Crosswords3 mins ago
Does Wearing A Face Mask In Public Places Create A False Sense Of Security?
45 Answers
The end of queuing for shops, the removal of directional markings, and people seemingly more relaxed about keeping their distance from others, it seems to me that social distancing isn’t being anywhere near so rigidly observed now that face coverings are mandatory and I suspect that masking up might be the reason. What do you think?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Well I don't know if it's false (although my view is masks are nigh on pointless but I don't actually know that) but yes to the OP re new sense of security. Before masks all my local shops were very strict on one in one out or at least some form of control, strict distancing inside, aided in some cases by shop staff wallowing in their new found power of telling people what to do. Now we have masks I can go in wherever I want, very little distancing being observed and to large extent back to normal - but with a mask on.
/...with Bombay duck of course.//
Mumbai duck, surely, OG. Do try to keep up.
Incidentally, I hope the change of name has resulted in a change of flavour. I had Bombay duck twice (when it was still Bombay duck). I had it because I was in Bombay (when in Rome etc.). The first time I thought I'd just got a dodgy bit. The second time it tasted even worse.
Mumbai duck, surely, OG. Do try to keep up.
Incidentally, I hope the change of name has resulted in a change of flavour. I had Bombay duck twice (when it was still Bombay duck). I had it because I was in Bombay (when in Rome etc.). The first time I thought I'd just got a dodgy bit. The second time it tasted even worse.
You can still get it, OG:
https:/
Perhaps this campaign had something to do with it:
http://
However, we digress - unless we're considering using some as a face covering. :-)
https:/
Perhaps this campaign had something to do with it:
http://
However, we digress - unless we're considering using some as a face covering. :-)
The answer to the question is Yes if you think wearing a mask will protect you from catching Coronavirus. Unless the mask is of high medical standard, its sole purpose is to prevent other folk from contacting the virus from the wearer who could be infected.
Social distancing is more important, unless everyone is wearing a mask and regularly changes them after very short periods of time.
All that I have said has been mentioned by others in this thread, but I think its worth reiterating.
Hans.
Social distancing is more important, unless everyone is wearing a mask and regularly changes them after very short periods of time.
All that I have said has been mentioned by others in this thread, but I think its worth reiterating.
Hans.
Yes, but as far as I can see, that is the actual aim. The idea seems to be to get people back out to shops and businesses, and this is supposed to give people the confidence to do that. I agree in one way, we do need to get the economy kickstarter again. But I'm also not entirely sure that it's fair for people to believe they are safer with a face covering, when they aren't.
//But I'm also not entirely sure that it's fair for people to believe they are safer with a face covering, when they aren't.//
The individual wearer most certainly isn’t. In fact, they are almost certainly increasing their own risk of self-contamination (something I have prattled on about at length over the last week or so). The alleged benefit is for those around them.
If the government wants to increase people’s confidence to go out it should make things like this known:
Towards the end of last week there were just 737 patients in UK hospitals with coronavirus. That’s 0.0011% of the population or roughly one person in every 90,000. Of those just 63 were on mechanical ventilators. The UK has around 140,000 hospital beds so just one in about every 200 is occupied by a person suffering from Covid. There are probably more people in hospital as a result of injuries sustained in accidents at home.
This current situation is ridiculous. I’ve no idea what the government’s current aim is. It’s moved from preventing the NHS being overwhelmed (which was achieved by about the end of April), through to preventing the spread and now it seems it will not be satisfied until the disease is eradicated (in which case we’re all in for a long wait). It is simply preposterous that 9m people are still not working when the incidence of the disease is so low. Yes, it will spread from time to time and from place to place. But we’re just going to have to deal with it and locking people away, making it impossible for them to go to work or afraid to go out, simply will not do.
The individual wearer most certainly isn’t. In fact, they are almost certainly increasing their own risk of self-contamination (something I have prattled on about at length over the last week or so). The alleged benefit is for those around them.
If the government wants to increase people’s confidence to go out it should make things like this known:
Towards the end of last week there were just 737 patients in UK hospitals with coronavirus. That’s 0.0011% of the population or roughly one person in every 90,000. Of those just 63 were on mechanical ventilators. The UK has around 140,000 hospital beds so just one in about every 200 is occupied by a person suffering from Covid. There are probably more people in hospital as a result of injuries sustained in accidents at home.
This current situation is ridiculous. I’ve no idea what the government’s current aim is. It’s moved from preventing the NHS being overwhelmed (which was achieved by about the end of April), through to preventing the spread and now it seems it will not be satisfied until the disease is eradicated (in which case we’re all in for a long wait). It is simply preposterous that 9m people are still not working when the incidence of the disease is so low. Yes, it will spread from time to time and from place to place. But we’re just going to have to deal with it and locking people away, making it impossible for them to go to work or afraid to go out, simply will not do.
NJ, //it seems it will not be satisfied until the disease is eradicated//
I really don't think that is the case. They gave up quite a while ago attempting to reduce the spread of it. Now they are trying to get people out again. Many seem to be more put off by having to wear masks (including me), but the government seem to think it will add confidence overall, I don't know yet if they are right.
There is no need to wear PPE, just a covering, which can only be to reassure others.
I personally, don't believe you are "more" at risk necessarily, or at least, not much more... but as nobody is wearing proper masks or properly fitted, and leaving them in handbags, pockets, fiddling with them etc... you might be right.
I really don't think that is the case. They gave up quite a while ago attempting to reduce the spread of it. Now they are trying to get people out again. Many seem to be more put off by having to wear masks (including me), but the government seem to think it will add confidence overall, I don't know yet if they are right.
There is no need to wear PPE, just a covering, which can only be to reassure others.
I personally, don't believe you are "more" at risk necessarily, or at least, not much more... but as nobody is wearing proper masks or properly fitted, and leaving them in handbags, pockets, fiddling with them etc... you might be right.
Naomi, I said a few weeks back that the compulsory wearing of face coverings would give some a false sense of near normality and that social distancing would decline. I believe the Government knew this would be so, but harboured the hope the false sense of security would encourage people back into work.
I have. As far as I'm aware, there is no requirement for PPE that works. You can literally wrap a scarf around your face if you want to. We all know and don't care, that they don't need to even fit you. On AB and in real life, I have seen people saying that wearing a mask is making their glasses steam up... and the general advice (I also gave to my stepdad) is to use a little washing up liquid. Nobody is the slightest bit worried that it shows the mask doesn't fit... i think people are less daft than you are giving credit for.
No doubt, I won't be able to find it now... but I am sure I read on a News site that the government believe face coverings will encourage people to go out. We may have got to that point, where we need some more normality for businesses etc. In any case, you can see that they aren't attempting to reduce it any more.
No doubt, I won't be able to find it now... but I am sure I read on a News site that the government believe face coverings will encourage people to go out. We may have got to that point, where we need some more normality for businesses etc. In any case, you can see that they aren't attempting to reduce it any more.
//I believe the Government knew this would be so, but harboured the hope the false sense of security would encourage people back into work.//
A sure way they can encourage people back to work is by instructing government employees (i.e. the Civil Service) to get back to their offices. Attendance in Whitehall is still pitifully low. The argument that they are just as productive at home may well be true for some of them. But the DVLA is all but shut down to anything other than straightforward matters that can be dealt with online and many people have had to cancel travel arrangements because they cannot get a passport.
These are things which have a severe impact on people’s lives – many of those people trying to behave as normally as they can. It may well be true that scribes can sit at home exchanging e-Mails with their EU counterparts, arguing over the price of beetroot, equally as well as they might in an office, but a few of the things the government does have an effect on people. It is now five months since this nonsense began and to “encourage” people back to work they need to get their own employees back pronto.
Many people have worked throughout this affair. They've had no choice. The only ones who haven't have been those in the employ of the government or local authorities and those who have been paid furlough money to sit at home on an extended break, taking the odd day out here and there to go to the seaside, the country or (since 4th July) the pub.
A sure way they can encourage people back to work is by instructing government employees (i.e. the Civil Service) to get back to their offices. Attendance in Whitehall is still pitifully low. The argument that they are just as productive at home may well be true for some of them. But the DVLA is all but shut down to anything other than straightforward matters that can be dealt with online and many people have had to cancel travel arrangements because they cannot get a passport.
These are things which have a severe impact on people’s lives – many of those people trying to behave as normally as they can. It may well be true that scribes can sit at home exchanging e-Mails with their EU counterparts, arguing over the price of beetroot, equally as well as they might in an office, but a few of the things the government does have an effect on people. It is now five months since this nonsense began and to “encourage” people back to work they need to get their own employees back pronto.
Many people have worked throughout this affair. They've had no choice. The only ones who haven't have been those in the employ of the government or local authorities and those who have been paid furlough money to sit at home on an extended break, taking the odd day out here and there to go to the seaside, the country or (since 4th July) the pub.
Yes, and that's to try to get people to go out and behave more normally. As heartless as it might sound, there are businesses that need some support from customers... we can't just hide forever. The risk has been low for a very long time and so lockdown has gradually been eased. Even though I thought lockdown should have happened before covid even arrived here, the rest does make sense to me. Protect the vulnerable, the NHS, and now get people spending again.
Latest Posts
Crosswords6 mins ago
Mad Mullahs Ever More Desparate To...
News6 mins ago
Crosswords9 mins ago
News11 mins ago
Animals & Nature11 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.