English Chess Forum

Gov.uk - Face coverings: when to wear one and how to make your own

This has been a thing since November 30th. The ECF's CoViD advice page has not yet noted the change.

In England, you must wear a face covering in the following indoor settings (examples are given in brackets):

• shops and supermarkets (places which offer goods or services for retail sale or hire)
• shopping centres (malls and indoor markets)
• auction houses
• post offices, banks, building societies, high street solicitors and accountants, credit unions, short-term loan providers, savings clubs and money service businesses
• estate and letting agents
• premises providing personal care and beauty treatments (barbers, hair salons, tattoo and piercing studios, nail salons and massage centres)
• pharmacies
• premises providing veterinary services
• retail galleries
• retail travel agents
• takeaways without space for consumption of food or drink on premises
• public transport (aeroplanes, trains, trams, buses, coaches and ferries), taxis and private hire vehicles
• any car or small van during a professionally delivered driving lesson, a practical driving test, or during one of the practical tests for giving driving instruction, and in all HGV lessons and tests
• transport hubs (airports, rail and tram stations and terminals, maritime ports and terminals, bus and coach stations and terminals)

You should continue to wear a face covering in other indoor places that are not listed above, which are crowded and enclosed and where you may come into contact with people you do not normally meet.

There is a specific exception for hospitality settings BUT the wording implies that this is because of practicalities, not because wearing a mask is a bad idea:

Face coverings are not legally required in hospitality settings given that they cannot be worn while eating and drinking (see the ‘When you do not need to wear a face covering’ section below).

There is also this:

Face coverings are not required in hospitality venues such as cafes, restaurants and pubs, and nightclubs. Face coverings are also not required in any venue, or part of a venue, that is being used wholly or mainly for eating and drinking.

which could be interpreted as the exception that proves the rule - a part of a venue that is NOT being used wholly or mainly for eating or drinking (so, a chess club playing area) is mask-mandatory.

Can the playing area of a chess club qualify as a hospitality venue rather than as "part of a venue"? If a rugby club's bar shuts at 8pm, does it stop being a hospitality setting? Is someone playing chess but not drinking under different requirements than someone with a pint next to them?

Is it reasonable for a league to ask a team from a "masked" club, say a club meeting in a church hall - to attend an "unmasked" club on a certain night (or else lose the match)?

If an 80-year-old player's only social activity is a weekly visit to the chess club (wearing a mask), then he gets "pinged" due to his attendance at the club, then gets seriously ill, can the player's relatives demand compensation from the club for their decision to designate their playing area mask-optional?

Chris Goodall wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 05, 2021 5:47 pm

You should continue to wear a face covering in other indoor places that are not listed above, which are crowded and enclosed and where you may come into contact with people you do not normally meet.

Is this different in any way from the rules applied from July which were usually interpreted to mean that wearing face coverings was a personal decision?

Is the quoted paragraph law or guidance?

I think you are mixing up guidance and legal requirements here. The page you linked to is guidance, but includes the new legal requirements which are specifically limited to the specified venues.

As far as I can tell the position in respect of chess venues remains unchanged. It is arguably recommended that you wear them, but there is no requirement. You could just as easily argue the same about visiting cinemas, or spectating at indoor sporting events, or gyms, or any other number of “non hospitality” indoor events not on the legal list.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 05, 2021 6:16 pm

Chris Goodall wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 05, 2021 5:47 pm

You should continue to wear a face covering in other indoor places that are not listed above, which are crowded and enclosed and where you may come into contact with people you do not normally meet.

Is this different in any way from the rules applied from July which were usually interpreted to mean that wearing face coverings was a personal decision?

Is the quoted paragraph law or guidance?

I would say that the use of the word “continue” is tends towards the “no change” position.

Richard Bates wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 05, 2021 6:18 pm

You could just as easily argue the same about visiting cinemas, or spectating at indoor sporting events, or gyms, or any other number of “non hospitality” indoor events not on the legal list.

Yes, and I would. But I would argue it particularly about chess club playing areas. If removing the tables from a takeaway is enough to create a legal requirement to mask up - well, the rugby club not bothering to open the bar has the same effect as removing the tables from a takeaway.

I am aware of the difference between guidance and legal requirements. I am also aware that if a lawyer is asking you why you thought a certain course of action was reasonable, ignoring government guidance without good reason will count against you. It establishes standard practice.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 05, 2021 6:16 pm

Chris Goodall wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 05, 2021 5:47 pm

You should continue to wear a face covering in other indoor places that are not listed above, which are crowded and enclosed and where you may come into contact with people you do not normally meet.

Is this different in any way from the rules applied from July which were usually interpreted to mean that wearing face coverings was a personal decision?

Yes; as of November 30th a club meeting in a retail park cafe, bookstore, bank, art gallery, leisure centre with a massage room, Games Workshop or train station bar has a legal requirement to wear masks that they didn't have previously.

The guidance is directed at the individual. The legal requirements (and penalties) are directed at the individual. I don't see that there is any legal responsibility on the venues to require compliance (hence supermarkets etc saying that they will not enforce the mask rules, but leave it up to the police).

And, as you (I think) acknowledge, with the exception of chess games for some reason being held in the designated mask mandate venues, the guidance hasn't changed. Hence the phrase "continue to wear...". If you are suggesting that failure to interpret government guidance as you suggest puts clubs at potential legal civil risk - well i don't see that anything has changed post November 30th in that respect.

As a general point though, i think describing most chess match venues as "crowded" is pushing the definition somewhat, even if in poorly ventilated areas in particular there is obviously a risk if one of the participants has Covid.

Richard Bates wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 05, 2021 8:07 pm

The guidance is directed at the individual. The legal requirements (and penalties) are directed at the individual. I don't see that there is any legal responsibility on the venues to require compliance (hence supermarkets etc saying that they will not enforce the mask rules, but leave it up to the police).

Settings in which face coverings are required must display signage or take other measures to ensure customers are aware of the requirement to wear a face covering on their premises where there is no applicable exemption or reasonable excuse.

Supermarkets not enforcing the rules is about keeping their staff safe from assault. I like to think that chess club organisers wouldn't be at the same risk.

Can we get away with it, probably. Should a game with our demographic be reading the rules and thinking "what can we get away with here"?

Chris Goodall wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 05, 2021 9:18 pm

Supermarkets not enforcing the rules is about keeping their staff safe from assault.

No, it's about not losing their customers to competitors.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 05, 2021 10:53 pm

Chris Goodall wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 05, 2021 9:18 pm

Supermarkets not enforcing the rules is about keeping their staff safe from assault.

No, it's about not losing their customers to competitors.

The reasons are probably not mutually exclusive. An employee clogging up an already overburdened MIU/UCU/ED because an irate customer took exception to being asked to comply with the law is going to cost the supermarket in addition to said customer taking their business elsewhere (for instance to an HMP).

People don't like wearing masks, I get it. People look at the data that says a mask will protect the other people in the room and not themselves, and they think that's a raw deal. Leave aside the legalities for a second - at times when wearing a mask in public is the default, the club with the most libertarian attitude to mask-wearing (or vaccination or testing) is at a competitive advantage because players from other clubs won't fancy going there.

Hence, I think the ECF needs to update its CoViD advice page to say "please wear masks in chess clubs".

It's not being authoritarian, because anyone who feels strongly that it's their right to ignore government guidance will presumably feel just as casual about ECF guidance.

Probably, although I don't blame anyone. Must get weary of updating it so often especially given how very vague the Government often is.

There's a strong possibility (loads of advisors openly asking for it) that we're going to get something rather stricter in the near future.

Chris Goodall wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 05, 2021 11:42 pm

Hence, I think the ECF needs to update its CoViD advice page to say "please wear masks in chess clubs".

It's not being authoritarian, because anyone who feels strongly that it's their right to ignore government guidance will presumably feel just as casual about ECF guidance.

Having a right to ignore government guidance seems a pretty good definition of not living in an authoritarian state.

I don't really see why you feel your approach isn't authoritarian. There is a whole nuance of social interaction (how crowded a room is? how old are the participants? 'Prefer not to wear a mask but happy to do so if the opponent wishes') that gets knocked out of the way - for whom? Why does the ECF need to take a position on the playing conditions and social preferences of players in every chess club in the country?

I would just make an additional point that masks (depending on what they consist of) don’t “only” protect others. In fact FFP2/N95 masks are believed to offer very high levels of personal protection regardless of what others are doing. And of course with a greater level of personal control as the individual can also ensure that it is worn fitted properly.

Richard Bates wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 06, 2021 12:19 pm

In fact FFP2/N95 masks are believed to offer very high levels of personal protection regardless of what others are doing.

I have been making that point for eighteen months now.

People who insist upon the wearing of masks and then wear those useless blue things cannot be taken seriously. If they were really concerned about the transmission of a virus, in either direction, then they would wear a mask which actually works. The blue ones are just a uniform - a way of looking like everyone else, keeping your head down and not standing out.

I was waiting for the mask debate to spring up again! It is like oil and flame when it does though...