Covid-19 Virus

Replace John Lewis with a three floor Hornet Megastore. "Deeney's" cafe on the top floor, renowned across the home counties for its generous portions and carb heavy meals.

 

Are these people in the same hospital allowing the NHS to open up as normal across NI?

 

What a ridiculous idea.

You think Deeney would be willing to climb up all those stairs? Ground floor, mate.

On a more serious note, the traditional High Street was doomed anyway. Online shopping was already killing it; the pandemic has merely accelerated that timeline.

 

Absolutely. The trends of growth in on-line shopping and working from home have just been advanced 5 years in 3 months. Can't remember the last time I was in a dept store, maybe 15 years ago, and can't see any reason why I'd ever visit one in the future.

 

I’ve heard it all now, people have been holding Covid parties where someone attends who has it and everyone else sees who catches it first. ******* idiots.

 

I saw suggestions of this at the start of the pandemic. It's not as ridiculous as it sounds - parents used to hold chickenpox parties for kids.

 

Crazy comments at the end there aside, we do seem to be entering a new phase of all this where the psychodrama has now moved on to masks. It now looks highly likely they'll be the next thing that pits people against each other. And while I can sort of understand why he said it, I thought the guy from the Royal Society who last week equated not wearing a mask to drink driving scored a big own goal for their cause.

Ignoring the political aspect (as we're not in the Politics forum), the inconsistencies don't help the cause either. I see Wales is about to make masks mandatory on public transport like they are currently in England. But Wales has decided a simple face covering isn't enough and it has to be a 'three layer' jobby to meet their standards. Who is going to police that?

 

I don’t know, I twice went into shops at the weekend wearing a mask. No one else was, but they didn’t give me a hard time for it.

 

I went to our local Co-Op on Sunday, and no one (including me I must add, but I will be buying one and wearing it in the future) was wearing a mask. Apart from a half hearted attempt to social distance in the queue for the tills, no one else looked like they remotely cared about Covid. There was even a pregnant woman walking around casually with her mate, and once they got what they needed they proceeded over the road to the local pub, where social distancing also looked non existent.

The spike in the winter months when this returns with a vengeance could be interesting.

 

We're not quite there yet Moose. Today's announcement will ramp it up a bit no doubt.

As I think I've said before, Mrs UEA has been working in her supermarket throughout and seen the full range of behaviour from folk. She's no doubt going to have an even harder time now being called upon to referee arguments between imbeciles about the merits or otherwise of masks. I personally wouldn't give anyone a hard time for wearing a mask, it being a matter of personal choice, as long as they don't do the same to those who opt not to. And while I think the medical benefits are marginal, the psychological benefits will hopefully enable the significant minority who are still extremely scared of Covid to start venturing out again. I wore a mask last week in visiting a stranger's house to look at some building work they'd had done. They said it would reassure them if we all did that so I was happy to oblige. Common courtesy and as the first visitor to their house in 3 months they spoke about how nice it was to be able to do something vaguely normal again. Win win.

It's a real shame the government has gone from nothing to the big beat-y stick of £100 fines and police enforcement in one go. Like the guy equating not wearing a mask to drink driving, I think the shock tactics will cause more damage in the long run. I'm not sure the government has an exit plan either. The Spanish government says masks are now a thing until a vaccine is widely available, yet the chances of that happening any time soon (if ever) are questionable. And cases here are the lowest they've been since March. If this is the trigger to start wearing masks, where's the end?

 

I'm in Spain at the moment and the mark wearing compliance is 100% in shops.

I don't see the big deal. I found wearing a mask a little uncomfortable for the first few minutes but I genuinely forget I'm wearing it now. I even went to an open air market a couple of days ago and every single person wore a mask.

I wouldn't "have a go" at anyone who doesn't wear a mask. As you say, the medical risk to them, and me, is minimal.

But why do people object so passionately to wearing one? Why fight a battle on such a small hill? It really is of little inconvenience and, if it reassures others and makes people feel safer, then wtf not?

 

We will get used to it. I just about remember when you didn't have to wear a motorcycle helmet. I don't generally wear a cycle helmet (there are arguments for and against) but if it became law I'd just get on with it and wear one.

 

I have decided to embrace the mask thing wholeheartedly.

