If masks become compulsory in shops.
Poll: If masks become compulsory in shops.
Total Members Polled: 1248
Discussion
JagLover said:
True enough
Add to which many places have furloughed junior staff and so need to bring them back at some point otherwise they wont have the workforce of tomorrow.
Clearly many of the 9m furloughed people are on borrowed time, but it isn't all of them or even most of them.
Sadly we’re seeing many in the press daily losing work and that’s just starting. Hopefully it will be at the lower end of expectations and those who are quickly find alternative paid employment. Add to which many places have furloughed junior staff and so need to bring them back at some point otherwise they wont have the workforce of tomorrow.
Clearly many of the 9m furloughed people are on borrowed time, but it isn't all of them or even most of them.
JagLover said:
Welshbeef said:
Joey Deacon said:
I just can't see how the jobs of the 9 million people on furlough will become viable again in the next 3 months. I would argue that if the companies have managed to get by without these people for the last four months then there is a good chance they are not actually needed.
At the moment it is not costing these companies anything to keep these employees hanging on, I suspect as soon as they are expected to contribute towards furlough the mass redundancies will start. Will the government allow these millions of people to become unemployed or will they extend furlough or come up with some sort of £1000 a month universal income?
How long can the government continue to print billions of pounds a month to pay millions of people to stay at home?
The reality of what the government has done is going to hit in winter when people are queuing outside the supermarket in the cold and rain with their masks on with millions of people out of work and Christmas around the corner.
Remember no one has really been buying things or doing things which is where many of the 9m used to beAt the moment it is not costing these companies anything to keep these employees hanging on, I suspect as soon as they are expected to contribute towards furlough the mass redundancies will start. Will the government allow these millions of people to become unemployed or will they extend furlough or come up with some sort of £1000 a month universal income?
How long can the government continue to print billions of pounds a month to pay millions of people to stay at home?
The reality of what the government has done is going to hit in winter when people are queuing outside the supermarket in the cold and rain with their masks on with millions of people out of work and Christmas around the corner.
Add to which many places have furloughed junior staff and so need to bring them back at some point otherwise they wont have the workforce of tomorrow.
Clearly many of the 9m furloughed people are on borrowed time, but it isn't all of them or even most of them.
I forsee a large amount of pubs and restaurants throwing in the towel in the coming months. Another problem will be that the staff who came off furlough will lose that safety net and will be forced to go claim unemployment and will be much worse off than if they stayed on furlough.
JagLover said:
Welshbeef said:
Joey Deacon said:
I just can't see how the jobs of the 9 million people on furlough will become viable again in the next 3 months. I would argue that if the companies have managed to get by without these people for the last four months then there is a good chance they are not actually needed.
At the moment it is not costing these companies anything to keep these employees hanging on, I suspect as soon as they are expected to contribute towards furlough the mass redundancies will start. Will the government allow these millions of people to become unemployed or will they extend furlough or come up with some sort of £1000 a month universal income?
How long can the government continue to print billions of pounds a month to pay millions of people to stay at home?
The reality of what the government has done is going to hit in winter when people are queuing outside the supermarket in the cold and rain with their masks on with millions of people out of work and Christmas around the corner.
Remember no one has really been buying things or doing things which is where many of the 9m used to beAt the moment it is not costing these companies anything to keep these employees hanging on, I suspect as soon as they are expected to contribute towards furlough the mass redundancies will start. Will the government allow these millions of people to become unemployed or will they extend furlough or come up with some sort of £1000 a month universal income?
How long can the government continue to print billions of pounds a month to pay millions of people to stay at home?
The reality of what the government has done is going to hit in winter when people are queuing outside the supermarket in the cold and rain with their masks on with millions of people out of work and Christmas around the corner.
Add to which many places have furloughed junior staff and so need to bring them back at some point otherwise they wont have the workforce of tomorrow.
Clearly many of the 9m furloughed people are on borrowed time, but it isn't all of them or even most of them.
Total unemployed will then be 4 million (up from 1.3 million).
worsy said:
I wonder if the suggestion that masks will be mandatory in public places is to give those reluctant to adopt in shops something to focus on.
Are they going to be mandatory in pubs and restaurants, if not why not? Are we going to get to the situation where people are pulling their masks down to take a sip of beer or mouthful of food before putting them back over their mouths? Or is everyone going to adopt the bus driver way of wearing a mask under their chin?Red 4 said:
An additional 2.7 million will be unemployed by the end of the year according to the latest OBR guesstimation.
Total unemployed will then be 4 million (up from 1.3 million).
We are already part of the way through that process even with 9 million on furlough.Total unemployed will then be 4 million (up from 1.3 million).
Current unemployment isn't 1.3 million anymore (think that is pre-crisis figure). Now approaching 3 million I think.
Not-The-Messiah said:
The mask argument is like speed limits. You can have a road thats been 60mph for 50years and half a million cars a year go down it each year perfectly safely. But 5 cars a year crash so statistically speaking driving down that road you have a 1 in 100000 chance of crashing.
