If masks become compulsory in shops.
Poll: If masks become compulsory in shops.
Total Members Polled: 1248
Discussion
monkfish1 said:
PushedDover said:
Autumn and winter is coming. Standing and queuing outside of shops is soon to be untenable.
Get masks on everyone, let everyone in at the same time. No queues.
Shops have a chance of volumes.
Why are these things hard to comprehend by many ?
Because thats not what will happen. It will discourage people from going shopping etc. One of us is right, and i know who it is.Get masks on everyone, let everyone in at the same time. No queues.
Shops have a chance of volumes.
Why are these things hard to comprehend by many ?
monkfish1 said:
Graveworm said:
Red 4 said:
Thanks for the reply Graveworm.
How (and why) do you think masks increase consumer confidence ?
Personally I think it's a wash, in the early stages, I suspect fewer people will go into shops, but there will be some offset by those who were nervous going forward, It appears to be supported by the public, so that might suggest some confidence. IF it is effective in mitigating spread then that will almost certainly help fiscally. How (and why) do you think masks increase consumer confidence ?
Not the shops though. Oh no.
Red 4 said:
PushedDover said:
Autumn and winter is coming. Standing and queuing outside of shops is soon to be untenable.
Get masks on everyone, let everyone in at the same time. No queues.
Shops have a chance of volumes.
Why are these things hard to comprehend by many ?
So the science hasn't changed and masks can still cause more problems than they solve ...Get masks on everyone, let everyone in at the same time. No queues.
Shops have a chance of volumes.
Why are these things hard to comprehend by many ?
The government is hoping for the placebo effect of masks.
I'm not sure the psychological aspect of seeing everyone looking like the have just performed open heart surgery will have people flooding back to the shops.
Masks send the signal that the virus is still among us. I don't think many people think that wearing a mask makes them immune from Covid19.
I think PushedOver will not be (pushed over) as he's correct, there will be no queues. Nor many in the shops.
The end of the High Street is nigh (and I'm a shopper!)
Then again, perhaps not, as I think the muzzle thing will be dropped well before winter.
Let's face it, they (Gov) are even unsure now. If they weren't they'd have introduced muzzle wearing immediately, not in 10 days time.
Red 4 said:
PushedDover said:
Autumn and winter is coming. Standing and queuing outside of shops is soon to be untenable.
Get masks on everyone, let everyone in at the same time. No queues.
Shops have a chance of volumes.
Why are these things hard to comprehend by many ?
So the science hasn't changed and masks can still cause more problems than they solve ...Get masks on everyone, let everyone in at the same time. No queues.
Shops have a chance of volumes.
Why are these things hard to comprehend by many ?
The government is hoping for the placebo effect of masks.
I'm not sure the psychological aspect of seeing everyone looking like the have just performed open heart surgery will have people flooding back to the shops.
Masks send the signal that the virus is still among us. I don't think many people think that wearing a mask makes them immune from Covid19.
PushedDover said:
monkfish1 said:
PushedDover said:
Autumn and winter is coming. Standing and queuing outside of shops is soon to be untenable.
Get masks on everyone, let everyone in at the same time. No queues.
Shops have a chance of volumes.
Why are these things hard to comprehend by many ?
Because thats not what will happen. It will discourage people from going shopping etc. One of us is right, and i know who it is.Get masks on everyone, let everyone in at the same time. No queues.
Shops have a chance of volumes.
Why are these things hard to comprehend by many ?
RSTurboPaul said:
Graveworm said:
RSTurboPaul said:
And what would they say about the fact that under the new legislation, an 'authorised person' can forcibly enter your house if they 'suspect' you may have an infection, transport you without notice or right of refusal to a detention centre for up to 48 hours for testing, and then rule that you cannot leave for 14 days or more?
No they can't.Or transport and detain you for an extended period of time?
I am certain I read that 'health officials' could enter one's home if there was a suspected infected person in it, but I can't find anything on it now.
The part about being detained seems to be correct, though:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/7/schedul...
