[VIC] Face Masks Mandatory in ALL of Victoria from August 3rd

Lmapax on 19/07/2020 - 11:23
Last edited 30/07/2020 - 11:41 by 1 other user

Update - Face masks/coverings will be mandatory from August 3rd for ALL Victorians.

Dan Andrews just announced that it will be mandatory to wear a mask when leaving the house in Melbourne and Mitchell Shire lockdown areas, anyone caught not complying will face a $200 fine.

This goes into effect 23:59 July 22nd.

Update - Mask Guidelines
https://www.dhhs.vic.gov.au/face-coverings-1159pm-wednesday-…

Update - DHHS Guide - How to make a cloth mask
https://www.dhhs.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/20…

Health & Beauty COVID-19 Surgical Mask

Comments

    • jjjaar on 26/07/2020 - 19:40
      +9

      That woman is an actual idiot. She went into the store filming. She was looking for a fight.

    • mise23 on 26/07/2020 - 19:41
      -2

      Maybe because they have to keep reapplying makeup. Seems very trivial compared to the risk of contracting or spreading coronavirus.

    • djones145 on 26/07/2020 - 19:44
      +1

      title should be
      Does the requirement to wear masks discriminate against karen

    • [Deactivated] on 26/07/2020 - 19:52

      "it's an unlawful condition of entry."

      If she knew what she was on about, she would actually cite which law.

      She also wants to sue the staff personally.

      She is clearly ignorant of the legal system amongst many other things.

    • whooah1979 on 26/07/2020 - 19:56

      The person in question was legally not required to wear a face mask.

      According to reports, the woman eventually showed police a medical certificate which made her exempt from having to wear a mask.

      • [Deactivated] on 26/07/2020 - 20:02
        +6

        According to reports, the woman eventually showed police a medical certificate which made her exempt from having to wear a mask.

        I question the validity of such a medical certificate. I would never write such a letter. If someone is not fit enough to breathe through a mask, they have no business entering a Bunnings.

        • whooah1979 on 26/07/2020 - 20:05

          I was about to edit my post.

          The person in question had a lawful excuse for not wearing a face mask in public. The staff at the store had no powers to force that person to wear one. The only thing they could've done is to ask them to leave the store.

          • [Deactivated] on 26/07/2020 - 20:15

            @whooah1979: Fair enough.

            (I didn't think you were defending her.)

        • Mechz on 26/07/2020 - 20:22

          How do you know it's not related to psychological trauma?

          • [Deactivated] on 26/07/2020 - 20:37

            @Mechz: Haha. That's a good one.

          • [Deactivated] on 26/07/2020 - 21:10

            @Mechz: We don't. Looking at both videos a mental impediment (to mask wearing and social norms) appears to be a distinct possibility. Let her be examined by a psychiarist to determine the total validity of the claim.

            Still doesn't excuse her entitled, selfish behaviour in any way. Didn't appear to make any attempt at social distancing at any time. Made no attempt to courteously tell the poor Bunnings staff that she had an exemption. Wasted a lot of police time and resources. Then made hyperbolic claims about mistreatment and failure to follow procedures by police, which no doubt she didn't follow up.

            Can't wait for her personal suit of the Bunnings staff and police. No reasonable court would entertain wasting valuable legal time and resources on what appears to be a vexatious, premeditated, and well-rehearsed claim (discrimination because she's a woman - lol), but if they did she might learn a valuable lesson in humility and common decency during a very stressful time.

      • [Deactivated] on 26/07/2020 - 20:20

        Question is, on what basis was the medical certificate given. That should be investigated to ensure doctors are doing the right thing, just as non-complying businesses should be warned then fined heavily - eg the Sydney Thai Rock restaurant, Crossroads Hotel, etc.

        Irrespective, having an exemption doesn't excuse her behaviour even slightly. She could/SHOULD have simply and calmly shown Bunnings staff her exemption. Clearly she had an agenda. In Taiwan she'd probably have been arrested or detained for causing a public nuisance (and wasting police time).

        This sort of aggressive, self-centred behaviour shouldn't be tolerated in the current circumstances. Too much pussyfooting by govt and authorities, and obviously a small percentage of the population don't understand what their selfish behaviour is doing to others - jobs and business income lost, mounting personal and govt debt, potential contribution to the suffering and deaths of others. Aged care workers turning up sick for work? Wtf is that about!

        • whooah1979 on 26/07/2020 - 20:37

          That should be investigated to ensure doctors are doing the right thing,

          Common law protects the patient's confidentiality. This person could sue the pants of their doctor if they disclosed the medical records without consent or court order.

