Coronavirus

[DazBob]

1 minute ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Not been in a supermarket since lockdown. Yet hardly anybody using click and collect now.

I've been in once per week. I've not worn a mask once.

If told I have to wear one then I'll wear one. I'll not start acting the cunt and say, "Yeah, but, but, but they don't have to wear them in the pubs."

[Escobarp]

3 minutes ago, DazBob said:

Yes it has. I'm pretty sure you knew that though.

You asked a question and I've given a not unreasonable answer. Whether you like the answer or not is up to you.

I don’t like or dislike your response sorry to disappoint. 
 

If the supermarkets are such a risk then don’t go. It’s not essential to go. Masks should be everywhere or nowhere imo

Edited July 11, 2020 by Escobarp

[Escobarp]

I get wearing them on public transport. Don’t get shops if pubs etc you don’t need them. Makes no sense. 

[DazBob]

1 minute ago, Escobarp said:

I don’t like or dislike your response sorry to disappoint. 
 

If the supermarkets are such a risk then don’t go. It’s not essential to go. Masks should be everywhere or nowhere imo

And that's fair enough, it's your opinion. 👍🏾

[Escobarp]

10 minutes ago, DazBob said:

And that's fair enough, it's your opinion. 👍🏾

Like I say it isn’t the use of masks that I object to. It’s the random scenarios. If this virus is still rife in the UK then boris and all the devolved administrations need to make mask wearing across the board where social distancing isn’t observed. Not selective 

[DazBob]

See, I don't think there's anything wrong with it being selective.

My previous example shows how different people have different reasons for going out in public.

If I go to a pub I know the risks and I'm taking my chances.

My mum, on the other hand, isn't willing to take the risk of going into a pub so her only trips out are to the supermarket to do her shopping every week or so. She just wants to get what she needs and then get out again. I don't thinks it's unreasonable for her to want to do that as safely as possible and if the introduction of compulsory mask wearing is brought in to make her and plenty of others be as safe as possible then I'd happily adhere to those rules.

It doesn't have to be an all in or all out ruling.

[DaisyHWanderer]

8 minutes ago, DazBob said:

See, I don't think there's anything wrong with it being selective.

My previous example shows how different people have different reasons for going out in public.

If I go to a pub I know the risks and I'm taking my chances.

My mum, on the other hand, isn't willing to take the risk of going into a pub so her only trips out are to the supermarket to do her shopping every week or so. She just wants to get what she needs and then get out again. I don't thinks it's unreasonable for her to want to do that as safely as possible and if the introduction of compulsory mask wearing is brought in to make her and plenty of others be as safe as possible then I'd happily adhere to those rules.

It doesn't have to be an all in or all out ruling.

Nail. Head.

Also, realistically, you can’t drink a pint through a mask so the argument is null and void.

[Escobarp]

2 minutes ago, DaisyHWanderer said:

Nail. Head.

Also, realistically, you can’t drink a pint through a mask so the argument is null and void.

Close the pubs then if not safe and can’t be kept safe . Simple 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

27 minutes ago, DazBob said:

See, I don't think there's anything wrong with it being selective.

My previous example shows how different people have different reasons for going out in public.

If I go to a pub I know the risks and I'm taking my chances.

My mum, on the other hand, isn't willing to take the risk of going into a pub so her only trips out are to the supermarket to do her shopping every week or so. She just wants to get what she needs and then get out again. I don't thinks it's unreasonable for her to want to do that as safely as possible and if the introduction of compulsory mask wearing is brought in to make her and plenty of others be as safe as possible then I'd happily adhere to those rules.

It doesn't have to be an all in or all out ruling.

See where you're coming from, but if you're prepared to put take your chances, should you then have to isolate yourself from family members/bubbles again?

Evidence now is that the age of new cases is falling, which makes sense, but it then becomes more risky for older/at risk people to be in contact with relatives again.

[DazBob]

20 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

Close the pubs then if not safe and can’t be kept safe . Simple 

It isn't 100% safe and probably won't be for the foreseeable. Nor is going to the supermarket.

But by making mask compulsory in some places but not others reduces the risk is those other places. 

Not sure why you're absolutely refusing to accept it doesn't have to be an all in or all out approach. Would you accept masks having to be worn in public transport for example?

[Escobarp]

3 minutes ago, DazBob said:

It isn't 100% safe and probably won't be for the foreseeable. Nor is going to the supermarket.

But by making mask compulsory in some places but not others reduces the risk is those other places. 

Not sure why you're absolutely refusing to accept it doesn't have to be an all in or all out approach. Would you accept masks having to be worn in public transport for example?

 

1 hour ago, Escobarp said:

I get wearing them on public transport. Don’t get shops if pubs etc you don’t need them. Makes no sense. 

Where there is a risk minimize it everywhere. I can’t see why your refusing to accept that we should be doing what we can to minimize the risk across the board which is my actual issue. If risk is low enough for folk to sit in a pub with no distancing then it’s safe to be in a supermarket with no mask on where you come into less close contact with folk. Imo 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

 

Where there is a risk minimize it everywhere. I can’t see why your refusing to accept that we should be doing what we can to minimize the risk across the board which is my actual issue. If risk is low enough for folk to sit in a pub with no distancing then it’s safe to be in a supermarket with no mask on where you come into less close contact with folk. Imo 

Just follow what the law says, in whichever jurisdiction you are in.

Simple.

[Escobarp]

Just now, boltondiver said:

Just follow what the law says, in whichever jurisdiction you are in.

Simple.

I get that thanks. I’m trying to understand the rationale which I’m struggling with 

[DazBob]

But distancing is in place in a pub, or should be, and you're only sat with folk from your household or one other, supposedly.

Anyway, little point continuing this discussion as you only see black or white with no grey areas in between so I'll leave it there. 👍🏾

[Escobarp]

Just now, DazBob said:

But distancing is in place in a pub, or should be, and you're only sat with folk from your household or one other, supposedly.

Anyway, little point continuing this discussion as you only see black or white with no grey areas in between so I'll leave it there. 👍🏾

But in reality folk aren’t sat with members of two households in the pub so even more of a risk. 👍🏼

[Tonge moor green jacket]

Just now, Escobarp said:

I get that thanks. I’m trying to understand the rationale which I’m struggling with 

For me, I see it as risk management. A bit like barbers being able to do beard trims, but beauty parlours can't do eyebrows etc.

Hard to conceive any appreciable difference in risk level, but I guess they're just managing numbers that are putting themselves in a situation that has more risk. 

Throw in economic benefits too, and I see it as a gradual turning on of the tap, whilst watching what happens to the infection rate.

[Escobarp]

Just now, Tonge moor green jacket said:

For me, I see it as risk management. A bit like barbers being able to do beard trims, but beauty parlours can't do eyebrows etc.

Hard to conceive any appreciable difference in risk level, but I guess they're just managing numbers that are putting themselves in a situation that has more risk. 

Throw in economic benefits too, and I see it as a gradual turning on of the tap, whilst watching what happens to the infection rate.

I’m all for the economy getting going. Been banging that drum for a while. And in reality I don’t want to wear a mask in a pub. But that’s not my point. I’m at more risk in a pub than I am in a supermarket Imo. So why am I forced to wear a mask in the lower Risk situation only?  Makes no sense. 
 

And why start now. Time for masks in supermarkets shops etc was months ago. 
 

public transport to me Is a must. Sat still for a prolonged period potentially close to Strangers in a confined space.  

[Tonge moor green jacket]

It doesn't make sense, except that you can't realistically wear one in the pub. So it's a balance between the risk and the economic benefit.

You can in a supermarket without affecting your ability to shop.

Perhaps they should have been mandatory some time ago, but the scientists were saying the evidence wasn't there. Now they're saying it is.

Nicola has only just done it, and she seems to have a more precautionary approach.

