You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.

You might need to refresh your page afterwards.

Confusion.

HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 11,785
edited July 26 in The Rail
The Government claims to be following the science.
Can anyone explain the reasoning behind the following advice.
If you enter a sandwich shop to buy a takeaway then you must wear a mask.
If you enter the same shop, and intend to consume your sandwich on the premises, you don't need to wear one.

Also, why is it ok for people to travel on planes, but not sit in cinemas, or theatres?
«13456723

Comments

  • CammykazeCammykaze Member Posts: 963
    edited July 26
    Can't eat while wearing a mask is the simple answer I guess :)

    The science part is lost on someone like myself ;)

    It's a fair point and part of the reason for confusion. It's maybe up to the establishment themselves to use common sense and the Government isn't wanting involved in that part....... maybe?
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 11,785
    Cammykaze said:

    Can't eat while wearing a mask is the simple answer I guess :)

    The science part is lost on someone like myself ;)

    It's a fair point and part of the reason for confusion. It's maybe up to the establishment themselves to use common sense and the Government isn't wanting involved in that part....... maybe?

    It is difficult to understand why the science would change based on whether you are eating or not.
  • kapowblamzkapowblamz Member Posts: 1,060
    The masks are not magic force fields that make you immune from spreading or catching the disease. They are an aid. They will effect the overall spread and will reduce the r number.

    Eateries will all shut down if they can't open ASAP but you cannot eat with a mask on so there has to be a balance.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 11,785

    The masks are not magic force fields that make you immune from spreading or catching the disease. They are an aid. They will effect the overall spread and will reduce the r number.

    Eateries will all shut down if they can't open ASAP but you cannot eat with a mask on so there has to be a balance.

    The masks either help stopping the spread, or they don't.

    The advice that you should wear one when purchasing a takeaway, but not when you are eating in exactly the same place, cannot possibly be based on science.

    They have also now admitted that we should have been wearing masks from the word go, but felt that giving this advice might have created further shortages in the NHS.

    Not much science in that either.

    Why didn't they advise that wearing scarves would be beneficial.




    Do face coverings work?
    World Health Organization (WHO) advice says non-medical face coverings should be worn in public where social distancing is not possible.
    Coronavirus is spread when droplets are sprayed into the air when infected people talk, cough or sneeze. Those droplets can then fall on surfaces.
    The WHO says there is also emerging evidence of airborne transmission of the virus, with tiny particles hanging in aerosol form in the air.




    How about restaurants and takeaways?
    In England, face coverings do not have worn where it would be ''impractical''.
    That includes restaurants, pubs and gyms.
    They must be worn in a shop or cafe when buying food and drink to take away, but can be removed if you sit down to eat and drink.




    They are also optional in:
    Hairdressers and beauty salons
    Cinemas, concert halls and theatres
    Museums
    Dentists and opticians

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51205344
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 11,785
    edited July 27

    The masks are not magic force fields that make you immune from spreading or catching the disease. They are an aid. They will effect the overall spread and will reduce the r number.

    Eateries will all shut down if they can't open ASAP but you cannot eat with a mask on so there has to be a balance.

    Coronavirus outbreak in Shropshire caravan park confirmed after 21 test positive



    Twenty-one new cases of Covid-19 have been confirmed at a Shropshire caravan park.
    The council fears the number of cases at the site, which is in the town of Craven Arms, will continue to rise before infection control measures start to take effect.

    https://uk.yahoo.com/news/fresh-coronavirus-outbreak-shropshire-caravan-232541775.html
  • kapowblamzkapowblamz Member Posts: 1,060
    It's a tough balance between keeping the economy going and therefore keeping the nhs alive and wearing a mask in places where you can eat or socialise etc.

    More than wearing masks, the govt and society need people to act with common sense and keep socially distant. If the govt(SAGE) thought people could do that perfectly that they wouldn't even have to ask them to wear masks.
  • CammykazeCammykaze Member Posts: 963
    edited July 27
    The science thing is a bit vague Haysie, the Government have made it so.

    They can't be tied up in giving advise that might not be correct. It's vagueness until bulletproof stuff is in I would assume.

    That's my 2p pence added to the science part and what I think is happening with the advise.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 11,785
    Cammykaze said:

    The science thing is a bit vague Haysie, the Government have made it so.

    They can't be tied up in giving advise that might not be correct. It's vagueness until bulletproof stuff is in I would assume.

    That's my 2p pence added to the science part and what I think is happening with the advise.

    My point was that the Government claimed from the word go that they were merely following the science, and therefore couldn't be blamed for the measures they put in place.

    They famously showed footage of 3 Ministers exiting a Pret a Manger, two were wearing masks, and Michael Gove wasn't. This wasn't particularly earth shattering, but it did illustrate the confusion.

    The science clearly shows that wearing masks will limit the spreading of the virus.

    Making the wearing of masks compulsory in situations where social distancing is difficult therefore makes sense.

    The risk of spreading the virus in a sandwich shop is not reduced by eating in rather than taking away.

    So how can this advice be based on science?

    Logically the risk will increase by spending time with others eating food without the protection of a mask.

    I would agree that the economy will be screwed unless businesses get up and running.

    I would also agree that it is difficult to eat food wearing a mask.

    That is not what the Government is saying..

    They maintain they are following the science.

    What is the difference between sitting next to someone on a plane with no social distancing, or sitting next to the same person in the cinema?





    Coronavirus is spread when droplets are sprayed into the air when infected people talk, cough or sneeze. Those droplets can then fall on surfaces.
    The WHO says there is also emerging evidence of airborne transmission of the virus, with tiny particles hanging in aerosol form in the air.



    This will not change whether you are eating or not, or whether you are sat on a plane or in a cinema.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 11,785

    It's a tough balance between keeping the economy going and therefore keeping the nhs alive and wearing a mask in places where you can eat or socialise etc.

    More than wearing masks, the govt and society need people to act with common sense and keep socially distant. If the govt(SAGE) thought people could do that perfectly that they wouldn't even have to ask them to wear masks.

    It is probably not a coincidence that 21 people on the same caravan site have caught it.
  • kapowblamzkapowblamz Member Posts: 1,060
    edited July 27
    HAYSIE said:

    It's a tough balance between keeping the economy going and therefore keeping the nhs alive and wearing a mask in places where you can eat or socialise etc.

    More than wearing masks, the govt and society need people to act with common sense and keep socially distant. If the govt(SAGE) thought people could do that perfectly that they wouldn't even have to ask them to wear masks.

    It is probably not a coincidence that 21 people on the same caravan site have caught it.
    No doubt about that but I don't think we can scapegoat masks here. There might be a super exposed tap in a communal toilet or even the dreaded super spreader human who would spread it like wildfire, mask or not.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 11,785

    HAYSIE said:

    It's a tough balance between keeping the economy going and therefore keeping the nhs alive and wearing a mask in places where you can eat or socialise etc.

    More than wearing masks, the govt and society need people to act with common sense and keep socially distant. If the govt(SAGE) thought people could do that perfectly that they wouldn't even have to ask them to wear masks.

    It is probably not a coincidence that 21 people on the same caravan site have caught it.
    No doubt about that but I don't think we can scapegoat masks here. There might be a super exposed tap in a communal toilet or even the dreaded super spreader human who would spread it like wildfire, mask or not.
    But that is surely an argument against anyone wearing masks.

    Yet it is obvious that if everyone wore masks there would be less spreading.

    What is confusing is that the Government is advocating the wearing of masks in some circumstances, but not in other very similar circumstances, where the risk would seem to be the same.

    Why is there a higher risk sitting next to someone on a plane, than sitting next to the same person in a cinema?

    I am not scapegoating masks, I believe they limit the spread.

    I am questioning the advice, which seems inconsistent, and confusing.



    Coronavirus is spread when droplets are sprayed into the air when infected people talk, cough or sneeze. Those droplets can then fall on surfaces.
    The WHO says there is also emerging evidence of airborne transmission of the virus, with tiny particles hanging in aerosol form in the air.


    If you consider the above, then the wearing of masks must help.
  • kapowblamzkapowblamz Member Posts: 1,060
    edited July 27
    HAYSIE said:

    HAYSIE said:

    It's a tough balance between keeping the economy going and therefore keeping the nhs alive and wearing a mask in places where you can eat or socialise etc.

    More than wearing masks, the govt and society need people to act with common sense and keep socially distant. If the govt(SAGE) thought people could do that perfectly that they wouldn't even have to ask them to wear masks.

    It is probably not a coincidence that 21 people on the same caravan site have caught it.
    No doubt about that but I don't think we can scapegoat masks here. There might be a super exposed tap in a communal toilet or even the dreaded super spreader human who would spread it like wildfire, mask or not.
    But that is surely an argument against anyone wearing masks.

    Yet it is obvious that if everyone wore masks there would be less spreading.

    What is confusing is that the Government is advocating the wearing of masks in some circumstances, but not in other very similar circumstances, where the risk would seem to be the same.

    Why is there a higher risk sitting next to someone on a plane, than sitting next to the same person in a cinema?

    I am not scapegoating masks, I believe they limit the spread.

    I am questioning the advice, which seems inconsistent, and confusing.



    Coronavirus is spread when droplets are sprayed into the air when infected people talk, cough or sneeze. Those droplets can then fall on surfaces.
    The WHO says there is also emerging evidence of airborne transmission of the virus, with tiny particles hanging in aerosol form in the air.


    If you consider the above, then the wearing of masks must help.
    Ye no doubt about the inconsistencies. They know how much it will cost them if they don't let flights back in the air asap. They can cope with the cost of cinemas not opening.
  • stokefcstokefc Member Posts: 5,003
    What i don't understand is why now and not 4 or 5 weeks ago
  • kapowblamzkapowblamz Member Posts: 1,060
    stokefc said:

    What i don't understand is why now and not 4 or 5 weeks ago

    Initially the scientists did not think the masks would reduce the r number enough to warrant making masks completely compulsory. It seems they've learnt they are more important than they thought.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 11,785

    HAYSIE said:

    HAYSIE said:

    It's a tough balance between keeping the economy going and therefore keeping the nhs alive and wearing a mask in places where you can eat or socialise etc.

    More than wearing masks, the govt and society need people to act with common sense and keep socially distant. If the govt(SAGE) thought people could do that perfectly that they wouldn't even have to ask them to wear masks.

    It is probably not a coincidence that 21 people on the same caravan site have caught it.
    No doubt about that but I don't think we can scapegoat masks here. There might be a super exposed tap in a communal toilet or even the dreaded super spreader human who would spread it like wildfire, mask or not.
    But that is surely an argument against anyone wearing masks.

    Yet it is obvious that if everyone wore masks there would be less spreading.

    What is confusing is that the Government is advocating the wearing of masks in some circumstances, but not in other very similar circumstances, where the risk would seem to be the same.

    Why is there a higher risk sitting next to someone on a plane, than sitting next to the same person in a cinema?

    I am not scapegoating masks, I believe they limit the spread.

    I am questioning the advice, which seems inconsistent, and confusing.



    Coronavirus is spread when droplets are sprayed into the air when infected people talk, cough or sneeze. Those droplets can then fall on surfaces.
    The WHO says there is also emerging evidence of airborne transmission of the virus, with tiny particles hanging in aerosol form in the air.


    If you consider the above, then the wearing of masks must help.
    Ye no doubt about the inconsistencies. They know how much it will cost them if they don't let flights back in the air asap. They can cope with the cost of cinemas not opening.
    But you have to wear masks on flights, but not in cinemas?


    How about restaurants and takeaways?
    In England, face coverings do not have worn where it would be ''impractical''.
    That includes restaurants, pubs and gyms.
    They must be worn in a shop or cafe when buying food and drink to take away, but can be removed if you sit down to eat and drink.