 

I imagine things will go similarly here to how they have in the US. I'm sure you won't have a go at anyone who doesn't wear a mask, but then I figure you weren't one of the thousands who called the police to report a neighbour going out for their second run of the day back in April either. There's certain types on both sides who seem triggered by all this.

As to the objections, I think some the arguments against it are difficult to deny. Of course some are naturally stronger than others, especially once you filter out the conspiraloons. I'm not sure I care enough about those arguments to openly rebel, though I hope the government is right in hoping the inconvenience factor will be outweighed by the confidence it gives others. It's obviously been brought in with the economy in mind. I'd say it's not so much the little inconvenience of wearing the actual face covering, as the 'inconvenience' of not being able to see people's expressions or the inability to spontaneously pop into a shop on the spur of the moment if you've forgotten one. Though I guess the savvier retailers will start handing them out on the door? We'll see.

I admit I struggle with the last bit of your post though. Who are these people who need reassurance and to feel safer? Have we stopped to ask if that's a reasonable expectation on their part? Why is that my responsibility? Or even society's responsibility? I'm not saying I have clear answers to any of those questions, but the people who should be asking and answering them have gone AWOL. That conversation should really be lead from the top by government, and other authorities, and experts. The building of confidence in those that don't have it should be organic, rather than using this sort of artificial measure I think. And given they're going to mandate masks at such a low level of community transmission of the virus, what's the end game?

 

Meanwhile Douglas Carswell is amongst those whining loudest about being muzzled (© Brexitwunts). You'd have thought he'd be delighted.

 

I'm not privy to the government's data and I certainly do not understand the timing of the decision.

But, as you say, I assume it is as much an economic decision as a health one. Which would indicate that the feeling of safety that the masks bring to some people, whether actual or not, will increase economic activity.

As with most social policy imo, it's not about "my responsibility" or even "society's responsibility", it's about outcomes.

I am indifferent about the use of masks. The scientific message is mixed at best. But I don't find the wearing of one onerous at all. Since experiencing it's 100% compliance in Spain I've found that the "missed facial expressions" not to have been an issue to me and carrying a mask in my pocket at all times has become as routine as carrying my keys, wallet and phone.

I am still unconvinced that there is any reason for anyone to get worked up about it. It's really only a small inconvenience imo and well worth it if has a good economic outcome for the retailers.

I hope the small minority on either side of the argument who get triggered are just ignored by the majority who, I trust, will do the British thing and moan about it a bit and then just get on with it.

 

Will be interesting to see if the economic effects have been modelled. I reckon it could encourage some older shoppers back out of hiding but on the flip side dissuade younger people who might want to shop more spontaneously from spending their money. There will some retailers really worried about that effect on top of everything else they’ve been through in the last few months. If there is a clear economic rationale though, why can the government spell it out?

On the upside, one bit of the economy is thriving. Mrs UEA asked me yesterday to pick up a box of masks for our (we hope) holiday travels next month. At dinner time on Amazon a box of 50 was £6.50. By the time I bought it, having lazily forgotten until the government announcement being trailed last night prompted me, that same box was £8.75. This morning I looked and it was £9.99 and right now it’s up to £10.99. Nice money if you can make it.

 

Yes, there are always opportunities in a crisis for entrepreneurs (or rip off merchants if you prefer!) to make a killing.

 

You’ve just articulated my concern about this. Where is the exit strategy? I have no problem wearing a mask as necessary or following any other measures to help control the virus for as long as it takes but I don’t want to have to live with a ‘new normal’ indefinitely; I want the ‘old normal’ back. What are the conditions for the the government to say you can stop wearing masks now, you can take down all the Perspex screens, you can fill theatres and football grounds again etc.? I’m fairly cautious about Covid - I wouldn’t go to a pub at the moment - but we all live with viruses circulating that are deadly to some without thinking about them, so where do we have to be with this one before life can fully resume?

 

On frosty days to come.

 

The longer people get used to wearing masks the better particularly as we head towards winter again. If wearing them becomes second nature it could help minimise the effect of a second spike.

You look at the $hit show in the USA, not only are a lot of people against wearing them, they're having a huge increase in infections in the middle of summer. I predict that the USA will be hit very hard come the winter, however by January they may have a different president but the horse would have long bolted by then.

 

See, that makes more logical sense than nearly everything the government has said on the topic so far.