My TL;DR of it is as follows (with the quoted original text afterwards):
Schedule 21
Part 2
Paragraph 6
(1)
If a Public Health Officer has 'reasonable grounds to suspect' an infection...
(2)
... the PHO can direct the person or have them removed to a screening and assessment location
(4)
It is an offence to fail to go to this location, and to abscond from it.
Paragraph 9
(1)
The PHO can 'require' the person to remain at the location 'for a period not exceeding 48 hours'.
(2)
It is an offence to 'fail to comply' with this 'requirement'.
(3)
The 'requirement' can be 'enforced' by a PHO or constable 'keeping' the person at the location.
Paragraph 10
(1)
The PHO can 'require' the person to be screened and assessed.
(2)
The 'requirements' of this assessment can include 'biological samples' and to answer questions about health, travel history, the friends and family they've had contact with.
Paragraph 11
(1)
The PHO can direct the person or have them removed from the screening and assessment location to another screening and assessment location.
(2)
It is an offence to fail to go to this new location, and to abscond from it.
Paragraph 12
Where powers are exercised under Paragraph 11, paragraphs 9-11 apply 'afresh' in that new location.
Paragraph 14
(1)
Where:
- a person has been screened and confirmed as having Coronavirus;
OR
- the screening was inconclusive;
OR
- the PHO has 'reasonable grounds to suspect' an infection...
(3)
... a person can be 'required':
- to go to a 'specified place' for further assessment;
- to remain at that place for a 'specified period';
- to remain at that place in isolation for a 'specified period'.
(5)
It is an offence to fail to comply with these 'requirements'.
(7) A PHO can extend the 'specified period' in accordance with Paragraph 15.
Paragraph 15
(1)
The 'specified period' referred to in 14(3) can be up to 14 days.
(2)
The PHO must reassess the person within 48 hours of imposing a 'requirement' and reconsider if the requirement is 'necessary and proportionate'.
(4)
If the PHO has revoked or substituted the 'requirement' under Paragraph 15(3), the Secretary of State can reimpose the original 'requirement'.
(5)
If a PHO 'reasonably suspects' the person will be 'potentially infectious' at the end of the 'specified period', the PHO can extend the period with a further 'specified period'.
(6)
A 'specified period' extension under (5) can be up to 14 days - unless it is a period of isolation, which has no set limit.
(7)
A 'specified period' extension under (5) must be reviewed by a PHO at least every 24 hours.
Paragraph 16
Persons sent on to a new 'specified place' after assessment at an initial 'specified place' must 'remain' at the new 'specified place' or risk enforcement against them by a PHO or constable, which can include by arresting and returning them.
Paragraph 17
A person subject to a 'requirement' or any extension of it can appeal against it to a Magistrates' Court (only).
So, unless I'm reading it totally wrong...:
Paragraph 6 and Paragraph 9 = clock starts on up to 48hrs detention.
Paragraph 11 and Paragraph 12 = clock restarts on up to 48hrs detention.
Paragraph 14((3)(d) and (3)(e) and (7) and Paragraph 15(1) = clock starts on up to 14 days detention.
Paragraph 15(4) = clock restarts on up to 14 days detention?
Paragraph 15(5) and 15(6) = detention period extended by up to an additional 14 days - unless it is a period of isolation, which has no set limit.
Original text with my added highlights:
Coronavirus Act 2020 - SCHEDULE 21 - Powers relating to potentially infectious persons - PART 1 - Overview and Interpretation said:
Potentially infectious persons
2(1) For the purposes of this Schedule, a person is “potentially infectious” at any time if—
(a) the person is, or may be, infected or contaminated with coronavirus, and there is a risk that the person might infect or contaminate others with coronavirus, or
(b) the person has been in an infected area within the 14 days preceding that time.
2(1) For the purposes of this Schedule, a person is “potentially infectious” at any time if—
(a) the person is, or may be, infected or contaminated with coronavirus, and there is a risk that the person might infect or contaminate others with coronavirus, or
(b) the person has been in an infected area within the 14 days preceding that time.
