The problem is that hand washing, particularly if performed frequently, results in damage to the skin barrier and the skin microbiome. The skin is then more easily colonised by transient micro-organisms (Covidd-19?) which are then very difficult to remove by hand washing. So frequent hand washing can be counter-productive. This is what the studies found that resulted in the guidance on hand decontamination within the NHS. There are several other studies that support this. In fact, the sale of alcohol sanitiser has grown enormously with more and more people finding this a more convenient method. No need to search for a wash basin or having just handled the fuel pump at the filling station (glove box as usual empty!). Why create the impression that the only way is hand washing rather than have alcohol sanitiser as a preferred method with hand washing as an acceptable alternative? At least point out that after hand washing use of a skin lotion to restore the skin's barrier properties is important. At least that would give the skin a chance of working as it should.

haven't we already debated the futility of obtaining a negative test across many other posts?

In many stores it is those already present putting others at risk:

- valved masks

- noses out

- the "collegaues" reaching over you and your trolley picking orders / filling shelves

- the family day out

- mask down to talk on their mobile

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit

haven't we already debated the futility of obtaining a negative test across many other posts?

In many stores it is those already present putting others at risk:

- valved masks

- noses out

- the "collegaues" reaching over you and your trolley picking orders / filling shelves

- the family day out

- mask down to talk on their mobile

Mask off to sneeze and blow their nose.....

A group of rowdy teenagers wearing sunflower lanyards and no face coverings...

How do you PROVE that you need an exemption. The term “medical” exemption is a complete red herring.  A doctor cannot establish whether a person suffers “anxiety or distress” if forced to wear a face covering. There is no blood test for it. And carers might need an exemption if they are caring for someone who is deaf etc but when they are not doing their caring role they should wear face covering along with everybody else, but will they switch lanyards etc.

As with sick notes, it should depend on the clinical judgment of GPs. I think that in practice, the number of people who should legitimately be exempt from face coverings is very small. A family member is a nurse, and suffers from asthma, but manages to wear a mask for most of the day. It might not be pleasant, no-one likes them, but can be tolerated by the vast majority of people. Having COVID is a whole lot worse. And what is it that people don't understand about the correct way to wear a face covering? The number of people I see who don't have their noses covered is appalling. I didn't think that people needed to be shown how to wear a covering, but perhaps they do. And the issue about the use of visors is relevant. There is no evidence that they are at all effective; in fact, simulations I have seen demonstrate just how ineffective they are. They are not accepted as a face coverings in Scotland, but are in England, but then I think they have long been ahead of things in Scotland

So people who cannot wear masks should be banned from working, banned from entering shops and (coming soon) banned from being seen in public?

Perhaps when the doctor conducts the assessment they could tattoo a mark on the person as indelible proof to an ever intolerant society that the person is not merely swinging the lead, say a raised middle finger or the text "I told you so!"

I am finding it hard not to draw parallels with societal attitudes last seen across 1930's Europe

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit

So people who cannot wear masks should be banned from working, banned from entering shops and (coming soon) banned from being seen in public?

Perhaps when the doctor conducts the assessment they could tattoo a mark on the person as indelible proof to an ever intolerant society that the person is not merely swinging the lead, say a raised middle finger or the text "I told you so!"

I am finding it hard not to draw parallels with societal attitudes last seen across 1930's Europe

I don't think anyone here has a problem with people who have a genuine physiological/psycological issue with wearing a face covering and the assiciated issues with them having to prove this.  The issue isn't with people who cannot rather those that will not.

The probelm is around the small but apparently obvious demographic who are using the exemption criteria as a loophole, for whatever their personal reasons, to not wear a face covering when they could/should.

The very real polemic is that all the solutions so far proposed indeed unacceptably penalise those with a genuine reason for exemption.

Edited by user 13 January 2021 12:22:03(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Originally Posted by: biker1

Iron Chicken - I consider your posts an insult to the families of those who have died from COVID, and the larger number of people made very ill by it, and still suffering months after being infected. Conspiracy theorists, anti-lockdown protestors,anti-vaccers and the plain selfish are the people who have prolonged the pandemic. Whilst we can criticise the government for their inept handling of the pandemic, at the end of the day it is people who spread the virus, and try to justify their selfishness by dreaming up wild theories about world domination, or value their freedom above the lives of others. Such people are an affront to the majority trying to do their best to contain the virus. You are posting gibberish on the wrong forum, so please return with the likes of David Icke, David Eades, and Piers Corbyn to the planet Zog.

I consider the fact that you wish to silence my opinions an insult.

biker1 - In your position I would not even bother to respond to those idiotic postings. No matter what you say you will never persuade someone like them to even consider that they might be wrong, no matter what the evidence says. People like him simply ignore anything that does not match their preconceived and unfounded views. Bit like the Donald really.

He isn't worth your time and effort. I would  let him post and simply ignore it. The rest of us know how the real facts show what he is posting is dangerous rubbish.   

Originally Posted by: biker1

Originally Posted by: The Iron Chicken

Originally Posted by: biker1

Iron Chicken - I consider your posts an insult to the families of those who have died from COVID, and the larger number of people made very ill by it, and still suffering months after being infected. Conspiracy theorists, anti-lockdown protestors,anti-vaccers and the plain selfish are the people who have prolonged the pandemic. Whilst we can criticise the government for their inept handling of the pandemic, at the end of the day it is people who spread the virus, and try to justify their selfishness by dreaming up wild theories about world domination, or value their freedom above the lives of others. Such people are an affront to the majority trying to do their best to contain the virus. You are posting gibberish on the wrong forum, so please return with the likes of David Icke, David Eades, and Piers Corbyn to the planet Zog.

I consider the fact that you wish to silence my opinions an insult.

So you think it's ok to voice any opinion, no matter how offensive it might be to those affected by one of the worst pandemics ever seen, and no matter how debunked your theories might be? That is an abuse of freedom of speech. Such an approach wouldn't be tolerated in other fields. You are also posting to a forum of experts, apparently because you think you know better than them. That takes arrogance to new heights. And yet, you find my post an insult? Add hypocrisy.

You obviously do not understand the concept of 'freedom of speech'.

I have recently come across a document from outside of our company that suggested that close contact includes being within 1m of someone for one minute while wearing face coverings.

However, the Gov.uk web site lists it as below without mention of face covering:

• been within one metre for one minute or longer without face-to-face contact
• been within 2 metres of someone for more than 15 minutes (either as a one-off contact, or added up together over one day)

Has anyone come across such a definition of close contact regarding time and distance while wearing a face cover?

I find the show/hide post button a most useful feature of this platform. Like watching someone on the other side of triple glazing - you are aware of their presence but protected from their words

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit

I find the show/hide post button a most useful feature of this platform. Like watching someone on the other side of triple glazing - you are aware of their presence but protected from their words

thanks Roundtuit - i had tried that previously and it did not appear to work but it is now. No more Iron Chicken raveings!

Originally Posted by: Alan Haynes

What was the response from his employer?

Surprisingly I didn't get one

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit

So people who cannot wear masks should be banned from working, banned from entering shops and (coming soon) banned from being seen in public?

Not quite, I would suggest we find alternative arrangements for those unable to wear masks. Maybe they could get priority, free delivery. Maybe we could find alternative work for them to do, where they don't have to meet the public face to face etc. I would expect all reasonable efforts to be made to ensure those unable to wear masks are kept safe and those around them are also kept safe.

Why should someones employment be dictated by a piece of (quite often ineffective) cloth?

I note last night the BBC once again struggling with the concepts of protection by incorrectly reporting medical / surgical masks used on wards as a lower/less effective form of PPE compared to the fiited masks used in Covid ICU - different products to meet the requirements of different regulations.

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit

Why should someones employment be dictated by a piece of (quite often ineffective) cloth?

Not to split hairs, but a lot of peoples employment depends on the ability to wear a mask. I get your point.  I never asked the person to be made unemployed, i ask they find safe work for that person, and failing that they furlough them.

I feel this is reasonable, we have done the same for those that we feel we cannot keep safe, or we feel would endanger other people. This is a public health emergency and the sooner people start acting like it the better.

The return of Iron Chicken and SLord80 make me want to raise my eyes to the heavens and yell a miss-quote the late great Frank Costanza (Jerry Stiller) in Seinfeld.

"Moderation now, moderation now!"

Originally Posted by: Holliday42333

The return of Iron Chicken and SLord80 make me want to raise my eyes to the heavens

Please don't let them drag you down to the sort of ad-hominem name-calling they practice.

They are very welcome here if they remain on topic, remain civil, and don't move from explanations of why they disagree with the views expressed by another poster to making statements like "you ... don’t have a clue" and "you’ve clearly no idea about anything you talk about".

Originally Posted by: biker1

Chris and Peter - of course I know you're right, I shouldn't rise to the bait with the likes of Iron Chicken and SLord80. But I do get angry with such people, as they are the kind of idiots who are prolonging the pandemic, and ultimately costing more lives. As an intensive care specialist said recently, they have blood on their hands. But I will try and ignore them in future, since as you point out, it is pointless to try and reason with them. A bit like Trump supporters, who come out with the most hilarious rubbish.

If you researched the business connections of the 'blood on their hands' intensive care specialist, would you find conflicts of interest?