If it came out and acknowledged the scientific case for face coverings at this level of community transmission is weak, but it wants everyone to buy them and get used to having and wearing them now because when cases reach X level again either locally or nationally they will be mandatory, that would be much more sensible. It would also help underline that the threat level at present is pretty low.

 

But government are hardly going to say that by wearing them we will minimise the risk of a second spike in the winter because people will interpret that as not having to wear one until December 21st.

 

In what universe are British people, young or old, not going to spend all their money? Most British people spend all their money and when they get through that they borrow some more. This has been the consumer way of things for maybe twenty years now.

Online has gone through the roof of late, Hermes for example doubling capacity since the lockdown. Consumers will find a way to consume.

While people will continue to spend all they have, individuals may borrow a little less. There is then a risk demand falls creating an unemployment spiral, such is our reliance on credit.

It’s the Government’s role right now to recycle the means. from those flourishing from high demand (and profiteering) to those who need a helping hand. This may involve business transition and upheaval from traditional habits. But we love spending and masks won’t stop us doing that. Wages and credit are the key.

 

There's been mass obedience so far with everything the government has asked. I know a few pictures in the papers make it look bad at times but the odd isolated incident doesn't change the fact there's been compliance a scale beyond what the government's advisors thought would happen. So I don't think people would be as contrarian as you suggest.

The government could set out dates masks would be obligatory (say from 15 October 2020 to 14 April 2021 to cover the NHS winter peak) or come up with an objective number of cases at which it'll be triggered. And then use the intervening time to run a public health campaign, explain the benefits, how to wear a mask properly and why it isn't a magic shield that will stop all comers.

Instead they've shot their load in midsummer, with cases having declined far from the peak and community transmission at 1 case for every 3,900 people. Basically they're saying absent any better idea or the public's view of risk changing then this is it indefinitely.

 

Oh I don't doubt people will still spend. Consumerism won't be dented by the need to wear face coverings. But we're constantly told the high street is what needs protecting and supporting and I think it'll affect that. And it's not just the retailers in the firing line - local council budgets will be smashed too if footfall drops. Setting aside your Carswells, who claim they'll never set foot in a shop again, I reckon there will be an ever increasing shift to online. Ocado have been trumpeting their success on that front today and as you say others are doing well too.

Online is booming but then the most successful examples of that business model involve minimum wage slaves in massive warehouses fulfilling as many orders as the computer says they should or else. I can't see that changing.

 

Wearing a face mask isn't remotely taxing, at least for healthy people. The biggest problem I've had is remembering to put it on. Your face can get a bit hot so if you're active (e.g walking around outside and it's hot) it can be uncomfortable, but it doesn't make it any harder to breathe.

Masks have been mandatory at my employer for months now, since the lockdown started. Many shops have followed suit (although not all). Compliance here has been slowly increasing; for the most part, the only people not wearing masks at this point at hardcore Trump supporters, because he has (ludicrously) turned it into a political issue.

I reckon compliance is in the 60-70% range, at least in my state. I went food shopping yesterday and there was only one single person in the entire shop that wasn't wearing a mask, which was a huge surprise. Seems the message is finally getting through here.

 

It's ludicrous that the US President has so much power in a crisis like this. In fact I don't think he does really; it's just the millions of sheep that follow him and hang on his every word. Hopefully, there are gradually fewer millions as time goes by.

 

As Joni once sang ‘you don’t know what you’ve got til it’s gone’.

 

Did the legal obligation to wear masks get thrown out by your state supreme court with the rest of the mitigation measures?

 

Duncan appears to have had a stroke, which would explain a lot.

 

No, there wasn't an order in place for that when the Repubs challenged it.

City of Milwaukee just made an order yesterday for mandatory masks. There is no statewide measure...yet. Evers has been making noises about "doing things anyway", though, even if he thinks the Repubs will challenge it. Apparently some advisors have been pointing out that you don't not do (what you think is) the right thing because you think someone might try and challenge it in court.

I suspect the local edict can't/won't be challenged successfully in court because the logic is essentially identical to that of requiring clothing in public. If authorities don't have the authority to mandate face masks then they also can't legally require clothing, which would be....problematic. Mandated safety garb is pretty normal in a lot of professions so the broad authority seems commonly agreed to be in place.