Face coverings compulsory on public transport in England from 15 June

[43066]

We must do what it takes to save lives!

That's the Locktivist argument, right?

But only the lives of those who die “with” Covid 19. The lives of others who might die as a result of these lockdown measures don’t seem to matter a jot!

Taping up 90% of train seats is unnecessary and a stupid overreaction. Enforcing the wearing of masks is unnecessary and a stupid overreaction. Sorted? Sorted.

Agreed. Although I’d suggest the enforcement of mask wearing is not only stupid, it’s also deeply sinister.

 

[sjpowermac]

We must do what it takes to save lives!

That's the Locktivist argument, right?



Taping up 90% of train seats is unnecessary and a stupid overreaction. Enforcing the wearing of masks is unnecessary and a stupid overreaction. Sorted? Sorted.



Because that's a sure fire way to change government opinion

Have it your way. Masks have been mandated, good luck with getting on a train without one.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If they are compulsory on public transport they reinforce the message that it is still dangerous to use public transport

My view is that if trains are so dangerous that you need to wear a mask then it's too soon to loosen lockdown. If it's the right time to loosen lockdown then masks are unnecessary.

There's also the issue of "asymptomatic spreading". Given the UK government has admitted up to 20% of test results could be wrong, it's hard to know whether people are asymptomatic or whether there is a false positive. Only this week in Australia we've seen people apparently die of Covid, only to find no trace of the virus at post-mortem.

 

[Journeyman]

They're talking out of the side of their hats.

They'll be back down the pubs and restaurants as soon as the percieved threat receeds. In the meantime, if they're cowering in their homes, they can't stop us doing all those things when they reopen (albeit responsibly).

Not read the guardian article on this but yes I can see that people like this exist. What do they think constitutes 'living'?

There really do seem to be some hardcore lockdown fetishists out there who seem to delight in telling us we should all put up with this for years if necessary. I've even seen people advocating martial law, and saying things like only one person per household should be allowed outside. I know that's rather more extreme than being told to wear masks on trains, but I see it as a slippery slope, and any freedoms taken away from us will need a long battle to bring back. The government has to be held accountable for its decisions, and the justification it's come out with so far is absolutely pathetic.

 

[sjpowermac]

They're talking out of the side of their hats.

They'll be back down the pubs and restaurants as soon as the percieved threat receeds. In the meantime, if they're cowering in their homes, they can't stop us doing all those things when they reopen (albeit responsibly).

I completely agree with what you’ve put there. It doesn’t make for good headlines to put ‘I’ll be going back to doing the things I enjoy’! If some want to go back to work and yet not enjoy the things you’ve mentioned then leave them to it!

 

[Bletchleyite]

He sounds like he's actively campaigning to make most of his own staff redundant!

Well, that or he wants the Government to continue paying for the running of a 12" to the foot train set for his members to play with, rather than it returning to its important role of shifting people around.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Have it your way. Masks have been mandated, good luck with getting on a train without one.

All of it is Covid theatre, but yes, there's no chance of getting any of it changed.

As for how long it lasts, 20 years on we still have the "temporary" limits on liquids in airline cabin baggage. Those restrictions are also capricious and have no basis in fact, but they do tick the "we must do something and this is something" box.

 

[sjpowermac]

There really do seem to be some hardcore lockdown fetishists out there who seem to delight in telling us we should all put up with this for years if necessary. I've even seen people advocating martial law, and saying things like only one person per household should be allowed outside. I know that's rather more extreme than being told to wear masks on trains, but I see it as a slippery slope, and any freedoms taken away from us will need a long battle to bring back. The government has to be held accountable for its decisions, and the justification it's come out with so far is absolutely pathetic.

I’ve no idea where you are taking this nonsense from. It doesn’t really help your argument against masks.

 

[Journeyman]

I’ve no idea where you are taking this nonsense from. It doesn’t really help your argument against masks.

I actually think it does. Do you actually follow public opinion?

 

[Searle]

We must do what it takes to save lives!

That's the Locktivist argument, right

Categorically not what the argument is. If you're going to be facetious and put words into my mouth then it's not worth the effort to discuss it with you, quite frankly.

 

[Bantamzen]

As you know, I was responding to a comment that said 'if this change can save even one person's life, I can't see how you can actively be against it', *not* 'if this change can save even one person's life *and doesn't cost too much*, I can't see how you can actively be against it'. Two different arguments, the first is an absolute statement, the second requires us to assess which side of a balance to land ourselves on.

Serious question coming up here. I'm 50 years old, in good health and someone who always maintains a good level of hygiene. However it is perfectly possible that I have passed a virus to one or more people in those five decades which could have led to their poor health and even death. Indeed my younger sister died as a result of complications following a bout of flu, that for all I know I could have inadvertently given her.