Coronavirus Act 2020 - SCHEDULE 21 - PART 2 - Powers relating to potentially infectious persons in England said:
Powers to direct or remove persons to a place suitable for screening and assessment
6
(1) This paragraph applies if, during a transmission control period, a public health officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person in England is potentially infectious.
(2) The public health officer may, subject to sub-paragraph (3)—
(a) direct the person to go immediately to a place specified in the direction which is suitable for screening and assessment,
(b) remove the person to a place suitable for screening and assessment, or
(c) request a constable to remove the person to a place suitable for screening and assessment (and the constable may then do so).
...
(4) Where a public health officer exercises the powers conferred by this paragraph, the officer must inform that person—
(a) of the reason for directing or removing them, and
(b) that it is an offence—
(i) in a case where a person is directed, to fail without reasonable excuse to comply with the direction, or
(ii) in a case where a person is removed (by the officer or by a constable), to abscond.
...
Powers exercisable at a screening and assessment place: public health officers
8
(1) Paragraphs 9 to 11 apply where, during a transmission control period—
(a) a person is (whether or not pursuant to the exercise of powers under this Part of this Schedule) at a place in England which is suitable for screening and assessment, and
(b) a public health officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is potentially infectious.
...
9
(1) A public health officer may require the person referred to in paragraph 8 to remain at the place for screening and assessment purposes for a period not exceeding 48 hours.
(2) Where a public health officer requires a person to remain at a place under this paragraph, the officer must inform that person—
(a) of the reason for imposing the requirement,
(b) of the maximum period the person may be required to remain there, and
(c) that it is an offence to fail to comply with the requirement.
(3) A requirement imposed on a person under this paragraph may be enforced by a public health officer or a constable keeping the person at the place.
10
(1) A public health officer may—
(a) require the person referred to in paragraph 8 to be screened and assessed, and
(b) impose other requirements on the person in connection with their screening and assessment.
(2) Requirements under sub-paragraph (1)(a) may in particular include requirements on a person—
(a) at such times as the public health officer may specify—
(i) to provide a biological sample, or
(ii) to allow a healthcare professional to take a biological sample by appropriate means;
(b) to answer questions and provide information about their health or other relevant matters (including their travel history and other individuals with whom they may have had contact).
...
11
(1) If a public health officer considers it appropriate for the purposes of screening or assessing the person, the officer may—
(a) direct the person referred to in paragraph 8 to go immediately to another place which is specified in the direction and is suitable for those purposes,
(b) remove the person to another place suitable for those purposes, or
(c) request a constable to remove the person to another place suitable for those purposes (and the constable may then do so).
(2) Where a public health officer exercises the powers conferred by this paragraph, the officer must inform that person—
(a) of the reason for directing or removing them, and
(b) that it is an offence—
(i) in a case where a person is directed, to fail without reasonable excuse to comply with the direction, or
(ii) in a case where a person is removed (by the officer or by a constable), to abscond.
12
Where the powers in paragraph 6, 7 or 11 are exercised in relation to a person in a place so as to direct them to go to, or remove them to, another place, paragraphs 9 to 11 apply in relation to that person afresh in that other place.
...
Powers exercisable after assessment
14
(1) This paragraph applies where, during a transmission control period—
(a) a person in England has been screened and assessed by a public health officer (under paragraph 10 or otherwise) and—
(i) the screening confirmed that the person is infected or contaminated with coronavirus, or
(ii) the screening was inconclusive, or
(b) a person in England has been assessed by a public health officer (under paragraph 10 or otherwise) and the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is potentially infectious.
...
(3) Requirements under this paragraph may include requirements—
(a) to provide information to the public health officer or any specified person;
(b) to provide details by which the person may be contacted during a specified period;
(c) to go for the purposes of further screening and assessment to a specified place suitable for those purposes and do anything that may be required under paragraph 10(1);
(d) to remain at a specified place (which may be a place suitable for screening and assessment) for a specified period;
(e) to remain at a specified place in isolation from others for a specified period.
(4) Restrictions on a person under this paragraph may include restrictions, for a specified period, on—
(a) the person's movements or travel (within or outside the United Kingdom);
(b) the person's activities (including their work or business activities);
(c) the person's contact with other persons or with other specified persons.
(5) Where a public health officer imposes a requirement or restriction on a person under this paragraph, the officer must inform the person—
(a) of the reason for doing so, and
(b) that it is an offence to fail to comply with the requirement or restriction.
(6) In deciding whether to impose a requirement referred to in sub-paragraph (3)(d) or (e) the public health officer must have regard to a person's wellbeing and personal circumstances.
(7) A public health officer may vary or revoke a requirement or restriction imposed on a person (but may only extend the period to which a requirement referred to in sub-paragraph (3)(d) or (e) or a restriction relates in accordance with paragraph 15).
15
(1) The period specified in relation to a requirement referred to in paragraph 14(3)(d) or (e) (a “requirement to remain”), or in relation to any restriction under paragraph 14, may not exceed 14 days.
(2) After the imposition of a requirement to remain or a restriction under paragraph 14, a public health officer must—
(a) assess the person within 48 hours, and
(b) in the light of that assessment reconsider which requirements or restrictions it is necessary and proportionate to impose on that person under paragraph 14 for the purposes referred to in paragraph 14(2).
(3) The public health officer may, following reconsideration under sub-paragraph (2)—
(a) revoke the requirement to remain or the restriction or specify a different period not exceeding 14 days in relation to it;
(b) substitute a different requirement or restriction under paragraph 14.
(4) If under sub-paragraph (3) the public health officer revokes the requirement to remain or the restriction, the Secretary of State may, if satisfied that the person is potentially infectious, re-impose the requirement or restriction (for the period originally specified).
(5) If before the end of the period specified in relation to a requirement to remain or restriction (under paragraph 14(3) or sub-paragraph (3)(a))—
(a) a public health officer reasonably suspects that the person will be potentially infectious at the end of that period, and
(b) the officer considers that the requirement or restriction is still necessary and proportionate for the purposes referred to in paragraph 14(2),
the officer may extend the period for a further specified period.
(6) Except in the case of a requirement referred to in paragraph 14(3)(e) (requirement to remain in isolation), the further period specified under sub-paragraph (5) may not exceed 14 days.
(7) Where the period to which a requirement to remain or restriction under paragraph 14 relates is extended under sub-paragraph (5), a public health officer must review the requirement or restriction at least once in every period of 24 hours.
(8) If on a review under sub-paragraph (7) the public health officer considers that the person is no longer potentially infectious, the officer must revoke the requirement to remain or the restriction.
(9) If on a review under sub-paragraph (7)—
(a) sub-paragraph (8) does not apply, but
(b) the public health officer considers that the requirement to remain or the restriction is no longer necessary and proportionate for the purposes referred to in paragraph 14(2),
the public health officer may substitute a different requirement or restriction under paragraph 14 (which may not apply beyond the end of the further period specified under sub-paragraph (5)).
16
Where a person is required to remain at a place under paragraph 14(3)(d) or (e) the requirement may be enforced—
(a) by a constable or public health officer removing the person to the place;
(b) by a constable or public health officer keeping the person at the place;
(c) if the person absconds, by a constable taking the person into custody and returning them to that place or another place a public health officer may specify.
17
(1) A person on whom a requirement or restriction is imposed under paragraph 14 may appeal against it (or against any variation of it or any extension of the period to which it relates) to a magistrates' court.
(2) On an appeal under this paragraph the court may—
(a) confirm the requirement or restriction (or variation or extension), with or without modification, or
(b) quash the requirement or restriction (or variation or extension).
6
(1) This paragraph applies if, during a transmission control period, a public health officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person in England is potentially infectious.
(2) The public health officer may, subject to sub-paragraph (3)—
(a) direct the person to go immediately to a place specified in the direction which is suitable for screening and assessment,
(b) remove the person to a place suitable for screening and assessment, or
(c) request a constable to remove the person to a place suitable for screening and assessment (and the constable may then do so).
...
