• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Cloth masks, scarves and bandanas to be 'encouraged' with no compulsion

Status
Not open for further replies.

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
9,276
but this a small price to pay for such a major potential public health benefit in recently unprecedented times
Keeping repeating this unsubstantiated assertion doesn’t maKE it true, and it most certainly doesn’t make it proportional
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
105,280
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Keeping repeating this unsubstantiated assertion doesn’t maKE it true, and it most certainly doesn’t make it proportional

But we clearly need a study. Could one smallish city (maybe somewhere like Lancaster or Preston) be used to trial it? Don't change anything else, but mandate by Byelaw the wearing of masks in all public indoor space and workplaces, and see what that does?
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,997
Location
SE London
Because the safety nazis have attempted to scare everyone into wearing one!

Yes there is something in that. I myself currently choose not to wear a helmet when cycling, because I feel that the questionable benefits don't justify the inconvenience and discomfort - and that has certainly aroused some strongly expressed disapproval by some of my friends.

Illogical, if the potential benefit is massive then the evidence wouldn’t be weak to non-existent. It’s no stronger than the evidence that it leads to more contact transmission, and more risky behaviour due to assumed safety.
The inconvenience is also not minor.

Not necessarily. It's perfectly possible for the potential benefit to be massive but for the evidence to be weak because actually getting scientifically robust evidence is difficult, expensive, and takes a lot of time, and no-one has yet done the required research. As for whether the inconvenience is minor - I guess that's largely a personal judgement call.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
7,021
Location
Torbay
Keeping repeating this unsubstantiated assertion doesn’t maKE it true, and it most certainly doesn’t make it proportional
How would YOU deal with public transport for example as lockdown measures are eased? I hope you're not one of these let it rip 'herd immunity' enthusiasts because that simply will not work, would undo all the hard work done to reduce incidence so far, lead to a widespread resurgence, and almost certainly a second possibly heavier and even more economically damaging lockdown. Belgium has just announced a nationwide requirement on Public transport from May, joining a long list of places implementing the measure. I don't WANT to wear a mask either but its a far bigger issue than me, me, me!
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,997
Location
SE London
But we clearly need a study. Could one smallish city (maybe somewhere like Lancaster or Preston) be used to trial it? Don't change anything else, but mandate by Byelaw the wearing of masks in all public indoor space and workplaces, and see what that does?

In principle, yes. In practice, it would be very hard to do that kind of study. You'd need to look at two cities - one with the mandatory mask wearing and one without. You'd have to account for all the people who spend time in both cities, or who travel in from other places to work. You'd need some level of mass testing of the two populations to determine how widespread the virus was at the start and end of the survey period. There may be issues with different population densities, demographics, or employment patterns in the two cities affecting the results in ways that we don't fully understand. And within one city, it could take some time to actually get enough Covid-19 cases to give statistically significant results - and that time would be made longer because, even in the comparison city where masks aren't mandated, a very large number of people will be wearing them voluntarily anyway, which will reduce the difference between the two places. I suspect you'd end up with a proper study taking so long to finish and give results that it would be too late to be of any benefit for Covid-19 (although it could inform what to do with future respiratory diseases).
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
Not necessarily. It's perfectly possible for the potential benefit to be massive but for the evidence to be weak because actually getting scientifically robust evidence is difficult, expensive, and takes a lot of time, and no-one has yet done the required research.
Is this true? The evidence is surely to compare the mask-wearing nations to the non-. And haven't the WHO already been doing that and will continue to, as the data increases?
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
7,021
Location
Torbay
But we clearly need a study. Could one smallish city (maybe somewhere like Lancaster or Preston) be used to trial it? Don't change anything else, but mandate by Byelaw the wearing of masks in all public indoor space and workplaces, and see what that does?
Why not try it in London on public transport, where the risk is probably at its highest in our most densely transited city and the Mayor wants to do it already?
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,997
Location
SE London
Is this true? The evidence is surely to compare the mask-wearing nations to the non-. And haven't the WHO already been doing that and will continue to, as the data increases?

Yes, you can make that comparison. But remember, every country has its own cultural and demographic peculiarities: Hand-washing and general hygiene tendencies, level of social interaction, extent to which people shake hands/kiss/etc., differences in expected level of personal space, different employment patterns leading to different levels of social distancing, typical sizes of household and extent to which people live together in extended families etc. etc. All those things are likely to swamp any differences between countries in transmission levels caused by mask wearing, and would be very difficult to separate out in the data. I won't say, impossible, as it's the kind of problem that statisticians and data scientists would have to deal with very often. But very difficult, which I'm sure is one reason why we don't really have any definitive answers about the extent to which mask wearing works.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
9,276
How would YOU deal with public transport for example as lockdown measures are eased? I hope you're not one of these let it rip 'herd immunity' enthusiasts because that simply will not work, would undo all the hard work done to reduce incidence so far, lead to a widespread resurgence, and almost certainly a second possibly heavier and even more economically damaging lockdown. Belgium has just announced a nationwide requirement on Public transport from May, joining a long list of places implementing the measure. I don't WANT to wear a mask either but its a far bigger issue than me, me, me!
Just because other countries have jumped for ‘easy’, visible, “something must be done”, measures doesn’t mean they are correct.
i would just try to keep public transport demand down for a while - still push WFH, and restrict to essential travel.
 

