|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2020 10:49:40 GMT
The face mask (potential) mandates are interesting in that they do not require medical face masks (which obviously are right now reserved for healthcare workers).
So many companies in the States are producing basic masks that while better than nothing in terms of preventing the wearers from spewing droplets, do little as a barrier to droplets coming at them.
I was glad to find one maker creating masks with a pocket opening in the back into which one could assert a vacuum filter, coffee filter, et al, trimmed to fit.
Studies have shown that doing so significantly increases the mask's power to serve as a barrier. Less than a medical mask, but much better than cloth only.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Apr 25, 2020 11:42:05 GMT
I was glad to find one maker creating masks with a pocket opening in the back into which one could assert a vacuum filter, coffee filter, et al, trimmed to fit. Somewhere in the loft we have a couple of Hincherton Hayfever Helmets which my mum bought for my brother but he refused to wear (I thought they were Forbidden Planet cool, but medically had no need). They had their 'Sinclair C5' moment but maybe now is the time for a relaunch? |
|
4,806 posts
|
Post by Mark on Apr 25, 2020 11:50:45 GMT
I have to wear a facemask at work and it's certainly not pleasent. Unless there was a law that mandated wearing them in certain circumstances (looking likely there won't be), then I wouldn't voluntarily opt to wear one.
|
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Apr 25, 2020 11:55:29 GMT
Surely unless a mask is given to every single citizen then it can't be made a law? Otherwise you're discriminating against those without the means to obtain one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2020 12:01:25 GMT
Surely unless a mask is given to every single citizen then it can't be made a law? Otherwise you're discriminating against those without the means to obtain one. Not if you make it only mandatory to wear some sort of covering on the face from the nose down - anyone can do that by wrapping a scarf, rolled T-shirt or any sort of fabric around the lower half of their face, loose enough to allow for breathing. Face masks can apparently be made from a strip of fabric and two elastic bands anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Apr 25, 2020 12:03:35 GMT
Surely unless a mask is given to every single citizen then it can't be made a law? Otherwise you're discriminating against those without the means to obtain one. Not if you make it only mandatory to wear some sort of covering on the face from the nose down - anyone can do that by wrapping a scarf, rolled T-shirt or any sort of fabric around the lower half of their face, loose enough to allow for breathing. Face masks can apparently be made from a strip of fabric and two elastic bands anyway. But then you spilt society into those who can afford medical masks and thus 'better' protection and those who have potentially substandard homemade products. |
|
1,863 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Apr 25, 2020 12:15:49 GMT
talkingheads that is the issue, by definition medical compliant (N95) face masks protect otherwise health professionals would not wear them. The primary reason why they will not mandated is supply, if made a mandatory requirement the Government would have a duty to provide and availability would be near impossible in the numbers required. We are likely to get a fudge where the ones who can afford it will find the medically compliant ones and the rest of us will have to make do with the cloth/paper ones which in reality are just a sticky plaster and would likely be just as safe without them, just like social distancing when out and about it will become a personal choice except for where some places will mandate independently of which Theatres could be one. The sad fact the not wearing of a face mask of some type will become a ‘tutting’ offence in that truly British way and am seeing more people wearing them every day.
|
|
4,806 posts
|
Post by Mark on Apr 25, 2020 12:22:22 GMT
The sad fact the not wearing of a face mask of some type will become a ‘tutting’ offence in that truly British way. People will have to tut away because quite frankly, I don’t give a crap. |
|
3,578 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Apr 25, 2020 14:32:18 GMT
We have various PPE at work (and now loads of back-up hand sanitiser) but no consistency in terms of advice. One manager insists on plastic gloves for every activity; another manager for some tasks only. Yet another manager has no faith in gloves, saying hand-washing and use of sanitiser is more effective, but that we must wear masks. We never know what to expect from one day to the next and don't even have a consistent mask/glove supply: 3 different types of mask alone so far but since they don't come in any protective wrapper, we could be starting with a germ-laden one and actually increasing our risk of something for all we know.
