Wearing masks
- Thread starter lostinyorkshire
- Start date
Michael_Vronsky
Well-known member
Do you not have any exemptions? People with breathing problems and such?
JM14
Well-known member
Should be the same here, too many businesses ignoring things because its easier for them. The big supermarkets should have security staff enforcing masks/sanitizing when entering store and limiting how many people are instore. Same with restaurants.
Randy
Well-known member
Yeah I know mate it's all good.
Hope you are feeling better soon. Plenty of fluids and vitamin C and D. Oh and healthy supply of paracetamol.
dooderooni
Well-known member
They are in my man-bag too.
Randy
Well-known member
Please refer to it as a satchel from now on. For the good of your soul.
NYboro
Well-known member
Not that I'm aware of and I've not seen anyone not following it.
boroboy6872
Well-known member
The above text is taken from here - https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ngs-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own
Reading that you don`t need to provide proof to qualify and anyone can print an exemption card off if it`s their choice
nowthen
Well-known member
Please refer to it as a satchel from now on. For the good of your soul.
As the pulmonary disease specialist I referred to earlier points out, there are no respiratory problems that would prevent a person from wearing a mask.
Surgical masks at least, have almost no effect on a person's ability to breathe (N95 respirators are a different matter). He demonstrates this in the video I posted and he also mentions that even his patients with the most severe respiratory problems such as chronic emphysema wear masks (and are required to) when coming into the clinic.
1finny
Well-known member
There are psychological reasons why people can choose not to wear a mask - ref the earlier point about rape.
If you are exempt - it is up to you. You don’t have to say why. That’s the rule.
The ’rules/guidelines’ from day 1 in this country have been designed to create divisiion.
Common sense has been the theme in the full knowledge there is no such thing.
It allows Johnson to go on TV over the weekend saying the public are getting slack therefore the virus is spreading.
Guess what - viruses spread and masks won‘t prevent it.
Not really,
It's not your right to go to a pub or a restaurant, if they're all closed to prevent a major health outbreak
It's not your right to have a stable economy
It's not your right to kill other people (without consequences)
It's not your right to break the law (without consequences)
It's not your right to enter a premises without a mask (if the owner of the premises wants you to wear a mask, or is told to deny entry of those wearing a mask)
With regards to masks in premises:
Every single premises can be told to deny the non mask wearers entry. If they say their staff can't enforce it, then tell them to employ security, if they say they can't afford it then their business is unfortunately not viable. Breaking even in perfect conditions is not a viable business, unless you have masses of capital to allow for this whilst you start out/ develop, you must be able to allow for a bad patch, as if you can't you go under, whether it's caused by lack of sales, a virus, bad weather, changing market conditions etc. If you're not viable, then if one thing doesn't put you under, something else will.
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.
Even if the above was not possible:
How many people are exempt from wearing masks, <0.5%? Surely those people could be catered for (deliveries, alternate hours shopping, designated shops etc), so that the shop owners don't need to do any checks of exemptions?
Does someone with a health issue, preventing them wearing a mask, have more of a right to go to PC World, than someone else has a right to live or not get the virus? I would say everyone's right to life and a potential knock on effect of spread is more important than infringing on someone's possible feelings or rights (which can't spread), but that's just my opinion.
I would say not spreading the virus is a lot more important, than catering for <0.5% mask exemptions, which is also leaving a system open to abuse (as it's badly managed). Those that can't wear a mask are surely those most at risk anyway, as in they should be being shielded in the first place (if they actually care about their lives, even if they don't care about others).
I probably see 5:1 non mask wearers from those from 20-60 v those from 60+ (adjusting for numbers), where as exemption and health wise it should be the other way around, as older people are a lot more likely to have the health conditions. It's just younger and middle aged idiots not obeying the rules.
I can't remember the last time I saw some 70,80 year old in Tesco with no mask on, but maybe that's because those at risk or those with exceptions have already been killed off.
Every single premises can be told to deny the non mask wearers entry. If they say their staff can't enforce it, then tell them to employ security, if they say they can't afford it then their business is unfortunately not viable. Breaking even in perfect conditions is not a viable business, unless you have masses of capital to allow for this whilst you start out/ develop, you must be able to allow for a bad patch, as if you can't you go under, whether it's caused by lack of sales, a virus, bad weather, changing market conditions etc. If you're not viable, then if one thing doesn't put you under, something else will.
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.
Even if the above was not possible:
How many people are exempt from wearing masks, <0.5%? Surely those people could be catered for (deliveries, alternate hours shopping, designated shops etc), so that the shop owners don't need to do any checks of exemptions?
Does someone with a health issue, preventing them wearing a mask, have more of a right to go to PC World, than someone else has a right to live or not get the virus? I would say everyone's right to life and a potential knock on effect of spread is more important than infringing on someone's possible feelings or rights (which can't spread), but that's just my opinion.
I would say not spreading the virus is a lot more important, than catering for <0.5% mask exemptions, which is also leaving a system open to abuse (as it's badly managed). Those that can't wear a mask are surely those most at risk anyway, as in they should be being shielded in the first place (if they actually care about their lives, even if they don't care about others).
I probably see 5:1 non mask wearers from those from 20-60 v those from 60+ (adjusting for numbers), where as exemption and health wise it should be the other way around, as older people are a lot more likely to have the health conditions. It's just younger and middle aged idiots not obeying the rules.
I can't remember the last time I saw some 70,80 year old in Tesco with no mask on, but maybe that's because those at risk or those with exceptions have already been killed off.
Last edited:
Laughing
Well-known member
Its not your privilege to kill people, nor enter a pub that is closed or break the law, and so on. But I am sure you knew exactly what I meant.
Randy
Well-known member
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?
Not really, you were replying to "If people take the ****, they will have their privileges taken away. "
What I meant by that was, if people take the pi$$, then the pubs will get shut, restaurants will get shut, people will lose jobs but more people will live etc.
I would call the pubs, restaurants and having jobs a privilege? It's certainly not a right?
festa5
Well-known member
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.
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.
Laughing
Well-known member
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.