          • [Deactivated] on 26/07/2020 - 21:00
            +1

            @whooah1979:

            Common law protects the patient's confidentiality.

            The doctor should not disclose confidential information with just anyone but if the police should question the validity of the certificate, they can always get the medical board to investigate.

        • SBOB on 26/07/2020 - 20:42
          +1

          Regardless of her exemption, Bunnings has every right to refuse her entry without wearing a mask

          Bunnings offer click and collect, delivered to the back of your car
          You're unable to wear a mask, order online, get it dumped in the back of your car and drive off

          You have some health condition, why would you possibly want to mingle with other unwashed masses at a Bunnings is beyond me…

          • [Deactivated] on 26/07/2020 - 21:21
            -1

            @SBOB: Yep, big signs to that effect (contactless C&C) at their Majura store. They expect people to behave reasonably at any time, but esp in the current climate. But she just wanted to exercise HER rights and video others without respecting their privacy (and personal space by the look of it) as she entered.

            https://lylawyers.com.au/8764-2/

    • SBOB on 26/07/2020 - 20:40
      +5

      Literally the summary of everything wrong with 'karens' in a single video clip

      Looking for an argument, check
      Thinking they are always in the right, check
      Arguing with people just doing their job, check
      Claiming some law they have no idea about, check
      Reminding everyone exactly how stupid they are, check

  • Triple J on 26/07/2020 - 21:13
    +1

    How did I not know about the 1948 Charter of Human Rights ?

    • [Deactivated] on 26/07/2020 - 21:33
      +1

      Doubt she'd win any argument that her "human right" (as vague as that may be) trumps the greater good in current circumstances, esp given the video evidence.

  • Herbse on 27/07/2020 - 11:34
    -2

    So does this mean every time I was not allowed into the club because I didn't have dress shoes, my freedom rights were being infringed?? I want compensation!

  • mapax on 30/07/2020 - 11:24
    +1

    Masks will be mandatory for ALL of Victoria from Monday 3rd of August.

  • Fredfloresjr on 30/07/2020 - 11:56

    700+ new cases. 1 like 1 prayer for Melbournians.

    • Andard on 31/07/2020 - 15:19

      1 like 1 "positive vibe" for Melbournians

      • mapax on 31/07/2020 - 15:20
        +1

        We don’t need any more positive in Melbourne…

        • Andard on 31/07/2020 - 15:22

          oof

  • AS2035 on 01/08/2020 - 15:20

    Why are people still having problems with masks?

    Look at America, one went to a rally and didn't wear a mask… 4 weeks later he is dead.

    How many people did he infect and they infect?

    Wear a mask!

    • [Deactivated] on 01/08/2020 - 17:04
      +2

      The anti-society/conspiracy theory/tin foil hat mob usually run with the puerile 'personal freedom infringement' (aka as selfish jerk syndrome) or 'social engineering' argument.

    • whooah1979 on 01/08/2020 - 17:33
      -2

      Look at America, one went to a rally and didn't wear a mask… 4 weeks later he is dead.

      One out of how many?

      • [Deactivated] on 01/08/2020 - 19:02

        One.

        • whooah1979 on 01/08/2020 - 19:07

          Not much of a pandemic then.

          • [Deactivated] on 01/08/2020 - 23:03
            +1

            @whooah1979: Never is until it directly hits someone personally eh?

      • AS2035 on 04/08/2020 - 18:52

        They only reported on him because he worked in the WH.

        You can be sure that many others died, and are just a statistic

  • mapax on 07/08/2020 - 08:17

    It would seem a lot of people don’t realise this based on my visit to the supermarket and perhaps everyone is covering the inside of the valve but I suspect not.

    As far as I’m aware police aren’t fining people for exhalation valves however it’s worth being aware of.

    The term ‘face mask’ includes cloth masks, and single-use face masks (commonly called surgical masks) Face masks that have unfiltered one-way valves should not be used.

    • whooah1979 on 07/08/2020 - 09:04

      Respirators with valves helps reduce fog on the inside of safety glasses. They should always be used together when practicing WHS.

    • [Deactivated] on 07/08/2020 - 10:17

      Advice is simply trying to cover all bases. There's no specific evidence either way for general public use/protection although there is mounting anecdotal evidence wrt aerosol as a transmission agent. Even coarse single layer cloth has some effect in limiting aerosol (as you'd expect) according to some tests (don't remember if C19 was involved in the tests - probably not). Social distancing is still a critical component in stopping transmission. If you have to be in close contact with someone then you require a much better barrier than a one-way valve mask. Needless to say if you're ill and coughing/sneezing you should stay at home and get tested, not don ANY mask and go to work/the shops.

