Miscellaneous desk
< April 15	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 16

Ban on face masks

How does the French ban on face covering and similar restrictions in other countries, impact the wearing of surgical masks during a pandemic? HiLo48 (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably none at all now that it's white people wearing the masks. --Jayron 32 03:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Hong Kong court declared HK's ban unconstitutional last week.[1] 2601:648:8202:96B0:E0CB:579B:1F5:84ED (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doctors and nurses can get away with a lot, as usual. Wearing a mask, injecting people with drugs, removing their organs. Context and certification matter. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plus the opportunity to die from whatever diseases their patients have. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just the contagious ones. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. An otherwise healthy patient with a broken leg isn't likely to spread brokenlegitis to a doctor or nurse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For now, anyway. Once nanobots and stem cells are tasked with resetting bone, all bets are off. Remain calm, though! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I gather nobody knows. HiLo48 (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From the French-language version of the article you linked: "L'interdiction prévue à l'article 1er ne s'applique pas si la tenue est prescrite ou autorisée par des dispositions législatives ou réglementaires [par exemple un casque de moto], si elle est justifiée par des raisons de santé ou des motifs professionnels, ou si elle s'inscrit dans le cadre de pratiques sportives, de fêtes ou de manifestations artistiques ou traditionnelles.. Le port du masque chirurgical, très utilisé lors de la pandémie de Covid-19, est ainsi autorisé par cette loi." (My quick translation: The ban included in Article 1 does not apply if the wearing of the mask is made mandatory or allowed by law or by regulations (for example a motorcycle helmet), or if it is justified for health or professional reasons, or if it is worn as part of a sport event, a celebration, or an artistic or traditional event. The wearing of surgical masks, in wide use during the COVID-19 pandemic, is thus authorised by the law.) (There's a reference too). That would seem to answer the OP's questions. Xuxl (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious intent of the law is to prevent avoidance of identification. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Prevention of avoidance of identification" was one of the arguments used to support the introduction of that law. As the article explains, however, the reality was much more closely related to Islamic paraphernalia. 2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:44ED:6174:9056:EEB6 (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That was obvious from the public discussions at the time the law was created. Islamophobia was a primary reason many wanted such a law. HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So is wearing a ski mask while walking down the street also OK in your philosophy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain it wouldn't be a problem here in England, although wearing one to rob a bank might get you into trouble. Alansplodge (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amusingly, during the outbreak here in Croatia multiple people were arrested trying to rob banks with surgical masks. 89.172.107.25 (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure that I haven't expressed "my philosophy" (nor used any agressive reductio ad absurdum straw-man rhetoric) for the very good reason that it would not in any way be pertinent to the original question. 2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:44ED:6174:9056:EEB6 (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is an active market in anti-surveillance clothing and a ski mask seems like a worthwhile addition to that except that it looks so dorky. My philosophy certainly doesn't include anything about being obligated to assist the gubmint and Jeff Bezos[2] in tracking my movements. I like that wearing surgical masks in public has become fashionable since they also get in the way of surveillance, so I plan to keep wearing them long after the virus hazard decreases. If you do that, make sure to also wear infrared-blocking sunglasses.[3] 2601:648:8202:96B0:E0CB:579B:1F5:84ED (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And once the pandemic fades and most others stop wearing masks, you'll stand out like a sore thumb and probably be pulled over. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that that's a delaying action at best. There are too many other things that will give you away — I bet there's plenty of information in the way you walk to uniquely identify you. Privacy laws might be able to limit how much corporations can track you, but I don't see governments permitting them to get in the way of what governments want to do.

Yes, the shape of the ears and the folds in the back of the trousers can be and are actually used to identify persons in surveillance videos 2003:F5:6F10:6900:5143:4EA1:FA12:5679 (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC) Marco PB[reply]

David Brin wrote a very depressing essay in the late nineties, called The Transparent Society. I haven't read it but I know the gist of it. I wanted to reject its conclusions, but it's getting harder and harder to do so. --Trovatore (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International post

Hasn't it always been the case that you can mail a letter (not a parcel) internationally with one stamp? Same price internationally as domestically? I was certain this was how it worked since they invented envelopes and airplanes. Do I have it wrong? Or did it change at some point? Temerarius (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking about mail sent from what country?