(4) Where a public health officer exercises the powers conferred by this paragraph, the officer must inform that person—
(a) of the reason for directing or removing them, and
(b) that it is an offence—
(i) in a case where a person is directed, to fail without reasonable excuse to comply with the direction, or
(ii) in a case where a person is removed (by the officer or by a constable), to abscond.
...
Powers exercisable at a screening and assessment place: public health officers
8
(1) Paragraphs 9 to 11 apply where, during a transmission control period—
(a) a person is (whether or not pursuant to the exercise of powers under this Part of this Schedule) at a place in England which is suitable for screening and assessment, and
(b) a public health officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is potentially infectious.
...
9
(1) A public health officer may require the person referred to in paragraph 8 to remain at the place for screening and assessment purposes for a period not exceeding 48 hours.
(2) Where a public health officer requires a person to remain at a place under this paragraph, the officer must inform that person—
(a) of the reason for imposing the requirement,
(b) of the maximum period the person may be required to remain there, and
(c) that it is an offence to fail to comply with the requirement.
(3) A requirement imposed on a person under this paragraph may be enforced by a public health officer or a constable keeping the person at the place.
10
(1) A public health officer may—
(a) require the person referred to in paragraph 8 to be screened and assessed, and
(b) impose other requirements on the person in connection with their screening and assessment.
(2) Requirements under sub-paragraph (1)(a) may in particular include requirements on a person—
(a) at such times as the public health officer may specify—
(i) to provide a biological sample, or
(ii) to allow a healthcare professional to take a biological sample by appropriate means;
(b) to answer questions and provide information about their health or other relevant matters (including their travel history and other individuals with whom they may have had contact).
...
11
(1) If a public health officer considers it appropriate for the purposes of screening or assessing the person, the officer may—
(a) direct the person referred to in paragraph 8 to go immediately to another place which is specified in the direction and is suitable for those purposes,
(b) remove the person to another place suitable for those purposes, or
(c) request a constable to remove the person to another place suitable for those purposes (and the constable may then do so).
(2) Where a public health officer exercises the powers conferred by this paragraph, the officer must inform that person—
(a) of the reason for directing or removing them, and
(b) that it is an offence—
(i) in a case where a person is directed, to fail without reasonable excuse to comply with the direction, or
(ii) in a case where a person is removed (by the officer or by a constable), to abscond.
12
Where the powers in paragraph 6, 7 or 11 are exercised in relation to a person in a place so as to direct them to go to, or remove them to, another place, paragraphs 9 to 11 apply in relation to that person afresh in that other place.
...
Powers exercisable after assessment
14
(1) This paragraph applies where, during a transmission control period—
(a) a person in England has been screened and assessed by a public health officer (under paragraph 10 or otherwise) and—
(i) the screening confirmed that the person is infected or contaminated with coronavirus, or
(ii) the screening was inconclusive, or
(b) a person in England has been assessed by a public health officer (under paragraph 10 or otherwise) and the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is potentially infectious.
...
(3) Requirements under this paragraph may include requirements—
(a) to provide information to the public health officer or any specified person;
(b) to provide details by which the person may be contacted during a specified period;
(c) to go for the purposes of further screening and assessment to a specified place suitable for those purposes and do anything that may be required under paragraph 10(1);
(d) to remain at a specified place (which may be a place suitable for screening and assessment) for a specified period;
(e) to remain at a specified place in isolation from others for a specified period.
(4) Restrictions on a person under this paragraph may include restrictions, for a specified period, on—
(a) the person's movements or travel (within or outside the United Kingdom);
(b) the person's activities (including their work or business activities);
(c) the person's contact with other persons or with other specified persons.
(5) Where a public health officer imposes a requirement or restriction on a person under this paragraph, the officer must inform the person—
(a) of the reason for doing so, and
(b) that it is an offence to fail to comply with the requirement or restriction.
(6) In deciding whether to impose a requirement referred to in sub-paragraph (3)(d) or (e) the public health officer must have regard to a person's wellbeing and personal circumstances.
(7) A public health officer may vary or revoke a requirement or restriction imposed on a person (but may only extend the period to which a requirement referred to in sub-paragraph (3)(d) or (e) or a restriction relates in accordance with paragraph 15).
