It seems they are basing their decision on a Swiss study that states children under 11 do not get chronic symptoms, even with underlying health conditions, and that they don't transmit the virus as easily as people over that age. There is a German study that counters that argument tho. Sage have obviously told the govt that they think under 11s wearing the mask will not effect the r number enough to warrant making masks compulsory.
It seems they are basing their decision on a Swiss study that states children under 11 do not get chronic symptoms, even with underlying health conditions, and that they don't transmit the virus as easily as people over that age. There is a German study that counters that argument tho. Sage have obviously told the govt that they think under 11s wearing the mask will not effect the r number enough to warrant making masks compulsory.
It seems they are basing their decision on a Swiss study that states children under 11 do not get chronic symptoms, even with underlying health conditions, and that they don't transmit the virus as easily as people over that age. There is a German study that counters that argument tho. Sage have obviously told the govt that they think under 11s wearing the mask will not effect the r number enough to warrant making masks compulsory.
Also. Then why make them wear masks in shops, on buses, etc, etc,
It seems they are basing their decision on a Swiss study that states children under 11 do not get chronic symptoms, even with underlying health conditions, and that they don't transmit the virus as easily as people over that age. There is a German study that counters that argument tho. Sage have obviously told the govt that they think under 11s wearing the mask will not effect the r number enough to warrant making masks compulsory.
Nor does it answer this question?
“Our members working in schools, particularly with a full complement of pupils in September, are asking why they are expected to wear masks on public transport to get to work, in shops if they pop out at lunch time, but are actively discouraged from wearing them in schools.”
It needs deeper clarification about exactly why transmission of a classroom full of under 11s plus 1 teacher and perhaps a socially distant second adult assistant is negligible. I agree.
That said, with the use of think tanks and sage, for the govt to come to this conclusion they will have their reasons for sure. They're not doing coming to the conclusion because they're stupid.
It needs deeper clarification about exactly why transmission of a classroom full of under 11s plus 1 teacher and perhaps a socially distant second adult assistant is negligible. I agree.
That said, with the use of think tanks and sage, for the govt to come to this conclusion they will have their reasons for sure. They're not doing coming to the conclusion because they're stupid.
But how can it possibly make sense for them to have to wear a mask on the bus, and in a shop at lunchtime, but not in the classroom?
It needs deeper clarification about exactly why transmission of a classroom full of under 11s plus 1 teacher and perhaps a socially distant second adult assistant is negligible. I agree.
That said, with the use of think tanks and sage, for the govt to come to this conclusion they will have their reasons for sure. They're not doing coming to the conclusion because they're stupid.
But how can it possibly make sense for them to have to wear a mask on the bus, and in a shop at lunchtime, but not in the classroom?
Because they've factored distance into the equation.
You have to take an overview on the pandemic, and the economy needs to gain traction. The hospitalizations are actually quite low, considering the virus has been in the UK for months. The death rate could probably have been halved with hindsight. So, for the time being, the hospitals can cope. I read an article on testosterone playing a role. Under 11’s won’t be getting up to what the older kids may be getting up to.And you would expect U11,s to have younger parents in most cases,although not all. The teachers should have a concern about wearing a mask in school, but you can supposedly catch it through your eyes too. Older teachers,more vulnerable teachers, should weigh up their own risk. Transmissions won’t cease anytime soon. I’d doubt the current hospitalization numbers will change that much. Maybe in months to come they will, if so,and if higher, there will be changes in advice, which is obv.
The current advice isn’t a path out, it’s steps at a time, and the advice could get changed in an instant. You have to take an overview of the whole situation,and incidents will happen. As will be highlighted by the media.
It needs deeper clarification about exactly why transmission of a classroom full of under 11s plus 1 teacher and perhaps a socially distant second adult assistant is negligible. I agree.
That said, with the use of think tanks and sage, for the govt to come to this conclusion they will have their reasons for sure. They're not doing coming to the conclusion because they're stupid.
But how can it possibly make sense for them to have to wear a mask on the bus, and in a shop at lunchtime, but not in the classroom?
Because they've factored distance into the equation.