But because this is above average they decide to reduce the limit to 40mph. So now if anyone drives down that road at 60mph like they have done for years
before they are now a dangerous maniac. And you get people going "what's the problem? so what it's 40mph now, you are just selfish who wants to risk people's lives"
The problem is the cars that crashed weren't doing the speed limit they where well above it. And dropping the speed limit makes no difference to them because they will just brake the new limit.
It's the same with masks an incredibly statically small chance of catching the virus and the vast majority of people who are behaving sensibly don't have anything to worry about.
The advice for some time from most governments including the UK and and the WHO has been to wear masks in shops. Mandating it is probably because some people don't see it as "Sensible" and as more people will be out and about shopping when the shielding population reach the end of their restrictions it could trigger a rise. But because this is above average they decide to reduce the limit to 40mph. So now if anyone drives down that road at 60mph like they have done for years
before they are now a dangerous maniac. And you get people going "what's the problem? so what it's 40mph now, you are just selfish who wants to risk people's lives"
The problem is the cars that crashed weren't doing the speed limit they where well above it. And dropping the speed limit makes no difference to them because they will just brake the new limit.
It's the same with masks an incredibly statically small chance of catching the virus and the vast majority of people who are behaving sensibly don't have anything to worry about.
The small chance of catching it has arisen during restrictions that are being lifted. It's pretty much plateaued after falling sharply. As things are relaxed logic would suggest it might start to rise again taking easy measures in line with the scientific advice, which the public support could be seen as prudent.
The alternative is to ignore the science in case it's wrong to appease the minority who don't like it.
Joey Deacon said:
Are they going to be mandatory in pubs and restaurants, if not why not? Are we going to get to the situation where people are pulling their masks down to take a sip of beer or mouthful of food before putting them back over their mouths? Or is everyone going to adopt the bus driver way of wearing a mask under their chin?
Surely pubs and restaurants are relying on physical spacing, and can control that reasonably well by only having customers seated. In shops where people are moving around it's difficult to impossibly to maintain separation hence the masks.JagLover said:
Red 4 said:
An additional 2.7 million will be unemployed by the end of the year according to the latest OBR guesstimation.
Total unemployed will then be 4 million (up from 1.3 million).
We are already part of the way through that process even with 9 million on furlough.Total unemployed will then be 4 million (up from 1.3 million).
Current unemployment isn't 1.3 million anymore (think that is pre-crisis figure). Now approaching 3 million I think.
If we currently have 3 million unemployed then I think the OBR's figures maybe an underestimate. The real job losses haven't started yet.
RizzoTheRat said:
Joey Deacon said:
Are they going to be mandatory in pubs and restaurants, if not why not? Are we going to get to the situation where people are pulling their masks down to take a sip of beer or mouthful of food before putting them back over their mouths? Or is everyone going to adopt the bus driver way of wearing a mask under their chin?
Surely pubs and restaurants are relying on physical spacing, and can control that reasonably well by only having customers seated. In shops where people are moving around it's difficult to impossibly to maintain separation hence the masks.anonymoususer said:
Mr Hancock will be gone by the end of the month
Nope, mancock needs to be kept in place as the human shield to carry the can for boris when the inquiry into how covid was handled comes round as boris/cummings will need a scapegoat to blame for the care home deaths and mancock will be it.....Jinx said:
Graveworm said:
The alternative is to ignore the science in case it's wrong to appease the minority who don't like it.
The science is "inconclusive" on healthy people wearing masks. Ignoring an inconclusive result is the sensible option. RizzoTheRat said:
Joey Deacon said:
Are they going to be mandatory in pubs and restaurants, if not why not? Are we going to get to the situation where people are pulling their masks down to take a sip of beer or mouthful of food before putting them back over their mouths? Or is everyone going to adopt the bus driver way of wearing a mask under their chin?
Surely pubs and restaurants are relying on physical spacing, and can control that reasonably well by only having customers seated. In shops where people are moving around it's difficult to impossibly to maintain separation hence the masks.Masks will also not be required in offices.
So, just shops then. You know, those places you go to where you are in and out, never that close to anyone else for more than a few seconds and have space to keep your distance.
Graveworm said:
Jinx said:
Graveworm said:
The alternative is to ignore the science in case it's wrong to appease the minority who don't like it.
The science is "inconclusive" on healthy people wearing masks. Ignoring an inconclusive result is the sensible option. isaldiri said:
What like actual data here and in scandinavia that has quite clearly shown infections have been reduced from even very high numbers without masks and then maintained at said low levels without masks for a long period of time too?
There are too many other differing factors in Scandinavia to draw firm conclusions about the potential role masks can play in other countries. don'tbesilly said:
anonymoususer said:
Mr Hancock will be gone by the end of the month
So Hancock has 16 days left in office? Let's see just how well your prediction plays out.anonymoususer said:
vixen1700 said:
Joey Deacon said:
The reality of what the government has done is going to hit in winter when people are queuing outside the supermarket in the cold and rain with their masks on with millions of people out of work and Christmas around the corner.
Grim. 
anonymoususer said:
worsy said:
I wonder if the suggestion that masks will be mandatory in public places is to give those reluctant to adopt in shops something to focus on.
Like a reason not to go into shops you meanEdited by anonymoususer on Wednesday 15th July 11:17
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff