Face coverings compulsory on public transport in England from 15 June

[anthony263]

Facemasks are a pain if your wearing glasses as they fog up. Not fun if your trying to drive a bus

 

[HSTEd]

Yet more questionably effective theatre to convince the public that the situation is under control.

 

[BJames]

I'm going with "worth a try" - the number of cases is still running too high and needs to be got down. If it doesn't work, quietly drop it.

Me too. I'm not a fan of it but I would rather we do this for now than pretend that we can operate on ~10% capacity while also getting everyone back to work. Other countries have done it, let's give it a go and if it doesn't work then it will probably just slip away. Much like how "lockdown" is "still in force".

 

[robk23oxf]

I've read that the disposable face coverings are only effective for half an hour before they require replacing. So anyone on a long journey needs a bag of them.

So a bus driver could potentially be getting through 20 per day?

 

[6862]

The government recently made it a crime to leave your home, without a parliamentary vote, with next to no notice and probably ultra vires (without the legal authority to make such an offence in the manner it was done). Requirement to wear a mask on a train is nothing by comparison.

Its worrying because it is something which is far more likely to remain permanent.

 

[BJames]

Its worrying because it is something which is far more likely to remain permanent.

Unlikely. No justification for it once we come out of the pandemic. People will just not follow it.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm going with "worth a try" - the number of cases is still running too high and needs to be got down. If it doesn't work, quietly drop it.

I think that's a very pragmatic approach.

 

[scrapy]

Has there been any clarification on at what point you are classed as using public transport? Does it start from the moment you enter a vehicle, or when the vehicle sets off? Are you classed as using public transport when you are on a station or even waiting at a bus stop?

On underground systems it would make sense for masks to be compulsory as soon as you enter the station but non necessarily at a rural halt.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Has there been any clarification on at what point you are classed as using public transport? Does it start from the moment you enter a vehicle, or when the vehicle sets off? Are you classed as using public transport when you are on a station or even waiting at a bus stop?

On underground systems it would make sense for masks to be compulsory as soon as you enter the station but non necessarily at a rural halt.

There was nothing firm said on this but a couple of things that were said (I forget if during the speech or during the questions) that implied the same as flying, i.e. put on before you enter the station and take off (if you wish) after you leave it. However, rural halts aren't known for having lots of staff knocking about, so as ever pragmatism will win out there.

 

[Skymonster]

And so the rise of the dictatorial state continues: new rules just imposed with no debate in Parliament, no definitive evidence produced. The true tragedy of what is happening is we are allowing so many of hard-won freedoms and principles to just ne taken away.

 

[Butts]

Are masks available in Smoking Versions with a little hatch to pop the fag through ?

 

[Non Multi]

So a bus driver could potentially be getting through 20 per day?

That surely depends on the number of opportunities available for them to replace it. They'll definitely be going through boxes of them.

 

[nlogax]

Its worrying because it is something which is far more likely to remain permanent.

Nope, I sincerely doubt that.

 

[mmh]

Has there been any clarification on at what point you are classed as using public transport? Does it start from the moment you enter a vehicle, or when the vehicle sets off? Are you classed as using public transport when you are on a station or even waiting at a bus stop?

On underground systems it would make sense for masks to be compulsory as soon as you enter the station but non necessarily at a rural halt.

I'd expect it to be based on property, like other transport regulations. That's why smoking is prohibited on all railway property, enforcing it using the general legislation which concerns itself with enclosed spaces would be impossible.

What happens on rural halts, behind signal boxes and on fire escapes is of course a different matter. I wouldn't dream of smoking inside Birmingham New Street, but equally I've never walked "outside" Deganwy station to smoke. It's another public enforced law, the police have neither the resources nor the inclination to care about it.

 

[mmh]

And so the rise of the dictatorial state continues: new rules just imposed with no debate in Parliament, no definitive evidence produced. The true tragedy of what is happening is we are allowing so many of hard-won freedoms and principles to just ne taken away.

Indeed. I find the number of people who believe it's OK because they're acting in our interest rather scary.

 

[M28361M]

I've read that the disposable face coverings are only effective for half an hour before they require replacing. So anyone on a long journey needs a bag of them.

It does not have to be a surgical style face mask. A scarf or bandana, tied around the face so that it covers the mouth and nose, will do just fine.

There are non-disposable face coverings which can be worn, then taken home and washed, and worn again. Here is an example of one such product; a number of online retailers are offering similar: https://british-boxers.com/collections/face-masks/products/silk-feel-antibacterial-face-mask

 

[BJames]

Indeed. I find the number of people who believe it's OK because they're acting in our interest rather scary.

I suspect if this goes on for a long time this number will start to decrease. For now, I'm happy to go against my preference to not wear a face covering if it means a quicker reduction in the spread of the virus. But this is a dynamic approach and will change with any emergence of new evidence or if this goes on for too long with no evidence to suggest that it has helped.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

I suppose the only benefit of this new imposition is that it'll cut down on the number of mobile muppets bellowing into their phones on the daily commute.

 

[philthetube]

This is certainly a difficulty that needs to be worked on. I have been told that 'lip reading' is however often not literally reading words from the shape of lips but a series of informed guesses based around contextual information including lips. I wonder if anyone is a particular expert in that area can contribute? Masks with clear sections for all staff could be a solution.

I can tell you that since my mother, who is very hard of hearing , has discovered zoom it has become possible to have a conversation with her, it is impossible to do this on the phone.

 

[Non Multi]

I suppose the only benefit of this new imposition is that it'll cut down on the number of mobile muppets bellowing into their phones on the daily commute.

HI, CAN YOU HEAR ME OK? I'M WEARING A FACE MASK ON THE TRAIN!!!

I'M MUFFLED?
OK I'LL SPEAK LOUDER FOR YOU!!!

 

[td97]

Should definitely be a choice, given there's lots of evidence they don't actually do much.

There's little evidence they do anything, for wearer or others.

Much as I'm ambivalent about mask wearing, the whole point of it isn't to protect yourself, but to protect others from you unwittingly spreading it, in which case there is some evidence that it does seem to work. And when that's the goal, it doesn't need to be medical grade PPE (indeed, use of that in this setting is pointless!), just something that can catch droplets

Try running water through a cloth under your kitchen sink. See how the vast majority travels straight through? Now imagine a sneeze at 6-8m/s. Similar result.

Just been reading a Royal Society DELVE Initiative paper of May 2020 which suggests it is likely that face coverings reduce transmission particularly where social distancing is compromised

"suggests" is the key word. The fact is it's not proven and there is no definitive published research regarding face coverings. Actual research would make statements such as "face masks reduce transmitivity by x%" or "in comparable situations, those wearing masks were found to be at the same level of risk as those without masks".

due to hay fever, that will spread it everywhere (far more than 2m)

A sneeze travels up to 0.8m. Hence other countries use the 1m distance guideline.

So there is plausible evidence that even cheap surgical masks

Your quotes described medical-grade N95 masks and surgical masks, which the public are being told not to buy. Instead the public are being told to make homemade masks from tshirts.

I've just asked the question on social media, but let's try it here. If masks are so good at stopping the spread of the virus, why is social distancing still going to be applied?

Because homemade masks have not been widely accepted at being effective in stopping the spread of the virus.

I'll repeat from a post last month, but the key takeway is that more research is required regarding the effectiveness of face coverings, considering viral infections in general and SARS-CoV-2 (the pandemic coronavirus strain)
As an example, a published review of 12 research journal articles, considering influenza has the abstract:

There is some evidence to support the wearing of masks or respirators during illness to protect others, and public health emphasis on mask wearing during illness may help to reduce influenza virus transmission. There are fewer data to support the use of masks or respirators to prevent becoming infected. Further studies in controlled settings and studies of natural infections in healthcare and community settings are required to better define the effectiveness of face masks and respirators in preventing influenza virus transmission.

Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: a systematic review | Epidemiology & Infection | Cambridge Core

Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: a systematic review - Volume 138 Issue 4

doi.org

As there is no reasonable evidence that face coverings reduce transmission or protect the wearer (in fact most likely increase the risk to the wearer due to increased face-touching), I will ignore this guidance if public transport use is necessary at any point. Which, given I drive, should be no issue.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Yes, face covering will be compulsory in England from 15 June.
Anyone who do not comply will result in a fine.

Only on public transport, or anywhere outdoors? Public transport I understand (and I believe it's a good idea as social distancing is impossible on public transport), but I'd hate it if it was anywhere outdoors, especially when exercising.

 

[NorthOxonian]

Only on public transport, or anywhere outdoors? Public transport I understand (and I believe it's a good idea as social distancing is impossible on public transport), but I'd hate it if it was anywhere outdoors, especially when exercising.

Only on public transport.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Only on public transport.

That's good to hear.

 

[MattA7]

I hope it doesn’t encourage crime/anti social behavior on public transport after all if everyone has their face covered it will make identifying of the assailant(s) more difficult. In Scotland wearing face coverings in shops and public transport is recommended but not yet obligatory however the sturgeon is hinting about making it law

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Even gov.uk realises that masks don't really protect you lol
"The evidence suggests that wearing a face covering does not protect you, but it may protect others if you are infected but have not yet developed symptoms. "

 

[nedchester]

And so the rise of the dictatorial state continues: new rules just imposed with no debate in Parliament, no definitive evidence produced. The true tragedy of what is happening is we are allowing so many of hard-won freedoms and principles to just ne taken away.

I think the wearing of masks is a good idea but you make a very good point about laws being changed without due consultation.

There’s probably a good reason for these laws being challenged and/or possibly being declared unlawful.

 

[WM Bus]

Only on public transport, or anywhere outdoors? Public transport I understand (and I believe it's a good idea as social distancing is impossible on public transport), but I'd hate it if it was anywhere outdoors, especially when exercising.

So there will be an end to the restriction of 7 people maximum on a single decker bus.
As from what I heard I was under the impression this is still going to continue.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even gov.uk realises that masks don't really protect you lol
"The evidence suggests that wearing a face covering does not protect you, but it may protect others if you are infected but have not yet developed symptoms. "

The reason for mandation is the bit I've highlighted in your post. You are wearing one for others' benefit, not for your own. That doesn't work unless everyone wears one (or most people, the only exceptions being those with a good medical reason not to) - it's a bit like herd immunity in that regard.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

So there will be an end to the restriction of 7 people maximum on the bus.
As from what I heard I was under the impression this is still going to continue.

As far as I am aware there have been no changes to the guidance issued to bus operators since the compulsory face covering was announced.