It seems they are basing their decision on a Swiss study that states children under 11 do not get chronic symptoms, even with underlying health conditions, and that they don't transmit the virus as easily as people over that age. There is a German study that counters that argument tho. Sage have obviously told the govt that they think under 11s wearing the mask will not effect the r number enough to warrant making masks compulsory.
Then don't have masks in Primary Schools, but make them compulsory in Secondary Schools.
You have to take an overview on the pandemic, and the economy needs to gain traction. The hospitalizations are actually quite low, considering the virus has been in the UK for months. The death rate could probably have been halved with hindsight. So, for the time being, the hospitals can cope. I read an article on testosterone playing a role. Under 11’s won’t be getting up to what the older kids may be getting up to. The teachers should have a concern about wearing a mask in school, but you can supposedly catch it through your eyes too. Older teachers,more vulnerable teachers, should weigh up their own risk. Transmissions won’t cease anytime soon. I’d doubt the current hospitalization numbers will change that much. Maybe in months to come they will, if so,and if higher, there will be changes in advice, which is obv.
The current advice isn’t a path out, it’s steps at a time, and the advice could get changed in an instant. You have to take an overview of the whole situation,and incidents will happen. As will be highlighted by the media.
The title of the thread is Confusion.
The point I was trying to make is that much of the Governments advice is unclear and confusing.
The reason for wearing a mask is surely to reduce risk.
Therefore how can it be possible that there is less risk involved in eating in, that buying a takeaway?
How can it be less risky sitting next to someone in the cinema, or a theatre than sitting next to the same person on a plane?
How is it more risky for a Teacher to be shopping in a supermarket, than working in a School?
If the Government are just hoping that people will be prepared to take more risk to get the economy up and running then they should say that.
It would be quite easy to say that masks have to be worn in enclosed spaces, but that would mean no eating in, takeaways only, and include Schools. Although maybe only Secondary Schools.
On a side related issue,a friend of mine works in a care home,he also used to be the manager of a local pub before giving it up.The new owner of the pub asked him to help out by doing a few shifts behind the bar,which he agreed to.He was working the bar when his care home boss came in for a drink and seeing him behind the bar,sacked him on the spot.The care home boss couldn't see the double standards of him thinking it's o.k. to use the pub but not for his employee to be working in the pub.
I think you’re missing the point that psychology plays a part in this pandemic. The government wont be concerned about each individual,but the UK as a whole. A plane could have passengers from all over the world, connecting flights etc. It would also have less air capacity inside it when comparing it to a cinema. Although, if it’s a pokey cinema, the risk of transmission will be greater. You would expect cinema staff to be briefed on not letting anybody in that may look unwell. The opening of cinemas will be an experiment,exactly the same as abroad. You would expect folks that are eating out,going to the cinema,flying, to act responsible, and not have a rave up. I would have thought alcohol with a meal will be limited. Alcohol and tobacco were two things that were banned from the off in SA, for obvious reasons. If you are familiar with their culture, especially in the townships, that makes sense.
I wouldn’t expect to see full cinemas, and I expect those visitors could be traced if it was necessary.
I think the view on testing and tracing is overplayed. As it’s impossible to test everybody every day, then only clusters are ever going to be highlighted. If a town had 300 positive cases, and the surrounding villages had a total of 300 cases dotted about, social distancing and mask wearing where needed should produce the same outcome. Although, the more members in a household,the greater the risks. Regular testing in hospitals and care homes is obviously a must. Although some care homes haven’t had a sniff of the virus. The focus of the government will be on the capacity of the hospitals, and will be for the foreseeable. So the experiments/ trials that are currently in place with the economy will be allowed to run until further notice. Expect more transmissions and deaths. Psychology has played a part from the outset. Boris could have come out and said in Feb or March, that for all we know there might be millions infected or asymptomatic cases out there. There was no way of knowing,or even knowing when the first cases were here, asymptomatic or not. I don’t think you can have a lockdown with just a handful of reported cases, especially when somebody with the virus may not show any symptoms for two weeks, as is clear now. Opening up is to help the economy and for morale. There will be those that will feel imprisoned and are unwilling to take a risk. Probably a wise decision.
Nobody should be confused. If you fall into the vulnerable group, that’s where you stay for the foreseeable. If you fancy taking a calculated risk, then that’s down to the individual. For others outside the vulnerable group, they can still get seriously ill, or have no illness to speak of. No change.
On a side related issue,a friend of mine works in a care home,he also used to be the manager of a local pub before giving it up.The new owner of the pub asked him to help out by doing a few shifts behind the bar,which he agreed to.He was working the bar when his care home boss came in for a drink and seeing him behind the bar,sacked him on the spot.The care home boss couldn't see the double standards of him thinking it's o.k. to use the pub but not for his employee to be working in the pub.
Nobody should be confused. If you fall into the vulnerable group, that’s where you stay for the foreseeable. If you fancy taking a calculated risk, then that’s down to the individual. For others outside the vulnerable group, they can still get seriously ill, or have no illness to speak of. No change.
The title of the thread is Confusion.
The point I was trying to make is that much of the Governments advice is unclear and confusing.
The reason for wearing a mask is surely to reduce risk.
Therefore how can it be possible that there is less risk involved in eating in, that buying a takeaway?
How can it be less risky sitting next to someone in the cinema, or a theatre than sitting next to the same person on a plane?
How is it more risky for a Teacher to be shopping in a supermarket, than working in a School?
If the Government are just hoping that people will be prepared to take more risk to get the economy up and running then they should say that.
It would be quite easy to say that masks have to be worn in enclosed spaces, but that would mean no eating in, takeaways only, and include Schools. Although maybe only Secondary Schools.
There isn’t less risk by eating in. Folks coming in and out might account for more traffic than are seated, especially as table numbers might be reduced or spaced out differently. If the folks having a take out are masked up, then at least that would potentially reduce the amount of potential transmission. If I was having a meal and 50 odd customers came in for take outs during my meal, unmasked, then that would bother me. It has the potential to cut possible transmissions in a restaurant by 50%. Pure guess. Obv not everybody has the virus, but the more footfall inside will increase the likelihood someone has. Restaurants have different layouts too. It will be down to the owners to see what works best for them. Some restaurants are more popular than others, so if you fall into the vulnerable group, then do research, or make some enquires to see if the restaurant is likely to be busy. I’d presume most will only take bookings? From what I can work out,about 50% of the population fall into the vulnerable group. Looks like eating out is a young persons privilege for the foreseeable. They aren’t likely to be bothered too much by any risk, or less so. If we follow the science to the T,then most will be wearing masks in their own homes too, especially if some go out often, and live with others. The owners of the businesses won’t want to close again, so any reduction in the possible transmission numbers has got to be good for them. The science isn’t about preventing the spread, but reducing it. Or just let the businesses go bust, as some will anyway. Following the science would see everybody wearing the full ensemble, regarding PPE,to any shop etc.
Whoopeeee. That's it, the end. My point was therefore how can the Government advise that it is ok to do so.
Folks coming in and out might account for more traffic than are seated, especially as table numbers might be reduced or spaced out differently. If the folks having a take out are masked up, then at least that would potentially reduce the amount of potential transmission.
Not from those that are seated and unmasked.
If I was having a meal and 50 odd customers came in for take outs during my meal, unmasked, then that would bother me.
The Government have not drawn attention to this, never mind warned against this. Their messages have been completely unclear. It was only last week that 3 Ministers were filmed exiting a sandwich shop, two wore masks, and one didn't. That is as clear as mud.
It has the potential to cut possible transmissions in a restaurant by 50%. Pure guess. Obv not everybody has the virus, but the more footfall inside will increase the likelihood someone has.
The Government are following the science not guesswork, apparently.
Restaurants have different layouts too. It will be down to the owners to see what works best for them. Some restaurants are more popular than others, so if you fall into the vulnerable group, then do research, or make some enquires to see if the restaurant is likely to be busy. I’d presume most will only take bookings?
Havent a clue, but irrelevant to the debate.
From what I can work out,about 50% of the population fall into the vulnerable group. Looks like eating out is a young persons privilege for the foreseeable. They aren’t likely to be bothered too much by any risk, or less so.
More guess work. Do you think that there haven't been any deaths of people who are not in vulnerable groups?
If we follow the science to the T,then most will be wearing masks in their own homes too, especially if some go out often, and live with others.
Nonsense, I think that the overwhelming majority have done exactly what they have been told to do.
The owners of the businesses won’t want to close again, so any reduction in the possible transmission numbers has got to be good for them.
Blindingly obvious.
The science isn’t about preventing the spread, but reducing it.
Hooray.
Or just let the businesses go bust, as some will anyway. Following the science would see everybody wearing the full ensemble, regarding PPE,to any shop etc.
You are completely missing the point. You always seem to find answering any specific question difficult. On Schools, why do you think masks are mandatory in French Schools? Why do you think some UK Schools are insisting on masks? Why do you think a Teacher shouldn't wear a mask at work, sitting down for lunch in a sandwich shop, but have to wear a mask on a bus or a train, on the way to work, shopping in a supermarket after work, on entering a shopping centre on the weekend, but can take it off when entering a cinema, or theatre, even if they were located in the shopping centre. They have to wear one in any shop except for an Opticians. Clear as mud.
Face masks should not be mandatory, says Michael Gove
On a side related issue,a friend of mine works in a care home,he also used to be the manager of a local pub before giving it up.The new owner of the pub asked him to help out by doing a few shifts behind the bar,which he agreed to.He was working the bar when his care home boss came in for a drink and seeing him behind the bar,sacked him on the spot.The care home boss couldn't see the double standards of him thinking it's o.k. to use the pub but not for his employee to be working in the pub.
So what did he sack him for?
I've not heard any update to the sacking but my point was that the care home boss thought it was o.k. for her to socialise in the pub,in fact her and the person in question often go in the pub together,but she deemed it unacceptable for him to work in the pub serving people,for reasons only known to herself.
Comments
Teachers?
Teaching Assistants?
Admin staff?
Cleaners?
Janitors?
Etc?
Etc?
Then why make them wear masks in shops, on buses, etc, etc,
“Our members working in schools, particularly with a full complement of pupils in September, are asking why they are expected to wear masks on public transport to get to work, in shops if they pop out at lunch time, but are actively discouraged from wearing them in schools.”
That said, with the use of think tanks and sage, for the govt to come to this conclusion they will have their reasons for sure. They're not doing coming to the conclusion because they're stupid.
The hospitalizations are actually quite low, considering the virus has been in the UK for months.
The death rate could probably have been halved with hindsight.
So, for the time being, the hospitals can cope.
I read an article on testosterone playing a role. Under 11’s won’t be getting up to what the older kids may be getting up to.And you would expect U11,s to have younger parents in most cases,although not all.
The teachers should have a concern about wearing a mask in school, but you can supposedly catch it through your eyes too. Older teachers,more vulnerable teachers, should weigh up their own risk.
Transmissions won’t cease anytime soon.
I’d doubt the current hospitalization numbers will change that much.
Maybe in months to come they will, if so,and if higher, there will be changes in advice, which is obv.
The current advice isn’t a path out, it’s steps at a time, and the advice could get changed in an instant.
You have to take an overview of the whole situation,and incidents will happen.
As will be highlighted by the media.
The point I was trying to make is that much of the Governments advice is unclear and confusing.
The reason for wearing a mask is surely to reduce risk.
Therefore how can it be possible that there is less risk involved in eating in, that buying a takeaway?
How can it be less risky sitting next to someone in the cinema, or a theatre than sitting next to the same person on a plane?
How is it more risky for a Teacher to be shopping in a supermarket, than working in a School?
If the Government are just hoping that people will be prepared to take more risk to get the economy up and running then they should say that.
It would be quite easy to say that masks have to be worn in enclosed spaces, but that would mean no eating in, takeaways only, and include Schools. Although maybe only Secondary Schools.
The government wont be concerned about each individual,but the UK as a whole.
A plane could have passengers from all over the world, connecting flights etc.
It would also have less air capacity inside it when comparing it to a cinema.
Although, if it’s a pokey cinema, the risk of transmission will be greater.
You would expect cinema staff to be briefed on not letting anybody in that may look unwell.
The opening of cinemas will be an experiment,exactly the same as abroad.
You would expect folks that are eating out,going to the cinema,flying, to act responsible, and not have a rave up.
I would have thought alcohol with a meal will be limited.
