Why are Sainsbury's (and others) asking for continued mask wearing?

[jowly]

To keep their staff well? ( many don't wear one even now)

To give customers a sense of security?

I'm very willing to wear one if there's a reasonable reason to.. and I get all the theories why we may be wise to. But why are supermarkets going for this request? Why is it in their interest?

Am I missing the obvious?

Well, I for one am looking forward to my top up shop at Waitrose tonight without a mask. As i w;ork in a sector where we have a PCR once a week and three lateral flow tests no one is at risk from me. As a thrice jabbed person I'm happy to take the risk of a mild infection if exercising my freedom results in this.

[quote OrangeBlossomsinthesun]@southeastdweller I don't live in the UK. Where I live, masks have been mandatory indoors since some time in 2020 and if you try to go in somewhere without one you are refused entry. The vast majority of people accept that masks are a simple way to reduce the spread of an airborne virus and people don't make a massive fuss about wearing one. I don't really understand all the angst about it in the UK and I don't really undrestand this idea that if something is law (as it was in the UK before..masks were mandatory) how or why so many people just ignore it or just say, "oh well, it's impossible to enforce". I mean it's not in other countries. It's the law, people comply.[/quote]
It seems to be part of the national psyche that some countries are more rule-compliant than others. The distinction that's typically pointed out is pedestrian-crossing lights. In many European countries people patiently wait at red lights when there's no traffic in sight. In the UK people will cross. Something tells me British people are more likely to ignore sell-by dates on food, speed limits and seat-belt rules. No one used to turn their phone off in hospitals, despite all the signs saying how dangerous they were, and could disrupt life-saving machinery. The UK used to have a system of dog licensing that was abandoned years ago because just about nobody bothered to get a licence for their dog.

@ClaudiaWankleman

Given that Omircron is much more transmissable than the variant that was around at the time of that study it would seem even more important to wear masks now in indoor settings.

When Omicron was first reported wasn't it suggested that it was so transmissable that all the measures we had in place were not likely to be able to prevent transmission? That would seem to have been the case, and it's why cases peaked and have fallen. It wouldn't seem as important to wear masks to me.

All measures reduce transmission of all variants, obviously.

If you are 2m away and masked, you are less likely to catch any virus than if 0.5m way and unmasked.

Those wh are covid positive have infinitely variable levels of infectiousness.

Viral load remains a variable too in terms of how ill you get.

In short - there are no fixed rules, you can only reduce the likelihood.

@shrodingersvaccine

Germany has half the cases the UK has. Total numbers aren’t helpful, per 100,000 population is a more sensible analysis.

France is ~the same as UK, maybe slightly lower.

Also the way we report/test has an impact on these numbers. UK isn’t including reinfected in their numbers. I think France and Germany are but I’m not sure. UK figures are likely higher.

Reinfections after 90 days or more are coming to UK figures next week apparently.

@shrodingersvaccine

Germany has half the cases the UK has. Total numbers aren’t helpful, per 100,000 population is a more sensible analysis.

France is ~the same as UK, maybe slightly lower.

Also the way we report/test has an impact on these numbers. UK isn’t including reinfected in their numbers. I think France and Germany are but I’m not sure. UK figures are likely higher.

What case numbers are you comparing?

Eg 100k v 200 or higher etc what figures are you looking at

@MarshaBradyo

France uses masks and passes more than us cases have been very high, Germany looks like it’s increasing and uses higher grade ones

The interesting thing is that those two in particular have a low death rate. So perhaps one theory could be that masks do at least reduce viral load causing less serious disease?

@RedToothBrush

It depends on their customer base. I think Sainsburys tend to have a slightly older and more middle class cliental, so its probably reflecting this to a degree.

Its interesting which supermarkets are encouraging mask use and which say its not necessary.

Personally, I don't see what the problem is with it anyway. Its says 'you can continue to wear masks, and masks are normal here' which some people need. A hard stop to that is diffiult for some to adjust to. It enables people to shift much more in their own time without feeling awkward about it.

This .100%! If wearing a mask makes you feel more comfortable,just do it.

@AndAnotherNewOne

Sainsbury's are following the science and the WHO. Johnson is desperate to save his job.

Who do you trust?

Generally speaking, on public health decisions I wouldn’t trust a supermarket because they will clearly be predominantly focused on profit, which is fair enough. And I wouldn’t trust Boris Johnson, because he is an idiot.

In this specific case, surely it is nothing to do with people having trust in sainsburys, they just agree with their decision (or not). People will make up their own mind and will either wear or not wear a mask, and I imagine sainsburys saying they encourage it makes no difference to people in either group.

@Blinkingbatshit

Ok then, let’s just tell all those silly surgeons and doctors to stop bothering to wear masks during operations etc - it’s not like they make any difference in the transmission of anything according to the ‘science’ spouted by many posters here!!🙄

Surgeons will be using high grade masks that will be fit tested, not flimsy bits of cloth dug from the bottom of handbags.

When Omicron was first reported wasn't it suggested that it was so transmissable that all the measures we had in place were not likely to be able to prevent transmission? That would seem to have been the case, and it's why cases peaked and have fallen. It wouldn't seem as important to wear masks to me

But cases are going up. Because of schools. And down in Wales and Scotland. Where kids wore masks a lot more then the England,

New cases

France 326k

Germany 228k

U.K. 101k

So allowing for population not sure where your calculation comes from esp France

U.K. has passed peak the issue is they are still on a rise - might pass soon

Admittedly just a quick Google but I’m not sure where pp comes from

But cases are going up. Because of schools. And down in Wales and Scotland. Where kids wore masks a lot more then the England,

No they aren't? Look at the one month trend.

coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases?areaType=overview&areaName=United%20Kingdom

No they don’t @2X4B523P - they wear the same ones you can buy in the supermarket. This is why this Country is in such a shit state - people spout all sorts of crap online and those who don’t know any better suck it up🙈

@ClaudiaWankleman

Given that Omircron is much more transmissable than the variant that was around at the time of that study it would seem even more important to wear masks now in indoor settings.

When Omicron was first reported wasn't it suggested that it was so transmissable that all the measures we had in place were not likely to be able to prevent transmission? That would seem to have been the case, and it's why cases peaked and have fallen. It wouldn't seem as important to wear masks to me.

It probably was mentioned. Whether it was suggested by anyone who knew what they were talking about is a different matter.

I’m not sure why the mitigation measure with the greatest efficacy would suddenly become completely useless as opposed to just reducing it’s efficacy. The greatest problem in England would seem to be inadequate laws, poor compliance, poor policing of the law and lack of a decent public health information campaign to inform people.

IME the compliance with mask wearing in this part of England this week has been lower while it’s mandatory than it is in many countries where it isn’t currently mandatory.

@TheDailyCarbunkle

Because of this decision on masks Sainsbury's got a mention in the covid section of the BBC news page, one of the most read areas of a very high traffic site (and elsewhere). It was a positive mention too. That sort of publicity is very valuable. It's purely a marketing tactic.

Bingo. It's just business is all. They won't do any more to try and actually get people to wear them than they did in the summer, it's a commercial thing.

Oh and cases aren’t going up because we’re not reporting them anymore because a positive lateral flow is all you need - we currently have no clue how many cases there are or aren’t!!

I’m not sure why the mitigation measure with the greatest efficacy would suddenly become completely useless as opposed to just reducing it’s efficacy.

It would seem, by the rapid growth and peak we had, that their efficacy wasn't useful at all.

If a peak is a natural point at which the number of people infected won't increase anymore, then it was reached so quickly that masks made next to no difference in the growth rate. What was their use if they couldn't slow down growth before infection rates naturally peaked?

@PurpleCarpets

I would guess because it makes commercial sense and enables Sainsbury's to tread a middle line and keep the largest number of people happy.

Most of us who want to abandon masks will do so in Sainsbury's, and Sainsbury's will not bat an eyelid. Those who are mask-anxious can be pointed to the notices and Sainsbury's can blame the government for the situation and claim that if it was down to them everyone would still have to wear them.

This

@ClaudiaWankleman

I’m not sure why the mitigation measure with the greatest efficacy would suddenly become completely useless as opposed to just reducing it’s efficacy.

It would seem, by the rapid growth and peak we had, that their efficacy wasn't useful at all.

If a peak is a natural point at which the number of people infected won't increase anymore, then it was reached so quickly that masks made next to no difference in the growth rate. What was their use if they couldn't slow down growth before infection rates naturally peaked?

Exactly. Look at the peaks and growth in other countries and measures in place

It’s sort of funny how for some people when the PM makes a decision they don’t agree with then he must be doing it for the wrong reasons and when a national supermarket makes a decision they agree with it must be doing it for the right reasons!

I don’t for a moment believe either decision has been made for any reason other than self-serving ones

@RichTeaRichTea

It’s sort of funny how for some people when the PM makes a decision they don’t agree with then he must be doing it for the wrong reasons and when a national supermarket makes a decision they agree with it must be doing it for the right reasons!

I don’t for a moment believe either decision has been made for any reason other than self-serving ones

Absolutely. All of these calls are made in political and financial contexts. Naive to think otherwise.

Whose original point? The OP’s?

My point is that whether I agree or not with a decision doesn’t necessarily mean that it has been made for reasons I agree with. It’s interesting that people want to attribute reasonings behind decisions according to their own beliefs (and I don’t discount myself from this).