    They are also optional in:
    Hairdressers and beauty salons
    Cinemas, concert halls and theatres
    Museums
    Dentists and opticians
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 11,785
    stokefc said:

    What i don't understand is why now and not 4 or 5 weeks ago

    It should have been from the start.
  • kapowblamzkapowblamz Member Posts: 1,060
    HAYSIE said:

    HAYSIE said:

    HAYSIE said:

    It's a tough balance between keeping the economy going and therefore keeping the nhs alive and wearing a mask in places where you can eat or socialise etc.

    More than wearing masks, the govt and society need people to act with common sense and keep socially distant. If the govt(SAGE) thought people could do that perfectly that they wouldn't even have to ask them to wear masks.

    It is probably not a coincidence that 21 people on the same caravan site have caught it.
    No doubt about that but I don't think we can scapegoat masks here. There might be a super exposed tap in a communal toilet or even the dreaded super spreader human who would spread it like wildfire, mask or not.
    But that is surely an argument against anyone wearing masks.

    Yet it is obvious that if everyone wore masks there would be less spreading.

    What is confusing is that the Government is advocating the wearing of masks in some circumstances, but not in other very similar circumstances, where the risk would seem to be the same.

    Why is there a higher risk sitting next to someone on a plane, than sitting next to the same person in a cinema?

    I am not scapegoating masks, I believe they limit the spread.

    I am questioning the advice, which seems inconsistent, and confusing.



    Coronavirus is spread when droplets are sprayed into the air when infected people talk, cough or sneeze. Those droplets can then fall on surfaces.
    The WHO says there is also emerging evidence of airborne transmission of the virus, with tiny particles hanging in aerosol form in the air.


    If you consider the above, then the wearing of masks must help.
    Ye no doubt about the inconsistencies. They know how much it will cost them if they don't let flights back in the air asap. They can cope with the cost of cinemas not opening.
    But you have to wear masks on flights, but not in cinemas?


    How about restaurants and takeaways?
    In England, face coverings do not have worn where it would be ''impractical''.
    That includes restaurants, pubs and gyms.
    They must be worn in a shop or cafe when buying food and drink to take away, but can be removed if you sit down to eat and drink.




    They are also optional in:
    Hairdressers and beauty salons
    Cinemas, concert halls and theatres
    Museums
    Dentists and opticians
    I imagine the flights will have people closer together and cinemas will not run at max capacity with more strict distancing.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 11,785

    stokefc said:

    What i don't understand is why now and not 4 or 5 weeks ago

    Initially the scientists did not think the masks would reduce the r number enough to warrant making masks completely compulsory. It seems they've learnt they are more important than they thought.
    Not true, they didn't want the public buying masks when the NHS had a shortage.
  • kapowblamzkapowblamz Member Posts: 1,060
    HAYSIE said:

    stokefc said:

    What i don't understand is why now and not 4 or 5 weeks ago

    Initially the scientists did not think the masks would reduce the r number enough to warrant making masks completely compulsory. It seems they've learnt they are more important than they thought.
    Not true, they didn't want the public buying masks when the NHS had a shortage.
    Ok well that's fair enough.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 11,785

    HAYSIE said:

    stokefc said:

    What i don't understand is why now and not 4 or 5 weeks ago

    Initially the scientists did not think the masks would reduce the r number enough to warrant making masks completely compulsory. It seems they've learnt they are more important than they thought.
    Not true, they didn't want the public buying masks when the NHS had a shortage.
    Ok well that's fair enough.
    They have always been aware of this bit.

    Coronavirus is spread when droplets are sprayed into the air when infected people talk, cough or sneeze. Those droplets can then fall on surfaces.


    But have discovered this bit as time has gone on.

    The WHO says there is also emerging evidence of airborne transmission of the virus, with tiny particles hanging in aerosol form in the air.
Sign In or Register to comment.