Alcohol and tobacco were two things that were banned from the off in SA, for obvious reasons.
If you are familiar with their culture, especially in the townships, that makes sense.
I wouldn’t expect to see full cinemas, and I expect those visitors could be traced if it was necessary.
I think the view on testing and tracing is overplayed.
As it’s impossible to test everybody every day, then only clusters are ever going to be highlighted.
If a town had 300 positive cases, and the surrounding villages had a total of 300 cases dotted about, social distancing and mask wearing where needed should produce the same outcome.
Although, the more members in a household,the greater the risks.
Regular testing in hospitals and care homes is obviously a must. Although some care homes haven’t had a sniff of the virus.
The focus of the government will be on the capacity of the hospitals, and will be for the foreseeable.
So the experiments/ trials that are currently in place with the economy will be allowed to run until further notice.
Expect more transmissions and deaths.
Psychology has played a part from the outset.
Boris could have come out and said in Feb or March, that for all we know there might be millions infected or asymptomatic cases out there. There was no way of knowing,or even knowing when the first cases were here, asymptomatic or not. I don’t think you can have a lockdown with just a handful of reported cases, especially when somebody with the virus may not show any symptoms for two weeks, as is clear now.
Opening up is to help the economy and for morale.
There will be those that will feel imprisoned and are unwilling to take a risk. Probably a wise decision.
If you fall into the vulnerable group, that’s where you stay for the foreseeable.
If you fancy taking a calculated risk, then that’s down to the individual.
For others outside the vulnerable group, they can still get seriously ill, or have no illness to speak of. No change.
The point I was trying to make is that much of the Governments advice is unclear and confusing.
The reason for wearing a mask is surely to reduce risk.
Therefore how can it be possible that there is less risk involved in eating in, that buying a takeaway?
How can it be less risky sitting next to someone in the cinema, or a theatre than sitting next to the same person on a plane?
How is it more risky for a Teacher to be shopping in a supermarket, than working in a School?
If the Government are just hoping that people will be prepared to take more risk to get the economy up and running then they should say that.
It would be quite easy to say that masks have to be worn in enclosed spaces, but that would mean no eating in, takeaways only, and include Schools. Although maybe only Secondary Schools.
Folks coming in and out might account for more traffic than are seated, especially as table numbers might be reduced or spaced out differently.
If the folks having a take out are masked up, then at least that would potentially reduce the amount of potential transmission.
If I was having a meal and 50 odd customers came in for take outs during my meal, unmasked, then that would bother me.
It has the potential to cut possible transmissions in a restaurant by 50%. Pure guess.
Obv not everybody has the virus, but the more footfall inside will increase the likelihood someone has.
Restaurants have different layouts too. It will be down to the owners to see what works best for them.
Some restaurants are more popular than others, so if you fall into the vulnerable group, then do research, or make some enquires to see if the restaurant is likely to be busy.
I’d presume most will only take bookings?
From what I can work out,about 50% of the population fall into the vulnerable group.
Looks like eating out is a young persons privilege for the foreseeable.
They aren’t likely to be bothered too much by any risk, or less so.
If we follow the science to the T,then most will be wearing masks in their own homes too, especially if some go out often, and live with others.
The owners of the businesses won’t want to close again, so any reduction in the possible transmission numbers has got to be good for them.
The science isn’t about preventing the spread, but reducing it.
Or just let the businesses go bust, as some will anyway.
Following the science would see everybody wearing the full ensemble, regarding PPE,to any shop etc.
You always seem to find answering any specific question difficult.
On Schools, why do you think masks are mandatory in French Schools?
Why do you think some UK Schools are insisting on masks?
Why do you think a Teacher shouldn't wear a mask at work, sitting down for lunch in a sandwich shop, but have to wear a mask on a bus or a train, on the way to work, shopping in a supermarket after work, on entering a shopping centre on the weekend, but can take it off when entering a cinema, or theatre, even if they were located in the shopping centre. They have to wear one in any shop except for an Opticians.
Clear as mud.
Face masks should not be mandatory, says Michael Gove
UK coronavirus: Face masks to be mandatory - so why isn’t Michael Gove wearing one?
You should at least watch the last video as it explains the clarity in the way the Government has handled face masks, or not?