Mogster

Member
Joined
25 Sep 2018
Messages
949
Wearing masks is not to protect the wearer, but primarily to protect others around them, so if there's no one around to check whether someone is wearing or not in a quiet location, then not wearing in that area is not a problem at all I suggest.

Recent pictures of crowded post-lockdown streets, shops, mass transit stations in East Asia often neglect to mention one issue. That elephant in the room, street or station illustrated is near universal mask wearing, evident in all these images, a measure that must at least help in preventing transmission taking off again often in areas where distancing requirements are difficult to maintain, and help to keep the testing and tracing difficulties and workload under control as the extent of any new small outbreaks is constrained while lockdown measures are eased. Why would these nations insist on such mandatory mask-wearing otherwise?

Carelessly discarded waste from disposables is highly likely to be an increasing problem. It is already around some workplaces where masks are mandated, but this a small price to pay for such a major potential public health benefit in recently unprecedented times. In the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, the measure was in place widely for only a matter of months as the infection rate fell away dramatically. There were a few hiccoughs along the way with 'anti-mask leagues' etc and consequent new flare ups, but the force of law typically came back quickly to reinforce compliance.

The WHO states that by far the greatest number of CoV2 infections occur in the home. Generally from prolonged exposure to someone who is sick and showing symptoms. People mostly aren’t catching it in the street, at the shops or at school, they are catching it from prolonged exposure at home. In that case all those people walking the streets of Beijing and Seoul wearing masks, although they may feel righteous, are really contributing very little.

I think ordering people to wear masks by law is a serious issue and enforcement would be difficult and cause problems. I don’t think the positives are worth the negatives and scientific evidence for the benefits (if there are any) of asymptomatic people wearing home made masks is very limited. Id be very surprised if it went further than “recommended” here, but even that could cause problems with people being refused access to public buildings and services. if mask wearing is mandated then what happens when someone chooses to remove it, to eat or drink, wipe their nose because they have hay fever, to answer the phone, just because it’s uncomfortable? Are they to be ejected from the train, bus, supermarket?

At some point very soon we’ll be looking to convince people it’s safe to go out and get back to some sort of normality. Mandating masks at this point is a strange way of doing that.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
105,280
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The WHO stated that by far the greatest number of CoV2 infections occur in the home. Generally from prolonged exposure to someone who is sick and showing symptoms. People mostly aren’t catching it in the street, at the shops or at school, they are catching it from prolonged exposure at home. In that case all those people walking the streets of Beijing and Seoul wearing masks, although they may feel righteous, are really contributing very little.

True. But if it was only occurring in the home, the R value would end up right down because it'd stay there, you would be effectively considering a home as one person, as it sort of is in this context.

It is, however, getting between homes somehow. How? And can masks stop it?
 

Qwerty133

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2012
Messages
2,540
Location
Leicester/Sheffield
But we clearly need a study. Could one smallish city (maybe somewhere like Lancaster or Preston) be used to trial it? Don't change anything else, but mandate by Byelaw the wearing of masks in all public indoor space and workplaces, and see what that does?
Or Milton Keynes. If you are not willing to participate in such a trial yourself don't expect others to be forced to do so.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
9,276
True. But if it was only occurring in the home, the R value would end up right down because it'd stay there, you would be effectively considering a home as one person, as it sort of is in this context.

It is, however, getting between homes somehow. How? And can masks stop it?
I guess the big issue is whether it’s airborne or contact transmission (I am excluding people sneezing and coughing because they should be in quarantine, but wouldn’t have been before any measures started)

Anyone sneezing into a mask is more likely to spread Covid than someone sneezing into their arm/tissue - they aren’t going to keep that mask on are they!
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
7,021
Location
Torbay
Just because other countries have jumped for ‘easy’, visible, “something must be done”, measures doesn’t mean they are correct.
i would just try to keep public transport demand down for a while - still push WFH, and restrict to essential travel.
I don't think it's an 'easy' measure at all, but more people are returning to work, and many employers are introducing mask-wearing anyway in the workplace, no doubt due to their statutory health and safety responsibilities towards both employees and customers. Have they got this wrong as well? The most recent Amazon advert on TV attests to this trend, with every staff member filmed being masked, and the nature of their business clearly places that company in an outstanding position to source and distribute such PPE. It is only a matter of time before other shared areas, and particularly public transport, start getting busier again, and distancing cannot always be controlled in these areas, no matter how hard an individual tries. Minor coughs and sneezes will always occur, especially in summer due to pollen and dust, so it's utterly unrealistic to expect everyone to self isolate immediately at the tiniest tickle. The mask provides the 'prefitted handkerchief' that catches such unintended ejections and could prevent a tree of thousands of reinfections in the homes and workplaces from those the ejected droplets could land on.
 

