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.

JamesY wrote: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.

I don't know. Generally, when something minor happens, store staff tends to deal with it all the time. It's kinda part of the job. In this case it simply means telling people that they are not allowed to enter the store unless they are wearing a mask. That's just like informing customers about any other store rules they didn't know about.

You don't need the police for that. That's been the most normal thing over here. Who else should say it if customers "forgets" to wear a mask (or whatever their excuse is)? They don't need to hug the anti-maskers, just tell them from a distance that they need a mask. If somebody's really overreacting to this then I'd not want them in a store anyways and you can call the police (or whatever store policy is at that point).

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.

Yes because you usually don't have a dozen people who have "good reasons" to not wear a mask. Most people with asthma and even other respiratory issues can wear masks. There are very few who really can't do it and those shouldn't be a problem to handle and they would be safer at home/in the hospital with somebody else doing the shopping for them. Why are they exposing themselves to this risk anyways? Are they suicidal? Staff helps people all the time with all kinds of issues. Occasionally helping somebody as a personal shopper shouldn't be a problem if you filter out all the fake ones.

If your store has a dozen people who can't wear a mask at the same time then you most probably have close to a dozen liars. Or you are living in extremely peculiar circumstances.

In our block we have an old lady who has to cart around an oxygen tank and take long breaks on her walks and she manages to wear a mask. I don't know how bad it has to be for somebody to be unable to wear a mask but I'm relatively confident that it's not a problem that affects many people. There may be a lot of donkey-caves who want to fake a medical condition as an excuse but that's a different issue.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 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?

No, we had (not any more, virus is deemed under control sufficiently to not need it any more) times when the shops were open exclusively for those who were higher risk and other groups weren't permitted.

At no point did we have people stood outside the store while staff collected their food shouting "no! The blue one! THE BLUE ONE!!"

 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.

If I had a good reason not to use a mask I would get someone who could to do my shopping. Be it a friend, relative, delivery service, or just hiring some person from the neighborhood. I would consider it pretty dam selfish to put a bunch of people's health at risk just to do my shopping *myself*. Would it suck? Absolutely. But people are losing their dam lives, this is not the time to put personal convenience first.

I mean, there have been shown that there are actual very little reasons to not wear a mask, that much of the "exceptions" are not at all exceptions and just excuses for people to not minorly inconvience themselves

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I mean, there have been shown that there are actual very little reasons to not wear a mask, that much of the "exceptions" are not at all exceptions and just excuses for people to not minorly inconvience themselves

I'd argue that it really is purely down to the minor inconvenience. . . I'm seeing more and more "official statements" being issued by Dr. So-and-so, MD, Virologist, and Chair of X medical school saying to the effect of, "to date, there have been zero medical conditions discovered or noted where the wearing of a face covering would impair the wearers health to a degree where they would be unable to wear a face covering." Or in layman terms: "there are no medical conditions out there that would grant any kind of exception to wearing a mask, so wear a fething mask"



Humorously, we were chillin' with the next door neighbor (we have given up some distancing with them because if push comes to shove, they are watching my kids), and she was telling us of an experience in the grocery store last week. So, as I think I mentioned above, I live in a place that has mask mandates that carry the force of law. . . So, no one is allowed to shop in an establishment without a face covering (the official verbage is carefully crafted to ensure masks/coverings do cover the nose/mouth area), so neighbor was picking up one of the carts (buggies if you're in The South in the US, trolleys?? in the UK) and hears behind her, the employee with a basket of masks and the job of enforcement says, "sir, you cannot shop with no mask on". . He replies, "what am I wearing?" . . . so, at this point, intrigued, my neighbor turns around, and this melon farmer is wearing a fething Zorro mask!! At which point the employee was essentially like, "touche, this time"

UK legal exceptions.

young children under the age of 11 (Public Health England do not recommended face coverings for children under the age of 3 for health and safety reasons)

not being able to put on, wear or remove a face covering because of a physical or mental illness or impairment, or disability

if putting on, wearing or removing a face covering will cause you severe distress

if you are travelling with or providing assistance to someone who relies on lip reading to communicate

to avoid harm or injury, or the risk of harm or injury, to yourself or others

to avoid injury, or to escape a risk of harm, and you do not have a face covering with you

to eat or drink if reasonably necessary

in order to take medication

if a police officer or other official requests you remove your face covering

So kids, people with one ear or no fingers, anxiety, to communicate non verbally, if you are about to be hit by a truck, to put things in your mouth or confirm identity.

Doesn't strike me as being particularly unreasonable.

So then those people need to make the right choice and not enter stores and do shopping online/curbside pickup
its no rocket Science.
the ADA says you have to make resonable accomodations for disabilities, not let them ignore things wholesale.
So curbside pickup is an option, car delivery is an option.
There are options where people who cannot(Or more likely, willl not) wear a mask can still get what they need without being a danger to others.

The UK is not the USA, a handful of people not wearing masks will not usher in the apocalypse, but it's reasonable to ask those who can to do so. The law only came into effect from Friday, our infection, hospitalisation and death rates have been steadily falling for weeks without them.

People showing symptoms are still expected to isolate until they're tested and cleared at the very least, so those not wearing a mask legitimately and being infectious asymptomatically will comprise a tiny fraction of the population, the odds of them transmitting the disease in a socially distanced environment while nearly everyone else is wearing a mask is microscopic.

That they should be expected to stay at home is ludicrous for the minute extra risk they pose.

Any risk comes from the ignorant cocks who should be wearing masks and refuse, as given that mindset who knows what other high risk behaviour they're engaging in.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I mean, there have been shown that there are actual very little reasons to not wear a mask, that much of the "exceptions" are not at all exceptions and just excuses for people to not minorly inconvience themselves

I agree, was further elaborating that even IF there was a good reason not to wear one, that would still not be a good reason to go out in public without one.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 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?

No, we had (not any more, virus is deemed under control sufficiently to not need it any more) times when the shops were open exclusively for those who were higher risk and other groups weren't permitted.

Surprised to hear that. Every supermarket local to me here still has reserved timeframes for the elderly, immunocompromised, and other high risk shoppers - usually the first 2 hours.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 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?

No, we had (not any more, virus is deemed under control sufficiently to not need it any more) times when the shops were open exclusively for those who were higher risk and other groups weren't permitted.

At no point did we have people stood outside the store while staff collected their food shouting "no! The blue one! THE BLUE ONE!!"

Huh. We have Curbside pickup at most grocery, craft and hardware stores. There are also hours or days (depending on location) exclusively for the elderly and at risk, and if they can’t wear a mask the curbside pickup staff handle their orders. At least that is my understanding, since that is what my aunt does..or says she does.

 Ouze wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 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?

No, we had (not any more, virus is deemed under control sufficiently to not need it any more) times when the shops were open exclusively for those who were higher risk and other groups weren't permitted.

Surprised to hear that. Every supermarket local to me here still has reserved timeframes for the elderly, immunocompromised, and other high risk shoppers - usually the first 2 hours.

I support and commend these efforts, but to be honest I'm surprised some ASOLs haven't filed a lawsuit against stores doing this claiming it discriminates against them and violates their rights. Honestly the way are in " 'murca " now I'm surprised that hasn't happened. Yet.

 Ouze wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 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?

No, we had (not any more, virus is deemed under control sufficiently to not need it any more) times when the shops were open exclusively for those who were higher risk and other groups weren't permitted.

Surprised to hear that. Every supermarket local to me here still has reserved timeframes for the elderly, immunocompromised, and other high risk shoppers - usually the first 2 hours.

England is down to an average of 66 deaths a day in the past week, my county is down to 15 cases in the last week and I think something like 3 weeks since the last fatality.

The situation is very different now, and behaviours are more prevention of a recurrence than prevention of transmission.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
[
We have Curbside pickup at most grocery, craft and hardware stores.

You have drive through pharmacy and ATMs too.

Your culture is different, we have grocery collection, but that generally has to be ordered 24 hours ahead at least, no good if your need something urgently or unexpectedly, they also carry a minimum order way in excess of what a few key items will run to.

Drive-thru pharmacies are impossible on the left side of the road, everyone knows that.

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

A good half of the people I saw in town weren't wearing masks at all, and some of those that were just had them under their chins. Call me judgey if you want, but there aren't that many exemptions.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Any risk comes from the ignorant cocks who should be wearing masks and refuse, as given that mindset who knows what other high risk behaviour they're engaging in.

This is my concern. After 16 years in retail myself, with over 6 of those in a supermarket, I've seen enough to know that 'reasonable' doesn't exist for some in the face of 'what I want.' I have been threatened with violence for the store having run out of lettuce at 8pm on a hot Saturday that also had a huge sporting event on. I saw a woman assaulted quite badly when she asked a child very politely to stop poking his fingers through the cellophane packaging on mushroom packs and his mother didn't like her interfering with him having fun. They are just the first two incidents that come to mind. Some people go looking for confrontations or to grind an axe, and asking idiots to do what some of them will deliberately not be doing isn't always going to end well.

I mean, if you haven’t received any death threats because an item was out of stock, have you even worked in retail?

But yeah, front line employees are going to get beaten or killed for asking “customers” to wear masks.

A guy stabbed me with a syringe and told me he had AIDS for asking him not to try on t shirts on the shop floor when I worked in a Virgin Megastore so I find it easy to believe many teenage supermarket workers might be disinclined to challenge people on their mask-wearing.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I mean, if you haven’t received any death threats because an item was out of stock, have you even worked in retail?

But yeah, front line employees are going to get beaten or killed for asking “customers” to wear masks.

Thankfully we only really get complainer level Karens over here...
Thankfully.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I mean, if you haven’t received any death threats because an item was out of stock, have you even worked in retail?

But yeah, front line employees are going to get beaten or killed for asking “customers” to wear masks.

So, by your exaggeration, are you saying that the abuse, threats and intimidation that many would actually receive is acceptable?

 JamesY wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I mean, if you haven’t received any death threats because an item was out of stock, have you even worked in retail?

But yeah, front line employees are going to get beaten or killed for asking “customers” to wear masks.

So, by your exaggeration, are you saying that the abuse, threats and intimidation that many would actually receive is acceptable?

Take it with the dose of salt it was meant to be taken with.

Retail staff put up with a shocking level of abuse and physical harm in the best of times...the idiot threat level is raised even higher because of lock-down and restrictions. Lets not even talk about the US retail environment.

In short its not acceptable but there is certainly some dark humour to be had by wearers of 'here to help' name badges.

It's funny: How the lowest worker in a company is treated is often how the company treats it's custommers.

Hence why i avoid general big retailers..

Crispy78 wrote:

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

A good half of the people I saw in town weren't wearing masks at all, and some of those that were just had them under their chins. Call me judgey if you want, but there aren't that many exemptions.

regardless, you dont know their situation. also, they are not required when outside. (yet)

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:

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

A good half of the people I saw in town weren't wearing masks at all, and some of those that were just had them under their chins. Call me judgey if you want, but there aren't that many exemptions.

regardless, you dont know their situation. also, they are not required when outside. (yet)

TBF if you are that daft to not even wear the mask propperly, then yes, judgement shall be rendered upon them.

Well, I've got my mask on order from S&M orginals, so its not going anywhere, although I may die from auto erotic asphyxiation in the middle of the super market.

 JamesY wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I mean, if you haven’t received any death threats because an item was out of stock, have you even worked in retail?

But yeah, front line employees are going to get beaten or killed for asking “customers” to wear masks.

So, by your exaggeration, are you saying that the abuse, threats and intimidation that many would actually receive is acceptable?

I don't see anything in what he said to even hint at your interpretation; just an observation that retail employees have historically received abuse, and that these heightened circumstances only are exacerbating what is functionally a pre-existing condition.


On a sort of tangent, one of the good things about the corona virus is contactless food delivery. I don't know if I can go back to normal food delivery (with the required human interaction) after experiencing the joys of the pizza lady coming up the loading dock, leaving my pizza at the door, texting me "it's here", and then leaving like she was leaving it next to a manhole for the ninja turtles. I won't even get into the obvious awesomeness of no longer trudging around the supermarket for an hour.

 Ouze wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 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?

No, we had (not any more, virus is deemed under control sufficiently to not need it any more) times when the shops were open exclusively for those who were higher risk and other groups weren't permitted.

Surprised to hear that. Every supermarket local to me here still has reserved timeframes for the elderly, immunocompromised, and other high risk shoppers - usually the first 2 hours.

it is the same over here

sainsburys

https://www.tesco.com/help/covid-19/

TBf it might well vary from area to area .

But they'll doing it round my way.

https://stores.sainsburys.co.uk/0046/canterbury

Important Information
Between 8am and 9am on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, the store will be prioritising access to serving elderly and disabled customers. Between 7.30am and 8.00am Monday to Saturday, the store will prioritise access to NHS and Social Care workers with a relevant pass or ID.

IIRC some branches -- especially some of the smaller ones might not be able to don't.

 Ouze wrote:

 JamesY wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I mean, if you haven’t received any death threats because an item was out of stock, have you even worked in retail?

But yeah, front line employees are going to get beaten or killed for asking “customers” to wear masks.

So, by your exaggeration, are you saying that the abuse, threats and intimidation that many would actually receive is acceptable?

I don't see anything in what he said to even hint at your interpretation; just an observation that retail employees have historically received abuse, and that these heightened circumstances only are exacerbating what is functionally a pre-existing condition.

If I've misread Bob's intentions then fair enough, but normally exaggerating a point to an absurd end point (i.e. threats to being beaten or killed) is done to try and make the initial problem seem trivial, which is how I read it. I know first hand about the normal treatment of retail staff, which is why I am not cynical about some retailers making the choice not to add to it.

For whatever it's worth, I do think that shifting the onus on mask enforcement to retail employees is a pathetic abdication of leadership from government... but about par for how all of this has unfolded, honestly. If I worked at a supermarket I would not feel particular comfortable asking the unmasked to mask up or leave - as we've noted, there have been violent confrontations. If you dont? You risk your employment, potentially headed into a depression - or risk getting sick from said unmasked person. It's not fair to ask someone making minimum wage bagging groceries to enforce social standards during a deadly pandemic.


The worst timeline continues apace.

Yes the whole handling of the crisis has been terrible on this side too. We didn't need masks when 15,000 a day were contracting it, but do now, nursing homes being blamed for not following guidelines that they were never given. Leaders doing what they want with no recrimination. Been a hell of a year to witness.