So if use of masks in public, or for certain activities (eg attending theatre) becomes obligatory, there will have to be a standard type and yes, ideally supplied by the venue though I'd happily pay the cost. What I wouldn't welcome is going, say, from cinema to theatre matinee and facing differing requirements at each and then onto an evening performance with yet another standard.
|
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Apr 25, 2020 14:53:48 GMT
We have various PPE at work (and now loads of back-up hand sanitiser) but no consistency in terms of advice. One manager insists on plastic gloves for every activity; another manager for some tasks only. Yet another manager has no faith in gloves, saying hand-washing and use of sanitiser is more effective, but that we must wear masks. We never know what to expect from one day to the next and don't even have a consistent mask/glove supply: 3 different types of mask alone so far but since they don't come in any protective wrapper, we could be starting with a germ-laden one and actually increasing our risk of something for all we know. So if use of masks in public, or for certain activities (eg attending theatre) becomes obligatory, there will have to be a standard type and yes, ideally supplied by the venue though I'd happily pay the cost. What I wouldn't welcome is going, say, from cinema to theatre matinee and facing differing requirements at each and then onto an evening performance with yet another standard. I agree. It will either have to be everybody wears a standard issue mask or nobody does. |
|
724 posts
|
Post by basdfg on Apr 25, 2020 15:33:39 GMT
The most recent You Gov poll had 53% saying they will not wear a mask with only 30% saying they will. The media is quite anti mask as a whole.
|
|
4,029 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Apr 25, 2020 16:59:05 GMT
Another mask issue I can see arising is that the advice seems to be to change them every half an hour. Would that mean theatres would have to insert an interval every half hour to allow the audience to change their masks? I can think of, for instance, several Wagner operas where each person in the audience would therefore get through about 8 masks during the course of one performance! It would also make the interval refreshments trade extremely difficult.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Apr 25, 2020 17:03:02 GMT
Would be easier to do a temperature check along with the bag check at the door.
|
|
724 posts
|
Post by basdfg on Apr 25, 2020 17:22:51 GMT
Would be easier to do a temperature check along with the bag check at the door. Through would theatres be willing to have to exchange or refund everyone rejected from entering. |
|
4,029 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Apr 25, 2020 18:40:55 GMT
Would be easier to do a temperature check along with the bag check at the door.
Except if someone has it they could have already given it to a bunch of other people while queuing, given how long the bag check queues are at some theatres!
|
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Apr 25, 2020 19:14:02 GMT
Would be easier to do a temperature check along with the bag check at the door.
Except if someone has it they could have already given it to a bunch of other people while queuing, given how long the bag check queues are at some theatres!
Very true. I think the very harsh reality is that theatres cannot realistically open until there is a vaccine. |
|
724 posts
|
Post by basdfg on Apr 25, 2020 20:59:40 GMT
Except if someone has it they could have already given it to a bunch of other people while queuing, given how long the bag check queues are at some theatres!
Very true. I think the very harsh reality is that theatres cannot realistically open until there is a vaccine. I suspect that will be the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Apr 25, 2020 22:04:28 GMT
Very true. I think the very harsh reality is that theatres cannot realistically open until there is a vaccine. I suspect that will be the case.
Indeed. I mean I hope I'm wrong and that they find a way but considering the variables, checking a sold out audience would need to start at least two hours prior to curtain up, the issue of foyers and toilets, deep cleaning the theatre after every performance. |
|
|
|
Post by sph on Apr 26, 2020 1:22:13 GMT
Can you expect an entire industry to remain shut down until a vaccine is found though? And just because a vaccine is found doesn't mean a virus disappears. It takes many months or even years to produce and then be administered to the population. The point at which enough people have been inoculated that the virus is no longer a realistic threat is so far down the line that it would be impractical to expect the hospitality and entertainment industries to just disappear until then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2020 7:59:33 GMT
Not if you make it only mandatory to wear some sort of covering on the face from the nose down - anyone can do that by wrapping a scarf, rolled T-shirt or any sort of fabric around the lower half of their face, loose enough to allow for breathing. Face masks can apparently be made from a strip of fabric and two elastic bands anyway. But then you spilt society into those who can afford medical masks and thus 'better' protection and those who have potentially substandard homemade products. I'm not sure that is any different from the way society is currently split given supermarkets aren't handing out masks and gloves to everyone who walks in yet many people are wearing them... |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Apr 26, 2020 8:21:04 GMT
Can you expect an entire industry to remain shut down until a vaccine is found though? Yes, if involvement in it could potentially kill you. If they find extensive asbestos in a building they generally close it until it has been removed or made safe. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2020 12:01:23 GMT
I can't see it being sustainable that theatres will remain closed until a vaccine is found. There's no guarantee there ever will be a vaccine. I think with many of these public gatherings you have to be given your own choice to make. Do you want to risk getting the illness and help improve your mental health or do you want to avoid getting the illness and completely but potentially let your mental health suffer? I do wonder whether we might see smaller, fringe-type theatres reopening sooner than the huge barns of a theatre.
|
|
|
|
Post by sph on Apr 26, 2020 12:18:40 GMT
Can you expect an entire industry to remain shut down until a vaccine is found though? Yes, if involvement in it could potentially kill you. If they find extensive asbestos in a building they generally close it until it has been removed or made safe. Its potential to kill you is small for the average person. Asbestos is not the same thing as it has a far more quantifiable risk and solution. I think when theatres reopen there will be limited contact between patrons and staff, as in no physical bag checks or ticket tearing, and possibly a limit to what is sold in the way of bars/merchandise to discourage contact, but aside from that, if the numbers of people with the virus start to go down significantly by the end of the summer, we may just all have to get on with it of we aren't in the "at risk" category. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2020 12:27:30 GMT
I can't see it being sustainable that theatres will remain closed until a vaccine is found. There's no guarantee there ever will be a vaccine. I think with many of these public gatherings you have to be given your own choice to make. Do you want to risk getting the illness and help improve your mental health or do you want to avoid getting the illness and completely but potentially let your mental health suffer? I do wonder whether we might see smaller, fringe-type theatres reopening sooner than the huge barns of a theatre. There is a false dichotomy here. There has been a rush from some quarters to suggest that mental health is only affected by being locked down. The truth, however, is that it is a more akin to a seesaw. Those who are in that group are balanced by an equal number whose mental health is improved by not making them exposed to the virus. Now, rather than suddenly say ‘everybody out’, the seesaw needs to find an equilibrium, so that as few on each side of it are affected. How that affects theatre is that it needs to provide for each of those groups and in between, a tough balancing act. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2020 12:58:09 GMT
I can't see it being sustainable that theatres will remain closed until a vaccine is found. There's no guarantee there ever will be a vaccine. I think with many of these public gatherings you have to be given your own choice to make. Well tough, basically. If we can't get this disease under control then there's no theatre. This is not a disease we can just "live with". The mortality rate is still uncertain and estimates vary from 0.1% to over 5% but let's assume it's somewhere in the region of 1%. That means that if we don't keep this disease under control it will kill around 650,000 people in the UK first time around. And if we don't continue with restrictions until we have a vaccine or a treatment then we won't keep it under control. This is not scaremongering. This is how literally every single transmittable disease works. You either control it or every single person is at risk from it. You can't escape exponential growth. We're choosing to control it. And luckily for us, we live at a time in history where we know enough to do that. This is not the first serious disease we've ever had to deal with. There are several diseases that we've driven back until they're extinct in the wild. There's no reason why this one should be any different, and in some ways it's not that difficult a disease to fight. We're lucky in that it can only survive for a short period outside of a host; it's not something like anthrax, that will sit around for a decade waiting for its chance. We have better testing and tracking technology than ever before. We can stop it. But we have to get it under control first. It's not a matter of being given your own choice to make, because if you choose to hang around in crowds of other people you're choosing for all of them as well as for yourself. If keeping this under control means we have to do without high-risk environments like theatre then we have to do without theatre. If it takes a year then it takes a year. It probably won't, but if it does it does. But the important thing to remember is this is temporary. Everything we miss will return, just as it returned after world wars and stock market crashes and previous pandemics. But it has to be at the right time. If we relax too early then everything we've done so far will be for nothing. |
|