15
(1) The period specified in relation to a requirement referred to in paragraph 14(3)(d) or (e) (a “requirement to remain”), or in relation to any restriction under paragraph 14, may not exceed 14 days.
(2) After the imposition of a requirement to remain or a restriction under paragraph 14, a public health officer must—
(a) assess the person within 48 hours, and
(b) in the light of that assessment reconsider which requirements or restrictions it is necessary and proportionate to impose on that person under paragraph 14 for the purposes referred to in paragraph 14(2).
(3) The public health officer may, following reconsideration under sub-paragraph (2)—
(a) revoke the requirement to remain or the restriction or specify a different period not exceeding 14 days in relation to it;
(b) substitute a different requirement or restriction under paragraph 14.
(4) If under sub-paragraph (3) the public health officer revokes the requirement to remain or the restriction, the Secretary of State may, if satisfied that the person is potentially infectious, re-impose the requirement or restriction (for the period originally specified).
(5) If before the end of the period specified in relation to a requirement to remain or restriction (under paragraph 14(3) or sub-paragraph (3)(a))—
(a) a public health officer reasonably suspects that the person will be potentially infectious at the end of that period, and
(b) the officer considers that the requirement or restriction is still necessary and proportionate for the purposes referred to in paragraph 14(2),
the officer may extend the period for a further specified period.
(6) Except in the case of a requirement referred to in paragraph 14(3)(e) (requirement to remain in isolation), the further period specified under sub-paragraph (5) may not exceed 14 days.
(7) Where the period to which a requirement to remain or restriction under paragraph 14 relates is extended under sub-paragraph (5), a public health officer must review the requirement or restriction at least once in every period of 24 hours.
(8) If on a review under sub-paragraph (7) the public health officer considers that the person is no longer potentially infectious, the officer must revoke the requirement to remain or the restriction.
(9) If on a review under sub-paragraph (7)—
(a) sub-paragraph (8) does not apply, but
(b) the public health officer considers that the requirement to remain or the restriction is no longer necessary and proportionate for the purposes referred to in paragraph 14(2),
the public health officer may substitute a different requirement or restriction under paragraph 14 (which may not apply beyond the end of the further period specified under sub-paragraph (5)).
16
Where a person is required to remain at a place under paragraph 14(3)(d) or (e) the requirement may be enforced—
(a) by a constable or public health officer removing the person to the place;
(b) by a constable or public health officer keeping the person at the place;
(c) if the person absconds, by a constable taking the person into custody and returning them to that place or another place a public health officer may specify.
17
(1) A person on whom a requirement or restriction is imposed under paragraph 14 may appeal against it (or against any variation of it or any extension of the period to which it relates) to a magistrates' court.
(2) On an appeal under this paragraph the court may—
(a) confirm the requirement or restriction (or variation or extension), with or without modification, or
(b) quash the requirement or restriction (or variation or extension).
PushedDover said:
Red 4 said:
PushedDover said:
Autumn and winter is coming. Standing and queuing outside of shops is soon to be untenable.
Get masks on everyone, let everyone in at the same time. No queues.
Shops have a chance of volumes.
Why are these things hard to comprehend by many ?
So the science hasn't changed and masks can still cause more problems than they solve ...Get masks on everyone, let everyone in at the same time. No queues.
Shops have a chance of volumes.
Why are these things hard to comprehend by many ?
The government is hoping for the placebo effect of masks.
I'm not sure the psychological aspect of seeing everyone looking like the have just performed open heart surgery will have people flooding back to the shops.
Masks send the signal that the virus is still among us. I don't think many people think that wearing a mask makes them immune from Covid19.
If you were not talking about masks then what were you talking about ?
Give how strongly people on here feel about this, it’s probably best that most of them have guns.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/suspect-killed-michigan-...
https://abcnews.go.com/US/suspect-killed-michigan-...
This came up in another thread.
Calls in Germany to remove requirement for masks to HELP the retail sector.
https://www.thelocal.de/20200706/why-a-row-has-bro...