  • HeWhoKnows on 08/08/2020 - 18:26
    -5

    Just to clarify

    Wearing a mask offers you NO PROTECTION. NOTHING. ZIP!

    Its all about limiting the spread.

    If you unknowingly have COVID19 and wear a mask you simply limit the distance any expired air and droplets can travel.

    They still escape of course otherwise you wouldnt be able to breath.

    • SBOB on 08/08/2020 - 18:38
      +2

      Wearing a mask offers you NO PROTECTION. NOTHING. ZIP!

      Ah….wanna back up your ramblings with any facts…

      Sure, it's not 100 percent but it's clearly some increase in level of protection for the wearer, but yes the majority is of carriers (eg those yet to show symptoms or being asymptomatic) reducing the spread.

      • HeWhoKnows on 08/08/2020 - 18:53
        -2

        Mate its FACT.
        I dont have to prove a fact.
        Dont be lazy
        Do your research.
        You obviously have NO IDEA about face masks
        Well I do mate.
        I worked in the industry.
        No ordinary mask will block any virus.
        I can guarantee you that.
        You need the full head to toe anti-virus outfit.

        And if you listen to ALL the speeches they all say wearing face masks is about "preventing the spread"
        Not about providing protection.
        Nobody says face masks will protect you…nobody!

        Wash your hands regularly and maintain social distancing.
        Avoid crowds, especially indoors (where all the infections have occurred)
        Enough said

        • SBOB on 08/08/2020 - 19:17
          +2

          It's your 'fact', not mine. And it can't be a 'fact' unless your can prove it :/

          You 'work in the industry', yet group all 'masks' into the same level of 'zero protection's for the wearer.

          There is a reduction in contagion by mask wearers (it's small but it's non zero as you claim) but as I said (and agree) the majority is to prevent the wearer spreading the virus

          How you could 'work in the industry' and claim wearing a mask offers absolutely 0 (you said absolutely zero..0.00000% statistical difference) percent reduction in contagion rates it's 'interesting'

          Regardless, at least your last 3 lines are words to follow…

  • Jumpup on 18/08/2020 - 15:40
    Merged from Dan Andrews Applied to Extend State of Emergency Yesterday

    It was on the news yesterday not sure if I’m allowed to post links but it says he is applying for power to extend lockdown more than 6 months (forever if he needs to)

    • Hybroid on 18/08/2020 - 15:43
      +4

      Bah, that would kill Formula 1 returning in March 2021.

      /Non-Melbournians first world problems.

      Hope things improve for you all and return back to some sense of normality…

      • ssquid on 18/08/2020 - 15:51

        They basically got kicked out of town this year so it's not as if he's afraid of doing that.

        • Hybroid on 18/08/2020 - 15:53
          +3

          I know… I was at the gates 15 mins before opening when they cancelled it and sent us home. Flew back to Sydney later that evening…

    • 87percent on 18/08/2020 - 15:51

      in the words of Nike… JUST DO IT

    • Hithere on 18/08/2020 - 15:54
      +2

      Will Santa have to social distance also?

    • DingoBilly on 18/08/2020 - 15:57

      Ok?

      Makes sense to do so. The "Forever if he needs to" is hyperbole at its worst, but otherwise Victorians won't be out of this by the time the state of emergency ends so of course you'd extend it.

      • Jumpup on 18/08/2020 - 16:06

        What if he keeps on extending level 4 lock down for the next 2-4 years?

        • whooah1979 on 18/08/2020 - 20:20

          "Wenn man dem Teufel den kleinen Finger gibt, so nimmt er die ganze Hand."

      • BobLim on 21/08/2020 - 22:21

        IIMO it's a fair assessment that the original intent of the Act is being misinterpreted or ignored:
        1) seems logical that an emergency doesn't go for more than 6 months continuously
        2) even if the 'emergency' problem does, 6 months is an abundance of time to get other required legislation in place to manage this clearly medium-to-long-term issue
        3) from what I can tell, there's nothing particularly special about the pandemic that means you can't adequately accommodate the limitations imposed by 1) and 2)

        The original PHW had an overall time limit and maximum periodic extension limit for a reason. Overriding those limitations because you haven't effectively managed the issue (especially at the last minute) is not a good precedent to set.

    • Jumpup on 18/08/2020 - 16:07
      +1

      Who hit report? Is Dan Andrews on this site?

      • brendanm on 18/08/2020 - 17:39

        Someone probably reported it as it is yet another covid related thread, which was thankfully merged into the megathread.

    • ozhunter on 18/08/2020 - 16:12

      Dan Dan Dan…

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join