So given all the viruses throughout all the years, what makes this one so exceptionally special, so much so that we have to now fear each other as possible sources of infection & death?

But only the lives of those who die “with” Covid 19. The lives of others who might die as a result of these lockdown measures don’t seem to matter a jot!

All lives are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Agreed. Although I’d suggest the enforcement of mask wearing is not only stupid, it’s also deeply sinister.

If the science backed it up I'd disagree. But it doesn't, so I don't.

There really do seem to be some hardcore lockdown fetishists out there who seem to delight in telling us we should all put up with this for years if necessary. I've even seen people advocating martial law, and saying things like only one person per household should be allowed outside. I know that's rather more extreme than being told to wear masks on trains, but I see it as a slippery slope, and any freedoms taken away from us will need a long battle to bring back. The government has to be held accountable for its decisions, and the justification it's come out with so far is absolutely pathetic.

Indeed, the more I see the arguments from parts of society for masks "to protect others", the more I'm convinced that this isn't about other people but about them. When I read people saying "I'm doing this to protect others", the cynical part of my brain reads "I'm doing this to protect me, but by virtue signalling I can pretend I'm not". I realise that is a controversial thing to say, and I'm not sorry for saying it because I am starting to suspect it's true. Because of all the people I know personally, the ones in the lockivist & maskivist camps are generally in the lowest risk groups.

 

[Searle]

I read the original comment as an explanation that the cost of mask wearing is so low that it's justified, even for a small benefit i.e. not an absolute statement. Perhaps that's not what was meant, but it looked like it to me.

It's exactly what was meant

 

[Tetchytyke]

There really do seem to be some hardcore lockdown fetishists out there who seem to delight in telling us we should all put up with this for years if necessary.

There are, I see plenty of "we mustn't undo lockdown, they're only doing it for the economy" hot takes. Quite what we'll do without an economy to speak of seems to be lost on them. Oddly they're not screeching for cars to be banned.

The Locktivists terrify me. I hate the phrase "virtue signalling", but this is really what it is.

As for masks, I'm against them because they serve no purpose but I will wear one because, ultimately, there's not a jot of difference I can make to the decision.

 

[sjpowermac]

All of it is Covid theatre, but yes, there's no chance of getting any of it changed.

As for how long it lasts, 20 years on we still have the "temporary" limits on liquids in airline cabin baggage. Those restrictions are also capricious and have no basis in fact, but they do tick the "we must do something and this is something" box.

Argue with me all you like, I honestly couldn’t care less. I’d be much more interested in taking the government to task on a whole load of other issues. Currently they don’t have a proper system in place for ‘test and trace’. I think that’s far more concerning that face masks on trains.

 

[sjpowermac]

I actually think it does. Do you actually follow public opinion?

Can you quote a source for your claims? If not then I suggest you drop it.

 

[nedchester]

Argue with me all you like, I honestly couldn’t care less. I’d be much more interested in taking the government to task on a whole load of other issues. Currently they don’t have a proper system in place for ‘test and trace’. I think that’s far more concerning that face masks on trains.

Agree. Although if we are still being asked to wear face masks in 6 months I'd be concerned.

 

[sjpowermac]

There are, I see plenty of "we mustn't undo lockdown, they're only doing it for the economy" hot takes. Quite what we'll do without an economy to speak of seems to be lost on them. Oddly they're not screeching for cars to be banned.

The Locktivists terrify me.

What on earth are you talking about? If mandating masks on public transport results in the lifting of the current 10% to 20% capacity constraints, how is this being a ‘locktivist’?

 

[MikeWM]

It's exactly what was meant

Fair enough In that case I'll return to disagreeing with you on the basis of the costs vs the benefits, rather than the more absolute position.

 

[Journeyman]

Can you quote a source for your claims? If not then I suggest you drop it.

Go on to any newspaper website and read the comments. The Guardian is absolutely full of it, and has been for months. The OMG THE GOVERNMENT IS MURDERING US BECAUSE MCDONALDS IS REOPENING comments are depressingly common. It's usually accompanied by some pompous snobbery about the sort of person who likes McDonalds.

 

[Journeyman]

What on earth are you talking about? If mandating masks on public transport results in the lifting of the current 10% to 20% capacity constraints, how is this being a ‘locktivist’?

But we don't even know if that will happen yet. I guarantee both restrictions will end up in place. What then?

 

[sjpowermac]

Agree. Although if we are still being asked to wear face masks in 6 months I'd be concerned.

I absolutely despise the government and their sloppy handling of the crisis.

