When will this shit end?

[Cream Soda]

9 hours ago, FestivalJamie said:

I agree. The main goal here is to stop the spread and save lives. A way around being challenged would be those with exemptions could wear land yards with cards issued by the government with exemption, so the store staff immediately know who is exempt and who isn’t.

The problem is one of the exemption reasons is "it would cause you distress to wear one".  That is not a medical condition and it can't be proven. Someone who feels passionately about not wearing a mask could even argue that it does cause them distress and whether or not we agree, its completely unprovable.  Anyone who claims this could presumably get a lanyard, so what's the point? If someone really doesn't want to wear a mask, then they are not going to.  I struggle to see how they will enforce any fines either when one of the reasons is as vague as that.

9 hours ago, FestivalJamie said:

It’s really important for those going to the pub to be extra careful with hand hygiene and social distance (and masks if you’re going to the toilet and it’s busy in the facility.) 

The vast majority are not going to do this unless it becomes mandated. (The masks bit)

8 hours ago, DeanoL said:

I can't help but think if you're medically unable to wear a face mask, maybe you just shouldn't be going in shops for a few months? I mean we've all done that for months already, is it that much to suggest that if you medically can't wear a mask then you continue to not go to Primark? Then things could actually be enforced.

So we can all go down the pub and get pissed with no mask but someone with a genuine condition shouldn't go in Tesco, even though 99% of people in there are masked?  Doesn't that seem a bit unfair?  

A week or two ago people will saying they doubted the Brits would comply, even 80% compliance would make a huge difference, etc.  We now have 99% compliance but that's now not good enough and genuine people should now stop going to the shops.    Until when?  

[Ozanne]

@Cream Soda Would you report someone if you saw them shoplifting from a supermarket?

[Cream Soda]

3 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

@Cream Soda Would you report someone if you saw them shoplifting from a supermarket?

Honestly, I don't know.  

[stuartbert two hats]

55 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

There will be a plethora or vaccines available by next year. We can talk about what vaccine we are on. Have you tried the pfizers, they're awesome...those oxfords have got a nasty comedown...Sinovacs are mental! etc.

There will be people selling them at the Stone Circle.

[steviewevie]

53 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

@Cream Soda Would you report someone if you saw them shoplifting from a supermarket?

I wouldn't.

[steviewevie]

Just now, steviewevie said:

I wouldn't.

and infact I haven't.

Shoplifters of the world...etc.

[efcfanwirral]

https://www.boston.com/news/health/2020/07/27/coronavirus-heart

Pretty sobering read about heart damage in non hospitalised people. A good reminder how important it is to not catch this if possible, as there is no way if knowing how long lasting these effects are yet 

[DeanoL]

1 hour ago, Cream Soda said:

So we can all go down the pub and get pissed with no mask but someone with a genuine condition shouldn't go in Tesco, even though 99% of people in there are masked?  Doesn't that seem a bit unfair?  

Well I don't think we should be going down the pub either. And as I said supermarkets and public transport are essential services (hence why they continued running during lockdown). But for everything else I do think they should be straight up compulsory - as everything else is non-essential leisure shopping basically. I think part of the issue is we re-opened everywhere first, then said "you need to wear masks now". Had we re-opened shops on the basis that "they're open, but only if you wear a mask" then you'd get far better compliance because it would seem like we were being given something, rather than having something taken away.

The fundamental issue is that the virus doesn't care if you have a medical reason for not wearing a mask or you're just an arsehole. You increase your own and everyone elses risk by the exact same amount. I'd at least re-frame the guidelines to something like "if medical conditions prevent you from wearing a mask, you should avoid entering spaces that require a mask unless absolutely necessary". Our government instead is going "if you can't wear a mask then that's fine" and the response to that by a lot of people is "well if it's fine for them not to wear masks I shouldn't need to wear one either".

[stuie]

19 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

The fundamental issue is that the virus doesn't care if you have a medical reason for not wearing a mask or you're just an arsehole. You increase your own and everyone elses risk by the exact same amount. I'd at least re-frame the guidelines to something like "if medical conditions prevent you from wearing a mask, you should avoid entering spaces that require a mask unless absolutely necessary". Our government instead is going "if you can't wear a mask then that's fine" and the response to that by a lot of people is "well if it's fine for them not to wear masks I shouldn't need to wear one either".

As I understand it though, mask wearing is like herd immunity, you don’t need 100% to stop exponential spread. 

If > 80/90% are wearing masks, that’s good enough to be effective, regardless of whether the ones without are just assholes. 

[FestivalJamie]

1 hour ago, Ozanne said:

@Cream Soda Would you report someone if you saw them shoplifting from a supermarket?

I would, and I would also report someone if they are actively going around a shop protesting about not wearing a mask as it’s “against human rights”.

[FestivalJamie]

47 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Well I don't think we should be going down the pub either. And as I said supermarkets and public transport are essential services (hence why they continued running during lockdown). But for everything else I do think they should be straight up compulsory - as everything else is non-essential leisure shopping basically. I think part of the issue is we re-opened everywhere first, then said "you need to wear masks now". Had we re-opened shops on the basis that "they're open, but only if you wear a mask" then you'd get far better compliance because it would seem like we were being given something, rather than having something taken away.

The fundamental issue is that the virus doesn't care if you have a medical reason for not wearing a mask or you're just an arsehole. You increase your own and everyone elses risk by the exact same amount. I'd at least re-frame the guidelines to something like "if medical conditions prevent you from wearing a mask, you should avoid entering spaces that require a mask unless absolutely necessary". Our government instead is going "if you can't wear a mask then that's fine" and the response to that by a lot of people is "well if it's fine for them not to wear masks I shouldn't need to wear one either".

Spot on.

[FestivalJamie]

27 minutes ago, stuie said:

As I understand it though, mask wearing is like herd immunity, you don’t need 100% to stop exponential spread. 

If > 80/90% are wearing masks, that’s good enough to be effective, regardless of whether the ones without are just assholes. 

Yes but the point is the arseholes shouldn’t be allowed to “just get away with it”. They should be pocketing a £100 fine every time they break the law as they don’t have a genuine reason not to wear one.

Would you expect someone who doesn’t pay their train fare to get away without getting kicked off the train or without getting a fine?

Its exactly the same concept: don’t have a mask on, don’t have a valid medical condition, get kicked out of the business/mode of transport. If you get aggressive, police are called and you get a fine.

Edited July 28, 2020 by FestivalJamie

[FestivalJamie]

Sorry for four posts in a row but I’ve beyond had it with “anti maskers”. This is exactly why it’s impossible to tell who is genuinely exempt and who is just being a d***. This is exactly why people not wearing masks in the shops are going to receive glares because there are people actively going round and being absolute idiots. 

I don’t get how some people a) can have zero brain cells and b) be so selfish and ignorant and not care about anyone by themselves.

If all these anti mask idiots started wearing masks we could suppress this virus even more and stop a second spike, it’s like they want more people to die and for us to go into a second lockdown. I’ve just had it with them.

[stuie]

15 minutes ago, FestivalJamie said:

Yes but the point is the arseholes shouldn’t be allowed to “just get away with it”. They should be pocketing a £100 fine every time they break the law as they don’t have a genuine reason not to wear one.

Would you expect someone who doesn’t pay their train fare to get away without getting kicked off the train or without getting a fine?

Its exactly the same concept: don’t have a mask on, don’t have a valid medical condition, get kicked out of the business/mode of transport. If you get aggressive, police are called and you get a fine.

I think you have to strike a balance between not embarrassing people at the supermarket door and the need to contain the virus.

Not all disabilities are visible and there are reasons why people are exempt.  An autistic person who struggles with going to the shops in normal life, for example, shouldn’t need to have a very public questioning in order to buy their dinner. 
 

 

[mcshed]

Had someone in the shop the other day claiming that not being allowed to pay with cash was denying them their human right to freedom of expression. I wish I could question the rationale behind that from a non employee position.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, mcshed said:

Had someone in the shop the other day claiming that not being allowed to pay with cash was denying them their human right to freedom of expression. I wish I could question the rationale behind that from a non employee position.

they might have been being an awkward arse, but in England (not sure about Scotland) legal tender can't be refused for the settlement of a debt (which is a purchase once it's been agreed).

[pryce]

are the latest ons figures showing completely different statistics to the PHE figures? especially with deaths?

 

14 july ( later dates likely to change) is showing 30 deaths out of hospital, while PHE is showing 68

 

I know the hit by a bus was a terrible choice of words but it does look like now the PHE figure may be reporting people In care homes dying who may have tested positive but with no symptoms or have recovered  months ago but passing away later down the line

[FestivalJamie]

1 minute ago, pryce said:

 

I know the hit by a bus was a terrible choice of words but it does look like now the PHE figure may be reporting people In care homes dying who may have tested positive but with no symptoms or have recovered  months ago but passing away later down the line

The point is though, we don’t know the long term effects of this virus. Many people (like my aunt) are still have chronic relapses months after the initial infection. So those who have tested positive months ago in a care home but dying later down the line could still be dying due to the virus being within their body.

Theres lots of things we just don’t know yet. So it’s not fair to assume that the numbers are just being escalated by PHE for no reason.

[mcshed]

38 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

they might have been being an awkward arse, but in England (not sure about Scotland) legal tender can't be refused for the settlement of a debt (which is a purchase once it's been agreed).

I don't think it's the case up here, many shops are currently card payment only at the moment but even if it was it's nothing to do with the right to freedom of expression.

Our shop does accept cash we just ask people of they can pay card if possible and that set her off. It isn't a human rights issue.

 

[philipsteak]

46 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

they might have been being an awkward arse, but in England (not sure about Scotland) legal tender can't be refused for the settlement of a debt (which is a purchase once it's been agreed).

We're just asking if they can pay by card and then taking cash if they say no. Probably taking 5 to 10% cash on the bar, even less on reception (but most have prepaid)

[philipsteak]

4 hours ago, Matt42 said:

I am not tweeting but merely reading twitter. Can we talk about how the anti mask, anti vaccine etc movement is getting worse on these platforms?

These ain’t cronies with 100 followers and no replies either. Some of these have thousands of followers and hundreds agreeing with them in their replies.

This is what makes me fearful of next Glasto being cancelled, and why we may face another summer under heavy restrictions. The sheer number of pushback of anything that could help other people is shameful. 
 

These are the lot that would probably leave their lights on in a blackout during the war. It shows how the “you can’t tell me what to do” attitude in some of the most immature children does persist until adulthood.

You've only got to look around to see that most people are wearing masks. These pricks are just a noisy but tiny minority. Most people aren't even aware that James Delingpole exists. I wish I was one of them

[gizmoman]

7 minutes ago, mcshed said:

I don't think it's the case up here, many shops are currently card payment only at the moment but even if it was it's nothing to do with the right to freedom of expression.

Our shop does accept cash we just ask people of they can pay card if possible and that set her off. It isn't a human rights issue.

 

It absolutely is, it's a basic freedom to be able to trade one on one with another person, once cash is gone (and this a big step towards getting rid) all transactions will be recorded and authorised by the banks/government, at the moment there is nothing to stop you buying something from a mate and giving him cash, in the future that won't be possible and you will likely be taxed on(or forbidden if they don't like it) from trade of this type. There is massive ignorance on this thread about the loss of personal freedoms in all this, in the comments above there are proposals for identifying people that the nazis used, this from a anti fascist board.

[Crazyfool01]

The mask usage is pretty good with customers at present and I hope it very much just becomes a norm rather than oh ffs I need to wear a mask .... the issue you get is that where mask usage is not at high levels then people will start to not wear them because other people aren't ... and then it becomes a steady downward slope ... Ive heard people say that they aren't wearing them because others aren't .... and thats the battle I have ... if say the usage was at over 90% amount colleagues the rest would just follow the herd .... dissenting or not they would grumble and get on with it , where at low levels of usage  there is no incentive for them ( they seem to think they have survived the worst too by being out through it ) Id say yes to a security guard stood on doors of most major supermarkets but without the guard asking if people were going to wear masks .... this gets around the making things difficult for those that cant wear them  but makes things just slightly awkward for those that might be attempting to get away with it ... 

[Sdsm123]

11 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

The mask usage is pretty good with customers at present and I hope it very much just becomes a norm rather than oh ffs I need to wear a mask .... the issue you get is that where mask usage is not at high levels then people will start to not wear them because other people aren't ... and then it becomes a steady downward slope ... Ive heard people say that they aren't wearing them because others aren't .... and thats the battle I have ... if say the usage was at over 90% amount colleagues the rest would just follow the herd .... dissenting or not they would grumble and get on with it , where at low levels of usage  there is no incentive for them ( they seem to think they have survived the worst too by being out through it ) Id say yes to a security guard stood on doors of most major supermarkets but without the guard asking if people were going to wear masks .... this gets around the making things difficult for those that cant wear them  but makes things just slightly awkward for those that might be attempting to get away with it ... 

I think if you can’t wear a mask then you should be considered vulnerable and then the nhs volunteers service should do your shopping for you 

[El Matador]

18 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

It absolutely is, it's a basic freedom to be able to trade one on one with another person, once cash is gone (and this a big step towards getting rid) all transactions will be recorded and authorised by the banks/government, at the moment there is nothing to stop you buying something from a mate and giving him cash, in the future that won't be possible and you will likely be taxed on(or forbidden if they don't like it) from trade of this type. There is massive ignorance on this thread about the loss of personal freedoms in all this, in the comments above there are proposals for identifying people that the nazis used, this from a anti fascist board.

Completely agree. Getting rid of cash is one more element of personal control lost.