Calls in Germany to remove requirement for masks to HELP the retail sector.
https://www.thelocal.de/20200706/why-a-row-has-bro...
JagLover said:
This came up in another thread.
Calls in Germany to remove requirement for masks to HELP the retail sector.
https://www.thelocal.de/20200706/why-a-row-has-bro...
“If the infection rate stays so low I can't see any reason to maintain the duty to wear masks in shops,” said the state's economy minister...Calls in Germany to remove requirement for masks to HELP the retail sector.
https://www.thelocal.de/20200706/why-a-row-has-bro...
That sounds very like the arguments here regarding masks. They are ahead of us here, so anyone advocating that masks will help retail get back on track needs to watch what is going on over there.
At the same time, as a counter -argument, is this b
ks: Germany's Health Minister Jens Spahn said he was opposed to the idea of getting rid of the requirement to wear masks. Spahn wrote on Twitter that he understood "impatience and the desire for normality". But the coronavirus is "still there".
Of course it's "still there" It will probably always be f
king 'there'.Aaaaaand this morning as if by magic, Masks to be made mandatory in all public settings and the workplace for at least a year..
Still, it’s no biggie... get ready to be seeing that phrase used often as the rules come hard and fast.
The government have seen how many are still begging for their masters to keep them safe and are rubbing their hands in glee.
Still, it’s no biggie... get ready to be seeing that phrase used often as the rules come hard and fast.
The government have seen how many are still begging for their masters to keep them safe and are rubbing their hands in glee.
I am simply staggered by the number of idiots on this thread that think the face coverings mandate is about catching COVID.
No, it’s the other way around. It’s to limit spreading it. It’s called source control, and there is masses of proven info out there on it. An easy example right here from the CDC.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-...
What’s so hard to understand about it? What rational objection is there to it?
It’s no coincidence that the UK has BY FAR the highest COVID death rate in the World. It’s full of dick heads who all tragically think they know better.
No, it’s the other way around. It’s to limit spreading it. It’s called source control, and there is masses of proven info out there on it. An easy example right here from the CDC.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-...
What’s so hard to understand about it? What rational objection is there to it?
It’s no coincidence that the UK has BY FAR the highest COVID death rate in the World. It’s full of dick heads who all tragically think they know better.
How long do we think the muzzle wearing bks will go on for?
Schools go back some 6 weeks after muzzle D-Day: perhaps they will insist on school kids wearing the damn things, & therefore teachers? School buses are going to be interesting enough as it is......
I really hope this nonsense gets overturned ASAP, or perhaps someone in HMG has vested interests in the mask factory that is apparently ramping up production just in time for next week??
Our workplace has already agreed that if muzzles are mandated in offices, we will not comply.
Several staff have cancelled holidays in Spain, as the thought of sun bathing with a muzzle is utterly ridiculous: can you imagine returning home with a perfectly bronzed body, apart from a rectangular white patch in the middle of your face?!?!?!
ks will go on for?Schools go back some 6 weeks after muzzle D-Day: perhaps they will insist on school kids wearing the damn things, & therefore teachers? School buses are going to be interesting enough as it is......
I really hope this nonsense gets overturned ASAP, or perhaps someone in HMG has vested interests in the mask factory that is apparently ramping up production just in time for next week??
Our workplace has already agreed that if muzzles are mandated in offices, we will not comply.
Several staff have cancelled holidays in Spain, as the thought of sun bathing with a muzzle is utterly ridiculous: can you imagine returning home with a perfectly bronzed body, apart from a rectangular white patch in the middle of your face?!?!?!
dvs_dave said:
It’s no coincidence that the UK has BY FAR the highest COVID death rate in the World. It’s full of dick heads who all tragically think they know better.
It doesn't There was a chart posted earlier that showed this......by conveniently omitting most of Europe.
The highest death rate in the world is in Belgium and the UK is slightly higher than Spain and Italy.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/corona...
You then add in the lack of international comparability as different countries are recording Coronavirus deaths differently and some are further behind in recording them than others.
Biker 1 said:
How long do we think the muzzle wearing bks will go on for?
