Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Azreal13 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Sainsbury and asda not going to enforce masks. Profits over safety eh?

That's some spectacular mental gymnastics on display. How, exactly, do you think that not asking their staff to get involved in law enforcement with people who, by dint of the fact they're not wearing masks when we've known we were being asked to wear them from today for weeks, are already displaying a higher than baseline chance if being a belligerent donkey-cave translates into more profit?

If anything, they're increasing the chance that the "reasonable middle" will shop in stores that are enforcing the mask rule over concerns for their own personal safety and will reduce their income.

If they don't let people without mask into store that means those customers aren't bringing in that money to that store and go elsewhere. Can't let money go elsewhere. Have to get it to store. Money first. Don't want to drive away customers.

That only works if it doesn't induce other customers to stay away. This behaviour will quite possibly cause more to stay away than it allows.

Show how that maths works for profit, please.

It isn't the job of shop staff to enforce the law. They are being responsible by not allowing their staff to get into potential confrontations, which will happen.

 JamesY wrote:
It isn't the job of shop staff to enforce the law. They are being responsible by not allowing their staff to get into potential confrontations, which will happen.

At the same time where does that stop? If someone's obnoxious enough do they get to skip the 'no shirt' rule too? Or commit other health and safety violations?

Unfortunately here in the US we're far past of the point of irony that the same folks who claim to care about 'law and order' are the ones deliberately flouting the law.

Here's a solid article that discusses the challenges ahead Re: vaccines that I referenced earlier:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/07/covid-19-vaccine-reality-check/614566/

Treatments are what's needed most. They won't 'make everything normal', but they will make a big difference more quickly.

My local supermarket now has a couple of sercurity guards for the first time I can remember and whilst they arent exactly scary I suspect far less likely for entitled funts to kick up a fuss with than the middle aged or very young ladies that consist the majority of the staff who have been on the end of all manner of stupid

 JamesY wrote:
It isn't the job of shop staff to enforce the law. They are being responsible by not allowing their staff to get into potential confrontations, which will happen.

They are being more irresponsible to their staff by allowing no masks.
You put a mask on or you dont get in, its simple. if they refuse, call the Authrorities.

I think (or would hope) they're just saying they're not going to ask their staff to physically stop violators.

Stores with security often even ask their security not to physically engage shoplifters. It's a liability and just not worth it...

So anyway, I'd guess that is all there is to it. Every store should want customers to wear masks, as it's better for everyone.

Authorities around here often choose politics over enforcement. In OC, many police departments have made it very clear they will not enforce mask compliance.

At my job our company policy is from today to refuse entry to non mask wearers unless they are exempt. Shopfront staff are also expected to wear suitable face coverings(we have our own stash) to set an example.

Turned away about a dozen people today for not wearing a face covering. I'd say a third of those came back later with a mask on. There were a few sulky faces but thankfully no real tantrums. Had two people who said they could not use them due to breathing problems, and I left it at that. No need to get all =][= on them. Had one semi regular customer who is physically disabled(its something that effects her motor skills and speech, I've never pried into what exactly) and bless her she tried to make an effort but the mask didn't really stay on. Pretty sure she would be exempt anyway so that was no problem. And we had a young couple with hearing difficulties who were both wearing masks. But when we realised(they were signing each other) we let them know it was ok to pull them down and when they were being served we had our masks down as well. High point was probably the chap who had a knitted knights helm, complete with adjustable visor Biggest was a tie between the guy who thought holding the corner of his high vis jacket over his mouth and nose counted as a face covering, and the the one who tried the same thing with a handkerchief

Overall no way near as bad as I was fearing, but tomorrow is a Saturday so...

Shop staff have already had to deal with anger threats and violence and that was just telling people to stand in line 2m apart and to not shop in groups. They also don't get risk pay. Like many essential public services the staff are likely way more stressed out than normal.

Police forces might also already be stretched thin and thus not able to provide instant response.

I am sure the staff will encourage and store in some area will get security to help enforce at the entrance, but it is hard. Especialy with the backlash that masks have from some groups. Even in the UK where we have far less of a political issue with them than say the USA. Heck we've already had all that daft 5g tower burning

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
It isn't the job of shop staff to enforce the law. They are being responsible by not allowing their staff to get into potential confrontations, which will happen.

They are being more irresponsible to their staff by allowing no masks.
You put a mask on or you dont get in, its simple. if they refuse, call the Authrorities.

No they aren't; as long as the staff maintain distance and are themselves in masks, the risks are minimal. Also, calling the authorities only works on principle. In reality, our police services are already stretched, and are hardly likely to be able to respond to even a fraction of the calls they'd get if that was happening. Security guards are a different matter, I'll agree, they should be challenging people over it at the door, if they have any.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I know of a coworker who in one year has beaten both COVID and cancer! Made my day to hear that.

Whilest he should be carefull still, that is one impressive constitution.

He’s aged about 20 years but yeah it’s impressive.

let's hope he got out of it unscathed, lungs and heart check ups should happen regardless, considering that's the most sideeffects of getting it.

Yeah let’s hope. I think he’s going to have effects for a while, possibly forever. Still, early 50s isn’t over the hill just yet so maybe he can cope.

 Azreal13 wrote:
That only works if it doesn't induce other customers to stay away. This behaviour will quite possibly cause more to stay away than it allows.

Show how that maths works for profit, please.

I wouldn’t engage it in conversation if I was you. Only ever argues in bad faith.

Masks will be enforced by social pressure more than any sort of legal or institutional action.

I'm not keen on wearing them, but I will. I'll also be quite comfortable taking any opportunities that present themselves to educate the ignorant.

Sadly it looks as though most supermarkets have relaxed their one way systems in favour of requesting maintenance of social distancing before I could sort out my "If you can read this, I'm about to run you over" T shirt.

I wouldn’t engage it in conversation if I was you. Only ever argues in bad faith.

I'm aware, not looking to change hearts and minds, just highlight the total lack of foundation for the argument for other onlookers.

My area has a poor track record for masks if I’m honest. Only some of the elderly and the likes of myself and a handful of others seem to bother with them. Already had a minor incident with one arsehole over them too.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I'm aware, not looking to change hearts and minds, just highlight the total lack of foundation for the argument for other onlookers.

Oh ok. I totally understand.

 JamesY wrote:
No they aren't; as long as the staff maintain distance and are themselves in masks, the risks are minimal.

Minimal is doing a lot of heavy lifting here: https://twitter.com/Zeph_Davis/status/1286400957392142336

Your best option is if both wear masks. Allowing (many) customer without mask to come close to your employees just because you don't want to anger them is a bad idea. Sure those employees have a somewhat lower chance of getting infected because they are wearing a mask but it's still an overall dangerous policy. For months now the consensus seems to be that wearing a mask helps with both: With not getting infected and with spreading the infection less but it's use in protecting you is limited because a mask doesn't cover your eyes and ears. A normal mask's main feature is that it prevents you from spreading the virus relatively well.

That's why they generally want masks to be mandatory and why you want to combine that with distancing (at least 2 metres, more's even better). Not one or the other, and not just one person and not the other. Everybody, all the time, if outside and possible. That shouldn't be a big deal for most people when they go shopping.

Mario wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
No they aren't; as long as the staff maintain distance and are themselves in masks, the risks are minimal.

Minimal is doing a lot of heavy lifting here: https://twitter.com/Zeph_Davis/status/1286400957392142336

Your best option is if both wear masks. Allowing (many) customer without mask to come close to your employees just because you don't want to anger them is a bad idea. Sure those employees have a somewhat lower chance of getting infected because they are wearing a mask but it's still an overall dangerous policy. For months now the consensus seems to be that wearing a mask helps with both: With not getting infected and with spreading the infection less but it's use in protecting you is limited because a mask doesn't cover your eyes and ears. A normal mask's main feature is that it prevents you from spreading the virus relatively well.

That's why they generally want masks to be mandatory and why you want to combine that with distancing (at least 2 metres, more's even better). Not one or the other, and not just one person and not the other. Everybody, all the time, if outside and possible. That shouldn't be a big deal for most people when they go shopping.

I'm not in disagreement with you at all. What I do disagree with is the notion that it should be the duty of shop staff to enforce the law in this regard. A 17yr old kid or middle aged woman (and these groups form a significant proportion of supermarket staff) shouldn't have to worry about approaching someone who clearly isn't interested in the well-being of themselves or anyone else. No one in that role should. If they are acting like that in the first place, I doubt they'd be all to civil if approached about it.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

stratigo wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
I don't think most sectors won't recover, although it's very possible demand could shift - i.e. Blockbuster giving way to Netflix. Sucks for a lot of folks caught in the middle of any transition like that employment-wise, obviously

I dont wanna sound rude or dismissive....but this is always happens.
Old gives way to new and people are always cought up when it. When farm life gave way to factory. And some adapt and some dont.

And while this was happening, the government eventually stepped in and started spending vast amounts of money to alleviate the pain of farmers suffering from the switch and the disasters of the time. I mean, this was a core part of the New Deal.

That's the issue. You don't just go "Well it sucks to be them, guess they should starve to death in the streets". You help them adapt, and catch those that simply can't.

This has actually happened a number of times. Also, there's always a racial dynamic to who gets saved and the people left behind to suffer the most.

See our govt thinks the opposite now, they work on saving failing industries rather than help those people who are caught up in the change to adapt and change in the new industry
For example congress ordering more tanks they did not need nor the army wanted to keep factories open.
Im not saying dont help peoplle., im saying dont prop up dying industries(Like oil and gas should be dying at this point, but it keeps getting propped up by the govt)

The government has always saved industries too. And sometimes this is the right thing to do as well

I mean, farming is, what, the single most subsidized industry in the country? Heck, the world?

Now the issue is that one entire party has forgotten that demand side economics even exists, and believe the only answer is supply side, even when proven concretely that offering capital funds leads to them.... often just investing all those funds in stocks and not retention of the workforce.

 gorgon wrote:
Counterpoint is that job retraining for a coal miner doesn't help that much when said miner lives in a dying rural coal town. What other type of job are they supposed to find there? And moving isn't easy. Selling your house in said dying town with plunging home values doesn't get you much if you move where the jobs are.

Retraining is a component of the solution, but there's a lot of false promise that comes with it. There really are no easy answers and this is why so many blue collar folks in these kinds of situations are so angry.

Here's an easy answer.

Give them money. Just give them money. Hand them fat stacks of cash, enough to live on plus enough for some level of entertainment.

Boom done.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
Counterpoint is that job retraining for a coal miner doesn't help that much when said miner lives in a dying rural coal town. What other type of job are they supposed to find there? And moving isn't easy. Selling your house in said dying town with plunging home values doesn't get you much if you move where the jobs are.

Retraining is a component of the solution, but there's a lot of false promise that comes with it. There really are no easy answers and this is why so many blue collar folks in these kinds of situations are so angry.

I think we’re past the point where retraining alone is viable. People need financial assistance, and it makes more economic sense to help pay them to move where the jobs (and assistance infrastructure) are than to pay them the same amount or more to survive in that dying town. It means sacrificing a lot of their way of life, so it should be a choice rather than compulsory. But that’s really the only hope I see for improving their situation.

There's an actual population drain from these regions anyways, people are picking up and moving. But many simply can't afford to, and only a scant handful are absolutely unwilling to even consider changing.

cody.d. wrote:
I mean, surely this is the perfect time to try and invest in local production of the various goods that are outsourced? Create new jobs that would strengthen industry, improve production methods and such. There's already complaints about struggling to buy whitegoods in Australia due to the current rising tensions with China, who's main selling point is it's massive production through the exploitation of it's people.

The only real reason not to is because some very powerful people with lots of money would lose some of that income. Oh no, I weep tears for them. If the govs wasn't run almost purely by businessmen it would have already happened I bet.