What you suggest has never been true in here in Canada as far as I know. It might be different in a small island country where most mail is international. --76.71.6.31 (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has never been true in the United States. Domestic first class postage is less than international. RudolfRed (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not sent plain letters or cards overseas from Australia for some years, but I remember a time when they cost the same as domestic postage (unless you wanted delivery by air or express). Now it costs more. That change occurred at least 25 years ago. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, and here I didn't think Australia was a small island country. --76.71.6.31 (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. I was responding to the original poster, as a close inspection of my indentation would have revealed. :) :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

I don't think the IP thought you were. I think they were simply pointing out their comment stands, if we take Australia as a small island country. Nil Einne (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not wishing to be an ultimoverbalist here, but nobody - not even Kiwis - takes Australia to be a small island country. In school I was taught that Australia is the world's largest island and smallest continent. The first part of that is no longer considered true, as the definition of an island now excludes anything that meets the definition of a continental land mass. So, technically, we're not an island at all, but ~~men~~ persons in streets are not beholden to the utterances of geographers. If you like, we're the tomato of islands, in that knowledge is knowing that the tomato is a fruit but wisdom is knowing not to put it into a fruit salad. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

I expect that when you're in Australia, it doesn't "feel" like an island, as it's pretty large. It's presumed to have broken off from Antarctica, which also seems like it could be called an "island continent", although it's larger than Australia. But if an island is considered to be "land surrounded by water", then even Pangaea would qualify as an "island". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except that's not the definition. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking about mail from the USA. I guess I was wrong about this. Temerarius (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if someone could cite sources regarding historical postal rates. --76.71.6.31 (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Northern Ireland, mail to the Republic of Ireland costs the same as mail to the rest of the United Kingdom (including the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man). For the rest of the United Kingdom, mail to the Republic of Ireland is charged the same as any other country defined as being in Europe. Mjroots (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I remember postwar air letters from Europe being written on pastel blue bible paper that was folded shut so it looked like an envelope, but actually the "envelope" and the letter were the same sheet of paper. The postage cost was by weight and was high for letters on regular paper in an envelope sent by airmail. --Lambiam 14:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes see Aerogram. I'd be surprised if it was ever cheaper than internal mail though. Alansplodge (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this USA 1965– AEROGRAMME PRE-STAMPED – “JOHN F. KENNEDY” OF 11 CENTS AIRMAIL compares with the internal US postage rate of 5 cents in January 1963 increasing to 6 cents in 1968. Alansplodge (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As Alansplodge has sort of indicated, there seems to be extensive documentation of USPS domestic rates including special service fees on the USPS site [4]. We even have an article History of United States postage rates. But simple documentation of USPS international rates seems far harder to come by. Even for something simply like aerograms. And this includes the "Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970" AFAICT.

BTW, am I the only one who finds the original claim "since they invented envelopes and airplanes" fairly weird. The USPS maintained an higher rate for domestic air mail until 1975 [5] (and it remained a separate class until 1977). True they had already been delivering a lot of domestic first class mail by air between major cities for a long while, still it's not like the invention of aeroplanes or their use for mail immediately eliminated rate distinctions [6]. And it sounds like shipletter rates and special rates for mail sent via ships or steamboats not regularly employed for the carrying of mail had already ended before aeroplanes, at least for domestic US mail.

BTW, on that point, although the OP mentioned aeroplanes, is the OP only referring to air mail? If not, are we sure that aerograms were always the cheapest especially in the early days? Aerograms AFAIK, as implied by the name were always supposed to be air mail. I wonder if the lowest rate for a surface mail letter was sometimes lower than an aerogram especially in developing countries. (Although you had to buy the stationery separately, so it may not be cheaper overall.) Either way, aerograms often didn't involve sticking stamps on, so you weren't actually using the same stamps.

I'd note in the modern era, India seems to charge more for aerograms than they do for postcards, perhaps in part because you're paying for the stationery [7]? This discussion suggests that the price for a surface letter and aerogram was possibly the same in Ireland at one time [8]. I think from the comments on this [9] that the first weight step for surface mail from the UK to Pakistan was 2p lower than the aerogram rate at the time? Also in that link, it seems in at least one instance, the Swedish postal services considered it sufficient to redirect to surface mail an aerogram with an enclosure but no additional postage.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it a bit more, I wonder if the OP is getting confused by mail to APO/FPO/DPO including overseas destinations? I think the prices for these has been the same as domestic mail for a long time, but isn't restricted to letters. I don't think it has much to do with aeroplanes, instead it's because the military (or whoever for the new DPOs) pays for the non-domestic transport out of recognition that the people affected are overseas in service of their country. See Military mail#U.S. Military Postal Service (MPS). Nil Einne (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your responses. To be clear, by the "envelopes and airplanes" remark, I simply meant "before I was born." Calling it "time immemorial" would have been too much. So I said something that wasn't meant to be interpreted literally. Temerarius (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For historical rates, see The Development of Rates of Postage (1917), https://archive.org/details/cu31924063217883/page/n1/mode/2up. DOR (HK) (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]