Skimpot flyer

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2012
Messages
1,826
I’m seeing one or two colleagues wearing full-face visors instead of masks. If the benefits of masks are dubious (because they get damp and encourage a tendency to keep readjusting the fit), surely these are better? 04E1C4CB-47B8-452C-AEE8-0A75F26D59BA.jpeg
 

Mogster

Member
Joined
25 Sep 2018
Messages
949
True. But if it was only occurring in the home, the R value would end up right down because it'd stay there, you would be effectively considering a home as one person, as it sort of is in this context.

It is, however, getting between homes somehow. How? And can masks stop it?

Prolonged exposure to someone who’s coughing seems to be the common highest risk factor. Some people have (used to have) many different people frequenting their homes, theres a proportion of people that don’t just go home, lock their front door and not see anyone else for the evening.

I just think universal masking is a serious thing. I don’t think it should be mandated as a throw away, “this might help a bit”. There needs to be serious evidence or another pressing reason for it. Transport staff demanding universal masking of passengers for returning to work could be a serious reason enough to implement it. I still think it would only make them feel better though and the actual effect on transmission would be small. Possibly face shields for staff would be a better solution, as would seem practical in other workplaces like hairdressers where distancing is impossible. Really it’s the staff that are risking multiple close contacts, not the punters.

Masking in any areas where distancing can be implemented is just unnecessary.
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
Yes, you can make that comparison. But remember, every country has its own cultural and demographic peculiarities: Hand-washing and general hygiene tendencies, level of social interaction, extent to which people shake hands/kiss/etc., differences in expected level of personal space, different employment patterns leading to different levels of social distancing, typical sizes of household and extent to which people live together in extended families etc. etc. All those things are likely to swamp any differences between countries in transmission levels caused by mask wearing, and would be very difficult to separate out in the data. I won't say, impossible, as it's the kind of problem that statisticians and data scientists would have to deal with very often. But very difficult, which I'm sure is one reason why we don't really have any definitive answers about the extent to which mask wearing works.
It's why you try to compare countries with similar cultural and demographic profiles. A much smaller pool of data, but therefore less work to do! ;)
 

Mogster

Member
Joined
25 Sep 2018
Messages
949
I have just had the grim vision of someone sneezing into one of those face visors!

At least you can remove them quickly you could sneeze into your sleeve...

Wearing a mask with ties would be worse I’d think.
 

MDB1images

Member
Joined
9 Jun 2018
Messages
672
So a couple of queries under mask wearing....

1)Thus far those in the main that are wearing them on the trains I work are probably causing more of a risk to themselves than if not wearing it(mask on & off, leaving them on table, not washing hands before putting them back on etc), equally some of the masks are homebuilt so how do we know they are actually effective.
Does it need a set of approved supplier of masks that everyone can access for little cost and that meet the guidelines?

2)in Asia I presume mask use has been quite common for a while(Chinese have always worn them I presume to counter pollution), now this is controversial as it depends if you believe the official Chinese death figures(I don't), did masks actually make a difference to the death figures and in other countries with low death rates it's noted they don't wear masks so is it effective or is it just a visual that makes you feel better mentally?

3):It will be impossible to police so what happens when someone gets on a Bus/Train without a mask?
If they accidentally sneeze(hay forever perhaps)could this cause people to flee thus causing a bigger crush risk or more people in other vehicles than normal?

4)
Testing is taking place for more and more people (some key workers, NHS workers) to see if they have the virus.
If given the all clear should they need to wear a mask and should those who have had the disease and got well be made to wear it.

5)What's the time limit on wearing a mask and has there been a study to see how those who are claustrophobic or have Asmtha will cope if they have to wear a mask on a 2 to 3 hour train/coach journey?
Does it bring additional germ risk?

6)
Is there a risk that public transport operators see this as an easy way to circumnavigate the 2metre safe distance ruling as to implement that(which all acknowledge works)will cost a lot of money and mean more trains are needed thus making profit small and overheads large, so is this just in place to offer an option to that but realistically it offers minimal benefit to those travelling in comparison?

7)
If it's such a benefit why don't the World Health Organisation recommend it?
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,997
Location
SE London
It's why you try to compare countries with similar cultural and demographic profiles. A much smaller pool of data, but therefore less work to do! ;)

Yeah, but that's almost impossible. How many pairs of countries are there that are so similar in their culture, way of life, demographics, etc. that you can ignore those differences when looking at masks? I would say, almost none.

Think for example of how people have compared the UK and Italy regarding our CoronaVirus responses. The UK and Italy are both industrialised Western democracies, whose populations are of similar ethnic inheritance and have very westernised ways of life. Viewed on a global scale, the two countries are very similar, and with your criterion would therefore be good to compare (if you doubt that, think how comparing the UK and Italy would look from the perspective of someone in - say - China or Vietnam: From the perspective of someone in China, the UK and Italy are going to be basically the same.). But even between the UK and Italy, you have the more huggy culture in Italy plus bigger extended families plus greater tendency to live in apartment blocks - and those differences will swamp the data in any comparison.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,996
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
So a couple of queries under mask wearing....

1)Thus far those in the main that are wearing them on the trains I work are probably causing more of a risk to themselves than if not wearing it(mask on & off, leaving them on table, not washing hands before putting them back on etc), equally some of the masks are homebuilt so how do we know they are actually effective.
Does it need a set of approved supplier of masks that everyone can access for little cost and that meet the guidelines?

In short, we do not know if home-made masks will be effective. Medical proven ones will certainly be more so, but these should only be procured by health services around the world. Private citizens should not be attempting to buy these under any circumstances.

2)in Asia I presume mask use has been quite common for a while(Chinese have always worn them I presume to counter pollution), now this is controversial as it depends if you believe the official Chinese death figures(I don't), did masks actually make a difference to the death figures and in other countries with low death rates it's noted they don't wear masks so is it effective or is it just a visual that makes you feel better mentally?

The current misconception is that people in Eastern Asia have worn them to protect themselves. This is inaccurate, they are in fact worn when the wearing is suffering some symptoms of cold or flu.

3):It will be impossible to police so what happens when someone gets on a Bus/Train without a mask?
If they accidentally sneeze(hay forever perhaps)could this cause people to flee thus causing a bigger crush risk or more people in other vehicles than normal?

Is suspect some forces might try to fine people in such a situation, but it would ultimately be impossible to police as numbers rose.

4)
Testing is taking place for more and more people (some key workers, NHS workers) to see if they have the virus.
If given the all clear should they need to wear a mask and should those who have had the disease and got well be made to wear it.

There probably won't ever be an clear, we will have to live with this virus for the longer term. However testing will allow us to understand just how far it has spread, as consensus is that far more people have had it than the data suggest.

5)What's the time limit on wearing a mask and has there been a study to see how those who are claustrophobic or have Asmtha will cope if they have to wear a mask on a 2 to 3 hour train/coach journey?
Does it bring additional germ risk?

I don't know about any studies, but human nature being human nature the longer we are forced to wear them, the more often we might adjust / remove them.

6)
Is there a risk that public transport operators see this as an easy way to circumnavigate the 2metre safe distance ruling as to implement that(which all acknowledge works)will cost a lot of money and mean more trains are needed thus making profit small and overheads large, so is this just in place to offer an option to that but realistically it offers minimal benefit to those travelling in comparison?

The 2 metre rule is a UK government mandated figure, the WHO recommended distance is a metre. We've no idea if TOCs will adopt this yet, without an actual law it could be very difficult to enforce.

7)
If it's such a benefit why don't the World Health Organisation recommend it?

They don't, because there isn't enough evidence that masks worn in general population by people not displaying symptoms are effective.
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
Yeah, but that's almost impossible. How many pairs of countries are there that are so similar in their culture, way of life, demographics, etc. that you can ignore those differences when looking at masks? I would say, almost none.

Think for example of how people have compared the UK and Italy regarding our CoronaVirus responses. The UK and Italy are both industrialised Western democracies, whose populations are of similar ethnic inheritance and have very westernised ways of life. Viewed on a global scale, the two countries are very similar, and with your criterion would therefore be good to compare (if you doubt that, think how comparing the UK and Italy would look from the perspective of someone in - say - China or Vietnam: From the perspective of someone in China, the UK and Italy are going to be basically the same.). But even between the UK and Italy, you have the more huggy culture in Italy plus bigger extended families plus greater tendency to live in apartment blocks - and those differences will swamp the data in any comparison.
Kind of true. But not if the wearing of masks in Italy resulted in them having a lower R than the UK. Plus we have France, Italy, Spain being very similar and France is just about to wear masks. Obviously it's not easy, or WHO would already have definitive guidance, but that's not to say it cannot be done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top