Schools go back some 6 weeks after muzzle D-Day: perhaps they will insist on school kids wearing the damn things, & therefore teachers? School buses are going to be interesting enough as it is......
I really hope this nonsense gets overturned ASAP, or perhaps someone in HMG has vested interests in the mask factory that is apparently ramping up production just in time for next week??
Our workplace has already agreed that if muzzles are mandated in offices, we will not comply.
Several staff have cancelled holidays in Spain, as the thought of sun bathing with a muzzle is utterly ridiculous: can you imagine returning home with a perfectly bronzed body, apart from a rectangular white patch in the middle of your face?!?!?!
Do people realise how moronic they appear to everyone else when they refer to masks as “muzzles”?ks will go on for?Schools go back some 6 weeks after muzzle D-Day: perhaps they will insist on school kids wearing the damn things, & therefore teachers? School buses are going to be interesting enough as it is......
I really hope this nonsense gets overturned ASAP, or perhaps someone in HMG has vested interests in the mask factory that is apparently ramping up production just in time for next week??
Our workplace has already agreed that if muzzles are mandated in offices, we will not comply.
Several staff have cancelled holidays in Spain, as the thought of sun bathing with a muzzle is utterly ridiculous: can you imagine returning home with a perfectly bronzed body, apart from a rectangular white patch in the middle of your face?!?!?!
1974nc said:
Aaaaaand this morning as if by magic, Masks to be made mandatory in all public settings and the workplace for at least a year..
Still, it’s no biggie... get ready to be seeing that phrase used often as the rules come hard and fast.
The government have seen how many are still begging for their masters to keep them safe and are rubbing their hands in glee.
Sorry, what?Still, it’s no biggie... get ready to be seeing that phrase used often as the rules come hard and fast.
The government have seen how many are still begging for their masters to keep them safe and are rubbing their hands in glee.
I can’t find any source for this... I sure as hell won’t be complying with it either...
Can you post a link?
The governments advice as always is balls up arse backwards.
When virus transmission rates were rising and all the way to the peak why if the risk of transmission was so high in shops did they not mandate masks at that point, to "protect the nhs"?
I mean they closed all pubs and other places people could gather and spread it.
That I could understand that I would have agreed with.
But they havent done that, like with quarantine, they fragged that up as well, they waited weeks to close down airports and other entry points, not to mention just waving folks through after they eventually got back here, its all been too little too late and a complete fkup.
Like their hand washing advice, every 20 minutes.
What a crock that is.
If ive been in the house all day long the only time i need to wash my hands is after ive taken a dump, gotten them dirty outside or before i make a meal.
Every 20 minutes makes no sense, just like the introduction of masks now at this point in time, its utterly schizophrenic,its simply a case of "look we're doing something".
That fact that theyre doing something isnt necessarily indicative of doing the right thing.
Thats why I call bullst on masks at this time, thats why they can shove their diktat up their backsides, thats why Im not wearing one, its pointless.
What a bunch of clowns this lot are, very unimpressed by them so far, maybe corbyn would have been a star after all.....
When virus transmission rates were rising and all the way to the peak why if the risk of transmission was so high in shops did they not mandate masks at that point, to "protect the nhs"?
I mean they closed all pubs and other places people could gather and spread it.
That I could understand that I would have agreed with.
But they havent done that, like with quarantine, they fragged that up as well, they waited weeks to close down airports and other entry points, not to mention just waving folks through after they eventually got back here, its all been too little too late and a complete f
kup.Like their hand washing advice, every 20 minutes.
What a crock that is.
If ive been in the house all day long the only time i need to wash my hands is after ive taken a dump, gotten them dirty outside or before i make a meal.
Every 20 minutes makes no sense, just like the introduction of masks now at this point in time, its utterly schizophrenic,its simply a case of "look we're doing something".
That fact that theyre doing something isnt necessarily indicative of doing the right thing.
Thats why I call bulls
t on masks at this time, thats why they can shove their diktat up their backsides, thats why Im not wearing one, its pointless. What a bunch of clowns this lot are, very unimpressed by them so far, maybe corbyn would have been a star after all.....
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff