Wearing masks

RandySavage said:
So a business is determined viable or not by the ability to spend extra on security staff?
So little old Mrs Smith's quaint antiques shop which she runs as a means to pay the bills and alittle bit of spending money isn't viable because she doesn't have the extra money in the business to pay a security guard to stand there all day and stop people entering who don't have their t-shirts over their faces?
Click to expand...

Yes, effectively. They might be viable day to day in normal conditions, don't get me wrong, but not viable when something bad happens, and bad things do happen, that's part of running a business. It's brutal/ awful, I know and it's even worse for high street shops as their market is disappearing by the day, and has been for a long time.

A small shop like that would not likely be getting a great deal of footfall anyway, so I'm pretty sure they could handle the security requirement themselves. It's also not like they're going to be mobbed by young yobs, or 6 foot 2, 40 year old blokes that are hard as nails being awkward. Supermarkets would get those, but they can afford to deal with it.

For us in construction, we have to allow for contingency, rainy days, downtime in work etc, but most don't, that's why most go bust, so that's why they're not viable.
 
‘Supermarkets not enforcing this, or saying they can't enforce it is laughable, their trade is probably up or at least even over the last 6 month as less people are eating out or going out. They're putting profits first, and hiding behind some BS excuses, because the government is too weak to enforce it on them.‘

I’ll bite
Firstly, all a customer has to do is say they are exempt. End of story, you can’t ask why.
Secondly, I have seen videos of stores being trashed, shop workers being spat at and having people cough in their faces - all for trying to do their moral duty.
It’s not the job of anyone to enforce the law other than law enforcement.

And, to suggest a local store serving a local community can stick a security guard in place costing around £1500 a week is, well lets just say ’interesting;
festa5 said:
This is it isn't it. The main purpose of wearing a mask is to protect others, not yourself.

So by refusing to wear one because you "don't want to" or whatever you're basically saying you're happy to put other people's health at risk just because you can't put up with what is a minor irritant.

Incredibly selfish. There's no other way to describe it.

I'm sure a large number would claim ignorance but I'm getting a bit fed up with ignorance as a defence.

"I didn't know what Johnson was really like".
"I didn't know leaving the EU would harm my business or cost me my job".

About time people started taking some forking responsibility for their actions and educate themselves a bit (from places other than Twitter).

Whether you understand the reasons for masks or not you're a selfish **** if you refuse to wear one (medical exemptions aside). I don't think anything will convince me otherwise.
Click to expand...

Wouldn’t dream of trying to convince you
But, there are those out there who don’t believe masks make a difference. They would argue, on that basis, they are not being selfish.
Full disclosure - I wear a mask.
 
Laughing said:
I find myself agreeing with Randy on this one. Following your logic Statto there are millions of business' that were never viable business' which clearly isn't the case.
Click to expand...

No, you're missing what I meant, they're viable at the time, but not viable if they can't cater for the rainy day, which is inevitable in business.
 
Statto1 said:
Yes, effectively. They might be viable day to day in normal conditions, don't get me wrong, but not viable when something bad happens, and bad things do happen, that's part of running a business. It's brutal/ awful, I know and it's even worse for high street shops as their market is disappearing by the day, and has been for a long time.

A small shop like that would not likely be getting a great deal of footfall anyway, so I'm pretty sure they could handle the security requirement themselves. It's also not like they're going to be mobbed by young yobs, or 6 foot 2, 40 year old blokes that are hard as nails being awkward. Supermarkets would get those, but they can afford to deal with it.

For us in construction, we have to allow for contingency, rainy days, downtime in work etc, but most don't, that's why most go bust, so that's why they're not viable.
Click to expand...

Small shops get loads of footfall
A small convenience store can do around 250000 transactions a week - just very low customer spend
 
Statto1 said:
No, you're missing what I meant, they're viable at the time, but not viable if they can't cater for the rainy day, which is inevitable in business.
Click to expand...
So bad things happen in business.. So Cineworld is not a viable business? What about Whitbread? Or indeed what about Benson's Beds or DW Sports or Harveys or Go Outside? Are these all unviable business'?

Statto, I get you are disappointed that some folks just aren't playing the game, but your arguments are a bit silly.
 
1finny said:
‘Supermarkets not enforcing this, or saying they can't enforce it is laughable, their trade is probably up or at least even over the last 6 month as less people are eating out or going out. They're putting profits first, and hiding behind some BS excuses, because the government is too weak to enforce it on them.‘

I’ll bite
Firstly, all a customer has to do is say they are exempt. End of story, you can’t ask why.
Secondly, I have seen videos of stores being trashed, shop workers being spat at and having people cough in their faces - all for trying to do their moral duty.
It’s not the job of anyone to enforce the law other than law enforcement.

And, to suggest a local store serving a local community can stick a security guard in place costing around £1500 a week is, well lets just say ’interesting;


Wouldn’t dream of trying to convince you
But, there are those out there who don’t believe masks make a difference. They would argue, on that basis, they are not being selfish.
Full disclosure - I wear a mask.
Click to expand...

I know. But although they might not "believe it" they don't "know it". Surely if pressed most would admit they aren't 100% sure.

I have no problem with people believing it. I mean find it a bit bizarre unless they're an expert in the field, but fine they can believe what they want. But even if you believe that, surely on the off-chance you're wrong, you wear a mask don't you? So either still selfish or arrogant/delusional to think you know better than experts and that you are definitely right.
 
Laughing said:
So is it a right or privilege to see your family? You made the statement not me. My point is that the government are not just restricting privileges (and I could argue that going out to eat with friends, or have a drink with friends is a right in any case) they are restricting our basic rights, spot fines for breaking the law without a trial would be another one, the erosion of the presumption of innocence. In your outrage, you are looking in the wrong direction.
Click to expand...

I would say it's a privilege to see family you don't live with, plenty manage living 300 miles away or 3000 miles etc.

All I'm saying is someone shouldn't have more right to have a cup of tea with their mum 5 miles away in Stockton (if that's breaking the rules), if they live in Boro, than someone else's has a right to live.

I want to see family just as much as the next person, but I live fairly close to mine, some have theirs living miles away, but I and others should see that as not as important or as much of a right as my next door neighbour or some other randomers right to life. They're both rights I suppose, but the latter wins in top trumps.

If everyone just looks after themselves, then everyone (as an average) ends up worse off, that's how a pandemic works, we need to work together (by being apart). It's a net loss looking out for no 1, compared to everyone looking out for no 2,8,17,58 etc.
 
Statto1 said:
Yes, effectively. They might be viable day to day in normal conditions, don't get me wrong, but not viable when something bad happens, and bad things do happen, that's part of running a business. It's brutal/ awful, I know and it's even worse for high street shops as their market is disappearing by the day, and has been for a long time.

A small shop like that would not likely be getting a great deal of footfall anyway, so I'm pretty sure they could handle the security requirement themselves. It's also not like they're going to be mobbed by young yobs, or 6 foot 2, 40 year old blokes that are hard as nails being awkward. Supermarkets would get those, but they can afford to deal with it.

For us in construction, we have to allow for contingency, rainy days, downtime in work etc, but most don't, that's why most go bust, so that's why they're not viable.
Click to expand...

You can't compare a construction company with masses of investors and collateral to a small high street shop.

Just admit you want a communist state and be done with it. You'll feel better getting it out in the open.

And it's a privilege to see my family? Wow. It's not a privilege it's a god given right.
 
Statto1 said:
I would say it's a privilege to see family you don't live with, plenty manage living 300 miles away or 3000 miles etc.

All I'm saying is someone shouldn't have more right to have a cup of tea with their mum 5 miles away in Stockton (if that's breaking the rules), if they live in Boro, than someone else's has a right to live.

I want to see family just as much as the next person, but I live fairly close to mine, some have theirs living miles away, but I and others should see that as not as important or as much of a right as my next door neighbour or some other randomers right to life. They're both rights I suppose, but the latter wins in top trumps.

If everyone just looks after themselves, then everyone (as an average) ends up worse off, that's how a pandemic works, we need to work together (by being apart). It's a net loss looking out for no 1, compared to everyone looking out for no 2,8,17,58 etc.
Click to expand...
I am not suggesting any of those things Statto, I am pointing out that most of what has been removed are rights, even pubs and restaurant's having reduced hours is a erosion of rights if you own one of those business'. The government, a conservative one at that, is telling a business owner how to run his business.

I agree we could do with more compliance from the public, but you and others are looking in the wrong direction when apportioning blame.

Boris Johnson and his advisers are to blame, not a guy with a mask worn incorrectly.
 
Laughing said:
So bad things happen in business.. So Cineworld is not a viable business? What about Whitbread? Or indeed what about Benson's Beds or DW Sports or Harveys or Go Outside? Are these all unviable business'?

Statto, I get you are disappointed that some folks just aren't playing the game, but your arguments are a bit silly.
Click to expand...

They've been viable for years, but have obviously been ran close to the bone if they can't survive 6 months on 50% income and slashed expenses (or whatever it is). They're not viable now, so will go under, it's crap, I know, I'm not saying it isn't. Then once this stops the market will be there for them to be viable again, so some other company will take their place and be viable for the next few decades.

It's differing degrees of viability I suppose, it's like how your drainage system is designed for a 1 in 100 year storm, but every 150 years a storm might come and wipe out most houses. Yeah some will survive, but some won't, but no doubt the ones that don't will be replaced, and they will last another 150 years until it happens again.

It's like my business is probably viable for 10 months with no turnover or 20 months with half turnover and reduced expenditure. We've been viable for 15 years, but we're not viable forever, no business is.
 
RandySavage said:
And it's a privilege to see my family? Wow. It's not a privilege it's a god given right.
Click to expand...

You've missed the other half of my point, conveniently. I'm just saying my family's right to life is more important than your right for a cup of tea with yours.
I'm also saying yours has more right to life than I do as having a cup of tea with mine.
 
Statto1 said:
You've missed the other half of my point, conveniently. I'm just saying my family's right to life is more important than your right for a cup of tea with yours.
I'm also saying yours has more right to life than I do as having a cup of tea with mine.
Click to expand...

How have you come to that conclusion though? It doesn't make any sense. How does spending time with my family give your family a death sentence?
 
Laughing said:
I agree we could do with more compliance from the public, but you and others are looking in the wrong direction when apportioning blame.

Boris Johnson and his advisers are to blame, not a guy with a mask worn incorrectly.
Click to expand...

I'm blaming both, but probably 50% the government and 35% the people and 15% the advisors. I think we've either listened to the wrong advisors, or not acted on what they've said.
 
Wait, what? You think the government are 50% to blame and 35% of the blame goes to the general public? OK this could be very interesting. Where do you get 35% of blame apportioned to the public? You think 35% of the general public are ignoring the guidance?

We are in the middle of the worst pandemic in our lifetimes, the government have used the pandemic to enrich their donors, friends and families. They didn't bother getting PPE in and the reason for this, well it was to give cash to their donors. This cost lives, and you think they are only partly to blame?

You, Statto, are part if the reason why self serving bunch of crooks can grab power. Whether you voted tory or not, you are easily influenced into pointing the finger of blame in other areas. 35% blame on the public, please please tell me you didn't think that statement through.
 
nowthen said:
Obeying the rules? The rules are a joke. You think COVID doesn’t threaten you because you’re eating a sandwich? The “rules” aren’t fit for purpose. To sit there judging others for not wearing a mask whilst not wearing a mask yourself is laughable.
You don’t know if these people have medical conditions which prevent them wearing a mask, under the “rules”.
Click to expand...
Our government which is not fit for purpose coming out with eat out to help out etc etc etc is totally different from having common sense and wearing a mask in the middle of a worldwide pandemic.
 
RandySavage said:
How have you come to that conclusion though? It doesn't make any sense. How does spending time with my family give your family a death sentence?
Click to expand...

It's not my conclusion, it's a generalistic fact.

People meeting each other socially, will spread the virus, this is proven, it's like the main cause of confirmed transmission. They then spread it to others which leads to others being killed, whether that's my family or some other guys family, it's still dead people (the number going up is the problem, not specifically who that is).

Visiting people is/ was killing more lives than it is saving lives during this pandemic.

It's also not really helping the economy and jobs either etc, but other shops and pubs are, but that's a different point. I've no idea if their economic benefit might be saving jobs and lives, more than those the transmission is killing.
 
Laughing said:
Wait, what? You think the government are 50% to blame and 35% of the blame goes to the general public? OK this could be very interesting. Where do you get 35% of blame apportioned to the public? You think 35% of the general public are ignoring the guidance?

We are in the middle of the worst pandemic in our lifetimes, the government have used the pandemic to enrich their donors, friends and families. They didn't bother getting PPE in and the reason for this, well it was to give cash to their donors. This cost lives, and you think they are only partly to blame?

You, Statto, are part if the reason why self serving bunch of crooks can grab power. Whether you voted tory or not, you are easily influenced into pointing the finger of blame in other areas. 35% blame on the public, please please tell me you didn't think that statement through.
Click to expand...

Nah, it was just a rough example of numbers, might be more 65/20/15 to be fair. There's probably 20% that don't even think this is real, never mind following advice!

That 20% might have pushed the R from 0.7 to 1.5 though, one or two idiots can infect 100 people easily.

I voted Labour and voted remain! There's no way I would vote those idiots in, but equally it doesn't mean we don't have a mass of idiots out in public.
 
Laughing said:
We are in the middle of the worst pandemic in our lifetimes, the government have used the pandemic to enrich their donors, friends and families. They didn't bother getting PPE in and the reason for this, well it was to give cash to their donors. This cost lives, and you think they are only partly to blame?
Click to expand...

100% agree with that! I just mean that there are also idiots in the public, as well as in office!
 
The division this is creating is awful but probably what the UK government want, some people will not agree with mask wearing though it is clearly a minority, most people are on board. The problem is with how those who are exempt are made to feel, saying they should be challenged by security, refused entry, told to stay at home is frankly appalling. Asthma is one of the conditions that makes you exempt, 5.4 million people in the UK are currently receiving treatment for asthma, this is about 1 in 12 of the population - this is just ONE of the many conditions that make you exempt. Anybody getting angry about seeing somebody without a mask needs to get a grip - you have no idea whether that person is exempt so don't go jumping to conclusions and creating division.
 
RandySavage said:
So a business is determined viable or not by the ability to spend extra on security staff?
So little old Mrs Smith's quaint antiques shop which she runs as a means to pay the bills and alittle bit of spending money isn't viable because she doesn't have the extra money in the business to pay a security guard to stand there all day and stop people entering who don't have their t-shirts over their faces?
Click to expand...

She just has to ask those not wearing masks to leave, she's always had the right to refuse access to people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top