The cost of everything would rocket through the roof and the economy would collapse anyways and we'd either have to abandon this, or accept the same payment conditions of sweatshops in east asia and africa. A collapse in globalization merely impoverishes everyone faster. I mean the end result is that automation will come to replace human labor anyways and a large proportion of the population will be rendered jobless anyways. Provided we don't all die in nuclear fire brought on by the stress of trying to absorb hundreds upon hundreds of millions of climate refugees in the not so distant future.

 gorgon wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
Counterpoint is that job retraining for a coal miner doesn't help that much when said miner lives in a dying rural coal town. What other type of job are they supposed to find there? And moving isn't easy. Selling your house in said dying town with plunging home values doesn't get you much if you move where the jobs are.

Retraining is a component of the solution, but there's a lot of false promise that comes with it. There really are no easy answers and this is why so many blue collar folks in these kinds of situations are so angry.

Yes its tough, but why should we continue to prop up something that is no longer needed just because of jobs? Not to mention there can be replacements, maybe replace to coal with a better newer industry in that town Like Nuclear or other forms of industry that are not on their way out rather than keeping an industry that is only surviving because the govt refuses it.

I believe coal still generates something close to a quarter of US energy. So while it's dying, it's hardly dead and 'propped up'. And how do you just 'replace' an industry in a rural area? Maybe you can get a distribution warehouse or something if you're lucky.

Saying 'well it's tough but' is being completely dismissive of people's livelihoods and families. What do you get when whole swathes of people lose jobs? You get desperate, bitter folks who are angry at the system and ready to vote in someone who promises to burn it down, even if said person displays bad and autocratic tendencies. Throw in some blame toward a certain segment or two of the populace and now you have some real rocket fuel. It's a simple formula that repeats itself around the world in different eras.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

1/325AIR wrote:
While your not wholly wrong, I actually wish western governments were run by businessmen and women, preferably those with small to mid-size businesses. Business folks of that stripe tend to be imminently rational, who realize their success rests on the success of others. They are the risk takers that have been the greatest builders of the middle class in history. Hence CV19 response would have likely been more rational, measured and targeted to those most vulnerable, not the one size fits all "hide in the basement" we got that closed those very businesses (which employ millions) and left open only the mega-corporations and government.

Unfortunately, unless you consider lawyers, whose services involve the multiplication of bureaucracy and the redistribution of rights and properties from one aggrieved party to another, our governments are not run by businessmen and women. They are run by career lawyers (influence peddlers) and career bureaucrats whose contribution to society consists of libraries of minutia used to entrap citizens in mindless legality whose only purpose is to strengthen the power of said government. They are backed and financed by a few crony capitalist mega-corporations who spend much of their time attempting to deny others the access to the very free-market that made them so successful.

Oh that I wish middling business people had a greater voice in government during the time of Covid 19.

I don't really agree with this. Good governing is about negotiation and compromise and the greater good, and small business people in my experience like being the regents of their domain no matter how small it is.

Mate, that's the propping up. Coal isn't cheaper, and is much nastier, than alternatives, but the government, especially the right now current government, is super invested in it, handing out big ol' subsidies and slashing regulations

 RiTides wrote:
Guys, I'm trying to give as much leeway as I can here...

But there are plenty of places to discuss Trump's past failed business ventures, etc... and those really are only very tangentially related to the topic of the pandemic.

Let's try to stay on topic, so we don't have to close the thread. Thanks everyone

Look, it's deeply worrying to me that a mod actively invested in a discussion is also the one moderating said discussion.

Can we get a mod not involved in the argument to moderate the thread?

 RiTides wrote:
I think (or would hope) they're just saying they're not going to ask their staff to physically stop violators.

Stores with security often even ask their security not to physically engage shoplifters. It's a liability and just not worth it...

So anyway, I'd guess that is all there is to it. Every store should want customers to wear masks, as it's better for everyone.

I have a feeling that the stores telling staff to not engage with maskless people are the same stores that expect security to follow a shoplifter to their house and try and retrieve the shoplifted item by force. No joke, this is gak I've seen people deal with.

Also, the cops are less likely to shoot a maskless old white person, which is the majority of the demographic that seems to insist of not wearing masks. So, might be alright to call them. Iunno, gotta be careful, they might just shoot someone else.

 JamesY wrote:

Mario wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
No they aren't; as long as the staff maintain distance and are themselves in masks, the risks are minimal.

Minimal is doing a lot of heavy lifting here: https://twitter.com/Zeph_Davis/status/1286400957392142336

Your best option is if both wear masks. Allowing (many) customer without mask to come close to your employees just because you don't want to anger them is a bad idea. Sure those employees have a somewhat lower chance of getting infected because they are wearing a mask but it's still an overall dangerous policy. For months now the consensus seems to be that wearing a mask helps with both: With not getting infected and with spreading the infection less but it's use in protecting you is limited because a mask doesn't cover your eyes and ears. A normal mask's main feature is that it prevents you from spreading the virus relatively well.

That's why they generally want masks to be mandatory and why you want to combine that with distancing (at least 2 metres, more's even better). Not one or the other, and not just one person and not the other. Everybody, all the time, if outside and possible. That shouldn't be a big deal for most people when they go shopping.

I'm not in disagreement with you at all. What I do disagree with is the notion that it should be the duty of shop staff to enforce the law in this regard. A 17yr old kid or middle aged woman (and these groups form a significant proportion of supermarket staff) shouldn't have to worry about approaching someone who clearly isn't interested in the well-being of themselves or anyone else. No one in that role should. If they are acting like that in the first place, I doubt they'd be all to civil if approached about it.

It's not actually a law though. There's precious few places in this country where masks were made a law. So staff is required to request someone leave first to generate a legal reason for them to not be there if you theoretically want to involve law enforcement, who will largely not care anyways. And if they do, then you've run the risk of getting someone shot, and not necessarily the maskless person.

It's not actually a law though. There's precious few places in this country where masks were made a law.

No, it is a law, one enforceable with a financial penalty. I daresay continued refusal would come under the auspices of the various public order powers the police force already has and could then result in a short custodial sentence, or at least detention for processing.

You need to remember not everyone here is in the US and that we have different laws.

In England, you must wear a face covering by law in the following settings:

public transport
indoor transport hubs (airports, rail and tram stations and terminals, maritime ports and terminals, bus and coach stations and terminals)
shops and supermarkets (places which are open to the public and that wholly or mainly offer goods or services for retail sale or hire)
indoor shopping centres
banks, building societies, and post offices (including credit unions, short-term loan providers, savings clubs and money service businesses)

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/face-coverings-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own/face-coverings-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own

stratigo wrote:

Look, it's deeply worrying to me that a mod actively invested in a discussion is also the one moderating said discussion.

Can we get a mod not involved in the argument to moderate the thread?.

I think you're going to have a difficult if not impossible locating a single mod on this forum who won't agree agree that several parts of that last page were clearly off topic, because it unambiguously was - how many bankruptcies Trump has had, his history as a real estate developer, and so on. None of those tangents dovetail into this conversation in relation to Covid in any meaningful way. Any of those threads followed very far will wind up with the thread being locked.

Generally speaking they have been pretty good in this thread about allowing for limited political discourse because the topic is in some ways intertwined with government in inextricable ways: it's hard to talk about the covid response in the United States without also pointing out that it's been pretty incompetent at most levels of government, and there's been a pretty bad dearth of leadership. However those really were starting to stray pretty far afield I think.

The idea that mods can have a bias that somehow prevents them from being objective and thus required to recuse themselves is kind of a wrong-footed legalistic way of looking at things. For one, there is no requirement for the mods on a private forum to be fair or even handed. For another, the goal isn't to make binding and consistent rulings, it is to allow for productive conversation to continue while removing non-productive, off topic discussion. There is no punitive aspect to being asked politely in-thread to confirm to the rules of this forum.

You should start a thread in the Nuts & Bolts section if you'd like to discuss that idea further. I'm not trying to dismiss your concerns, but it has come up before, and the answer I gave you gave is typically along the lines what the responses have historically been. Manchu had a really good response about legalistic thinking that I tried finding for about 20 minutes but could not.

All the supermarkets, and most large shops, literally have someone on the door refusing entry if the shop is too crowded.

Not sure its too big a leap for that person to remind people of store policy.

We are expecting people in pubs and restaurants to collect contact details before servixe. This is the supermarkets copping out.

For what its worth I checked out my local pub on July 4h. After a few hours, someone came in and would not give his address. The landlord said he would not be served so he left in a strop. The rest of the pub jeered at him for being a duck as he left.

This pandemic has forced my favourite restaurant to permanently close. I’m friends with some of the staff and as you can imagine it’s tearing them apart. The place was doing so well too, always busy, well regarded. Then this came along and that was that.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
This pandemic has forced my favourite restaurant to permanently close. I’m friends with some of the staff and as you can imagine it’s tearing them apart. The place was doing so well too, always busy, well regarded. Then this came along and that was that.

That's a huge shame. Hopefully they find some way of reviving it later or, if that isn't possible, finding work at different restaurants.

Thankfully my favourites seem to have survived so far. Was bit worried for a smallish italian restaurant in the city centre but it seems to still be alive. Would be a huge shame if it had closed as it is a family run restaurant which has been there for over 30 years.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
This pandemic has forced my favourite restaurant to permanently close. I’m friends with some of the staff and as you can imagine it’s tearing them apart. The place was doing so well too, always busy, well regarded. Then this came along and that was that.

That's a huge shame. Hopefully they find some way of reviving it later or, if that isn't possible, finding work at different restaurants.

Thankfully my favourites seem to have survived so far. Was bit worried for a smallish italian restaurant in the city centre but it seems to still be alive. Would be a huge shame if it had closed as it is a family run restaurant which has been there for over 30 years.

Thankfully in my area, all of our favorite small time eateries were able to VERY quickly make the switch to take-out and delivery services. One we haven't gone to during this time because frankly, their takeout menu (most of the places are creating limited/special takeout menus) contains absolutely nothing that the family likes/wants to eat, which is a shame. The places around me that, so far, have been hit the hardest, are those that no one truly misses. . . Chains like Red Robin or Dennys are simply closing up unprofitable stores (or those that were generally unprofitable before Corona) and the few people who are missing it (maybe), are those who once worked there.


Where I live, our governor has issued a mask mandate under a form of executive order that makes it essentially law, and is fully enforceable as a law. . . So far, I've only "had" to enforce it once, and the clown was complaining about "you make enough to care about that?" . . . In my head im thinking, "no dude, I don't make enough to ignore it and lose my job over it, so feth off"

Well I tried using public transport for the first time today since the lockdown as I just couldn't face the 6 mile walk back from town in the rain having already walked in

and the first bus I had to turn round and get off because it had a bunch of teenagers with no mask wandering between seats and a driver not at all interested doing anything about it

the second to arrive was much better, not many on it and all wearing masks except a could of young kids, and all the windows open, and a driver politely asking all who boarded to keep their masks on

so at least some folk are behaving well, but to many are not

I went into town this afternoon and I swear, if the police had been patrolling the shopping centre, they could have issued enough fines to pay for a new police car. Very depressing.

Some people have exemptions. Maybe a little less judgement could be in order.

Those exception can't than be accommodated by people staying outside and having their stuff delivered to them outside the store.
Not by them just walking around willy Milly.

Yes, because all shops have enough staff on duty at all times to essentially act as personal shoppers for a dozen people with good reasons not to use a mask.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Yes, because all shops have enough staff on duty at all times to essentially act as personal shoppers for a dozen people with good reasons not to use a mask.

They do when the vulnerable people come to the store on the days especially set aside for serving vulnerable customers. Do they not have those there?