An interesting personal observation too: scientist chap warning that mask wearers must remember social distancing etc and might become feel too safe with a mask on. For me, wearing the mask has the opposite effect, folk look and seem to remember and give a wider berth.

Might actually help.

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

I get that thanks. I’m trying to understand the rationale which I’m struggling with 

The point I was making is that you were comparing the law in Scotland with the law in England, so, at the moment, there isn’t necessarily a contradiction 

[Sweep]

19 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

I’m all for the economy getting going. Been banging that drum for a while. And in reality I don’t want to wear a mask in a pub. But that’s not my point. I’m at more risk in a pub than I am in a supermarket Imo. So why am I forced to wear a mask in the lower Risk situation only?  Makes no sense. 
 

 

I personally think the supermarket is a far greater risk. The pub environment, at least the one I drink in, is very well managed, with a one way system that people stick to, and good distancing. The supermarkets have a far, far larger through put of people across a day, with people picking up and putting down things, this leaving loads of points that are possibly cross contamination points.

[Escobarp]

3 minutes ago, Sweep said:

I personally think the supermarket is a far greater risk. The pub environment, at least the one I drink in, is very well managed, with a one way system that people stick to, and good distancing. The supermarkets have a far, far larger through put of people across a day, with people picking up and putting down things, this leaving loads of points that are possibly cross contamination points.

I haven’t been in a pub yet. Been in a beer garden with two other people in the whole space that’s it. I can only go off what I’ve seen on photos etc 

ive had the odd person come close to me in supermarkets but briefly. If supermarkets were that much of a risk would we not have seen bigger numbers of cases as more folk use them continually than any other service I would say throughout the pandemic? 
 

[Zico]

31 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

I’m all for the economy getting going. Been banging that drum for a while. And in reality I don’t want to wear a mask in a pub. But that’s not my point. I’m at more risk in a pub than I am in a supermarket Imo. So why am I forced to wear a mask in the lower Risk situation only?  Makes no sense. 
 

And why start now. Time for masks in supermarkets shops etc was months ago. 
 

public transport to me Is a must. Sat still for a prolonged period potentially close to Strangers in a confined space.  

Not sure about that, all depends on the pub but most have social distancing measures in place, table service etc and have better control on numbers coming in and out, by taking reservations and that

On the other hand you could have hundreds or thousands of people in and out of supermarket throughout a day all passing numerous other people in aisles and that

Got no issue if I had to wear a mask in a pub though as you'd be taking it off everytime you had a sup it'd certainly be a pain in the arse

[Escobarp]

7 minutes ago, ZicoKelly said:

Not sure about that, all depends on the pub but most have social distancing measures in place, table service etc and have better control on numbers coming in and out, by taking reservations and that

On the other hand you could have hundreds or thousands of people in and out of supermarket throughout a day all passing numerous other people in aisles and that

Got no issue if I had to wear a mask in a pub though as you'd be taking it off everytime you had a sup it'd certainly be a pain in the arse

Like I said earlier. One photo today 10 girls all from different households clambering all over each other and round a table inside
granted there are nobody else near them but I think 10 households in a Confined space is enough. I’ve not had ten people in that close proximity to me in 3 months worth of supermarket visits. 
 

but each to their own 

[Zico]

Just now, Escobarp said:

Like I said earlier. One photo today 10 girls all from different households clambering all over each other and round a table inside
granted there are nobody else near them but I think 10 households in a Confined space is enough. I’ve not had ten people in that close proximity to me in 3 months worth of supermarket visits. 
 

but each to their own 

Yeah as said, depends on the pub

I'd say during the week far more people go to supermarkets than pubs so it's about protecting the masses and the vulnerable where possible

[Escobarp]

Just now, ZicoKelly said:

Yeah as said, depends on the pub

I'd say during the week far more people go to supermarkets than pubs so it's about protecting the masses and the vulnerable where possible

Agree that we should be Protecting everyone as best we can. I just don’t get the rationale behind some of it.