would be a "reasonable measure", the boss of the Waterstones book chain has said.

However, James Daunt told the BBC it should not be the job of shop workers to "police" the policy.
...

Mr Daunt told the BBC's Today Programme: "On public transport wearing a mask seems sensible. If the science backs it, then it is a perfectly reasonable thing, and I think people will become more familiar with shopping."

But he said it "would not be right" to ask staff to enforce the rule.

"There are a tiny, tiny minority of people who will be confrontational over it and it is not the position of shop workers to enter into that situation," he said.

"And indeed, we would ask our shop workers not to confront someone who is stealing from us, for example. We would call the police.

"We shouldn't put ourselves in confrontational positions, but I think we can, as retailers, if we are requested to do so, clearly tell everybody it is a sensible thing to do."

Shop workers union Usdaw has urged the government to clarify its policy on face coverings in shops.

"It should never fall on shop workers to enforce the wearing of face coverings, they are already dealing with more abuse than normal and this could be another flashpoint," warned Paddy Lillis, Usdaw general secretary.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53389212

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Nicky small nation worse that the UK

and Sweden right at the bottom

The Scandinavians are the least likely to wear masks by all accounts yet Denmark, Norway and Finland have been three of the most successful countries in tackling the virus

[reece(:]

So Boris could do a u-turn on face masks days after Gove said it's "not mandatory", **** show shambolic government months behind the world as usual. Just give the people clarity FFS.

[arista]

Originally Posted by reece(:

So Boris could do a u-turn on face masks days after Gove said it's "not mandatory", **** show shambolic government months behind the world as usual. Just give the people clarity FFS.

Yes Johnson PM lacks Clarity

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

While I'm sure there will be rare examples, I haven't seen any of these issues at all in Scotland, and since last Thursday when it became mandatory (admittedly a short period of time) I haven't seen anyone in - or even trying to enter - a shop without a face covering.

Maybe we're more civilised up here?

So far I have seen 100% compliance

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Tbh that's putting quite a lot on minimum wage staff who will all tell you that the level of abuse and issues from customers have definitely risen since the epidemic

I agree, and it isn't fair, but we are where we are. Boris goes on tv and says everyone must wear a mask or they won't be served inshops, then it adds weight.

At the moment it's just left up to individuals to decide, but if it was actually a rule, then suddenly those same workers are far more supported. The gov acted quick to ramp up punishments for statue damagers, so why not ramp up punishments for folks not wearing masks in shops that get aggressive with shop workers over the mask rule break, obviously apart from governmental priorities?

What's not fair, is allowing those workers to just deal with it on their own, and siding with the customers because it's easier.

[arista]

Over 20 have been Fined (£100)
for not having a mask on,
London Transport


BBC London News reports

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by reece(:

So Boris could do a u-turn on face masks days after Gove said it's "not mandatory", **** show shambolic government months behind the world as usual. Just give the people clarity FFS.

could people not do it of their own accord, to show some courtesy to their fellow shoppers?