To be fair to them though they did produce the ‘Nando’s’ style alert level system. Perhaps a way forward would be to say: ‘whilst we are at level 4 masks are mandatory, once we reach level 3 the requirement for masks will cease’.

 

[sjpowermac]

Go on to any newspaper website and read the comments. The Guardian is absolutely full of it, and has been for months. The OMG THE GOVERNMENT IS MURDERING US BECAUSE MCDONALDS IS REOPENING comments are depressingly common. It's usually accompanied by some pompous snobbery about the sort of person who likes McDonalds.

Yes, because the comments section in the Guardian is absolutely representative of the population at large. I congratulate you on your very scientific analysis.

 

[43066]

The Locktivists terrify me. I hate the phrase "virtue signalling", but this is really what it is.

I agree. When their jobs go due to the imminent recession their views may change. By then it will be too late!

As for masks, I'm against them because they serve no purpose but I will wear one because, ultimately, there's not a jot of difference I can make to the decision.

Likewise. Although, one things for sure, I won’t be wearing one at work.

What on earth are you talking about? If mandating masks on public transport results in the lifting of the current 10% to 20% capacity constraints, how is this being a ‘locktivist’?

Just a thought, but those restraints could be lifted without mandating masks.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Absolutely. We really need to get to the point where people assess risk for themselves

But they aren't. Face coverings are not to benefit the wearer. They are to benefit others. You therefore can't risk assess for yourself, and this is the precise situation where the Government does need to step in.

As a comparison I oppose cycle helmet legislation as these exist to protect the wearer, but I support speed limits because they are primarily to protect others from the misuse of a motor vehicle in a dangerous manner.

 

[sjpowermac]

But we don't even know if that will happen yet. I guarantee both restrictions will end up in place. What then?

OK, let’s re-visit your post when we actually know. As I understand it, with more school children going back on 15th June, plus the re-opening of more shops, it is anticipated that there will be greater numbers of people travelling. If making masks mandatory doesn’t result in an increase in capacity being made available on the network then I do actually agree with you, it would be pointless. Let’s wait and see, I don’t think either of us knows for sure right now.

 

[Journeyman]

Yes, because the comments section in the Guardian is absolutely representative of the population at large. I congratulate you on your very scientific analysis.

I'm not saying it's scientific, I'm saying there's a body of public opinion that thinks we should be even more limited in what we can do than we are, and a lot of these people are driving the agenda. Did you hear Grant Shapps in the media this morning? He basically said "yeah, we know they don't really do any good, but making people wear masks might make a few people feel better." That is no justification at all, I'm afraid. Must try harder.

 

[43066]

Have it your way. Masks have been mandated, good luck with getting on a train without one.

How deliciously authoritarian!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even with the aerosol effect, there's no evidence that a face mask provides any more protection than, say, sneezing into a handkerchief or coughing into a tissue. Something which everyone already does anyway.

Umm, do they?

 

[sjpowermac]

Just a thought, but those restraints could be lifted without mandating masks.

I think making masks mandatory would be much better if it were linked to the government’s alert levels and their relation to social distancing. So, masks are mandatory at level 4 but once we reach, say, level 3 then take that restriction away.

Out of interest, what’s the take of the railway unions/staff on the ground. Are staff generally for or against?

 

[MikeWM]

Serious question coming up here. I'm 50 years old, in good health and someone who always maintains a good level of hygiene. However it is perfectly possible that I have passed a virus to one or more people in those five decades which could have led to their poor health and even death. Indeed my younger sister died as a result of complications following a bout of flu, that for all I know I could have inadvertently given her.

So given all the viruses throughout all the years, what makes this one so exceptionally special, so much so that we have to now fear each other as possible sources of infection & death?

A very important set of points, at the heart of the issues at hand. Viruses spread, they use humans to do so. Unless you're bring malicious and eg. deliberately going around coughing in people's faces, I believe you're just participating in the way life works. In certain specific situations (eg. in the operating theatre) you take further protections to protect the especially vulnerable.

Indeed, it helps maintain a healthy immune system to encounter the less severe nasties as you've then better protected against the real bad ones (eg. the fact that about half of us appear to be either immune to, or less susceptible to, a bad case of the current virus because we've had a previous common cold coronavirus). And there is at least some speculation now that the current virus is remaining strong in hospitals precisely because we're not letting it transmit between healthy people as normal, so the less dangerous mutations aren't overtaking the nastier versions.

As to what is special about this one, I have no idea. I am too young to remember the Hong Kong flu, but it appears to me that we took virtually no steps against that whatsover and just got on with our lives, though it killed about 80000 people in the UK (equivalent to 100000 at current population levels). Certainly it wasn't a *political* crisis - I've read political diaries of the period and I don't recall it being mentioned *at all*.