Relaxation of Restrictions, Part XII *Read OP For Mod Warnings*

We should be well beyond abundance of caution at this point.

Why should I have to wear a face covering because someone else can't be bothered to wear a proper mask?

Click and collect and grocery delivery exist for those small number of people for whom the risk of entering a shop is still unbearable. Since their action of going into shops could potentially impact the vast majority of people by imposing mask wearing on them, surely they should be prepared to take the minor imposition of using available no-contact facilities for themselves?

Seems to me that would be a much more effective way of reducing the spread to the vulnerable than a bit of a rag over the face that lets everything through regardless, too.

Because it may not be possible for that other person to wear a proper mask? Either because of cost or physical difficulties. Remember that we're specifically talking about scenarios where that person cannot simply avoid going; like shops or public transport or hospitals. Eventually for the former two we will have to just take the "let 'er rip" approach.

But do we have to do it immediately? What benefit is there in abandoning masks in October, versus, say, March? And yes, I'm aware that the opposite question also exists; what benefit is there in keeping it? You say there's no longer a need for an "abundance of caution". I'm on the fence. An "ar eagla na heagla" approach to public health in essential settings, seems sensible. The cost and hassle is minimal.

Unless of course, there's sufficient evidence that it's completely pointless.

Lol. When this talk of mandatory mask wearing started, plenty of people pointed out that not everyone could wear a mask - and they were ridiculed for that statement.

Now the very same thing is being used to justify mandatory mask wearing for all! Well what about deaf people who rely on lip reading? Why should their life be ranked as less important than someone else who refuses to wear a proper mask to protect themself?

That quote makes no reference to viruses, aerosols, or covid-19.

Covid is spread by aerosols, surgical masks do not filter out aerosols.

so masks for all because of what must be a vanishingly small cohort

Honestly don't know if you're taking the piss or not. Sincerly hope it's the former!

@titan18 wrote:

We're not talking about all situations though. We're talking about mask-wearing in retail and public transport specifically. Outside of that people won't be wearing them.

I know there is a feeling of thumb-twiddling with a month to go and wondering why we haven't just dropped masks now. But the dates were picked based on the best available evidence at the time. There's still a bit of wobbling in the numbers, but we're past the emergency now. I would like to see the dates brought forward to reflect the current situation, but I do understand why sticking with the 22nd is prudent and not a huge deal in the grand scheme.

I think if they went with masks going on the 22nd, that would be ok, but I honestly expect mask laws to be there until 2022. I think public transport and health settings are the only ones you can feasibly go with as where it's useful. If I need a mask to walk around a large shopping centre like Dundrum, or a supermarket like Tesco, to me anyway, it's not worth the cons of all the mask usage.

You actually have no idea whether or not the "mask mandate" is being removed on the 22nd, you just don't realise it.

So everyone is absolutely clear; "Mask Mandate" = "Laws written that require masks to be worn". At the moment, the only such law that we have, expires on 9th November.

As yet, no draft law has been presented to extend this, and there are some political hurdles that will have to be jumped through in order to pass one.

While the govt. has stated that masks will be required in some circumstances, it is possible to achieve this without legislation. i.e. without a "mask mandate".

I always appreciate frustration when plans are open-ended. But sometimes plans have to be open-ended when you're dealing with an issue that itself is open-ended. It's pretty clear that the intention of the "next phase" is to bring us through to Spring 2022 at the latest, at which point masks will be gone one way or another.

I get what you’re saying here but it does seem to ring like a bit of an endorsement of arbitrariness when it comes to personal and commercial freedom. The word “prudent”, as you use, does not denote the same meaning as overcaution. Prudence involves balance — and balance involves taking account of the full vista of the circumstances. If we are saying that another month is a prudent timeframe in the current circumstances — then why not 5 weeks, or 6 weeks, or 2 months, or simply wait it out until next Spring when the winter passes?

The date should be brought forward as far as I can see, because I don’t see what circumstances are expected to change dramatically from how they stand now and how they will stand in 4 weeks. If anything, I’d have some concern that leaving the reopening to a relatively late stage of the year might brings its own issues as we are opening the country right on the cusp of the winter respiratory illness season.