Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

No legal compulsion to wear face masks once restrictions are lifted

328 replies

MurdockTheMouse · 24/06/2021 08:24

Sky News reporting this morning that George Eustice has said with the removal of restrictions on July 19th will also come the removal of legal requirements to wear face coverings. I’m torn on how I feel about this.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/covid-19-no-legal-compulsion-to-wear-face-masks-when-restrictions-are-lifted-minister-says-12340495

OP posts:
Geamhradh · 27/06/2021 08:33

@SuperMum23

Wildewoodz: It is a reputable source although not UK. Up to you whether you wish to believe it.
No it isn't. The word "science" means nothing on such a website (homepage article advertising a book on how to survive the great reset no less) If you read the article you have linked, there is NO evidence whatsoever presented. I wish MN had the tech to "hide" false information being peddled as fact. I moderate another website where I have to check links/posts posted and verify their veracity, independently of ideas/opinions expressed. Someone can say "I don't think masks work" and even though I personally think that person is wrong, their post stands. Once they start publicising fake facts, and worse, links to websites, which, if believed, would cause far more harm than good, they're out. As you should be. You should be ashamed of yourself (not least for your gullibility) scattergunning your cod science and dangerous views.
PopcornMuncher · 27/06/2021 08:35

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Geamhradh · 27/06/2021 08:42

www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4586

There's the BMJ article on the flaws in the initial Danish survey referenced. To note particularly the comments about the study a) proving the opposite of what social media platforms claimed b) the short reach of the study itself. Many of the things the SM users claimed had been "proved" by the research simply hadn't been put into the parameters of the research in the first place. In simple terms: if you have X bacteria in your blood, and I test you for Y bacteria, and the test comes back showing the presence of Y, it doesn't mean X isn't there as well.
(Apologies to those sentient enough not to need such a crude explanation but some on here really need a Google 101 class)

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread