UK face coverings discussion

[Mojo]

A muzzle is an object used to prevent an animal from opening its mouth. That is not what masks are for. The only reason people use the term "muzzle" to describe a face covering is to create immediate and unjustified prejudice against them.

Or to put it another way, muzzles are about exerting control over one animal regardless of the health risks, for the perceived safety of another, which is exactly what masks are all about...

Although unlike face masks, muzzles are probably more effective at their intended purpose.

 

[Bantamzen]

I don't disagree that this is a political decision, and I wish the government would stop pandering to the Facebook "sovereign-citizen" brigade. Next they'll start telling the NHS to get rid of the advice to have children vaccinated. It's infuriating.

But isn't this the whole problem, that is that the decisions are political? We've seen the shift in policy by the WHO, in what has been alleged as a result of political pressure, and we are watching in real time the government also constantly shifting theirs. This alone should be more than enough to start asking questions, even before you consider the potential negative effects of mandating masks.

The way, albeit simplistic that I see it is that if masks were really a way of significantly reducing spread, why was there not a single global consensus from the beginning? Masks have been used for decades in medical settings, as well as the protocols to ensure their correct use. So how is it not that almost every country can have differing approaches at different times? Add to this the original advice from the WHO was most definitely not to recommend their use in public, because it may result in a reduction in hygiene and distancing, even presenting a risk through spreading by contact, and I'm left wondering quite what all this achieves.

 

[AM9]

As I've said before, I believe that's because the average IQ on here is way above Facebook level and intelligent people challenge requirements that have no evidence or associated metrics to support them. ...

On the contrary, I suggest that social media attracts those with extreme views and the amount of outrage expressed by some can be inversely proportional to their IQ, and more to do with their need to try and validate their own views in an echo chamber environment. That applies to any controversial subject, for the preceding four years it was the referendum and its aftermath. Were it not for the pandemic, it would be the UK government's progress (or lack of) towards "taking back control". The views of the regulars on RUK are split differently on each subject, but each member has a different approach to forwarding their case.
So this year, there are relatively few references to 'worst great western' or 'thamestink', and the misnomers of 'muzzle', 'mask enthusiasts' (which is an irony on a rail enthusiasts forum) and other expressions have replaced them, still intended to denigrate a person rather than address the subject of the discussion.

 

[yorkie]

The use of the term "muzzles" goes back over a hundred years; I don't see how it is any different to referring to things as "plastic" as a way of saying fake, insincere, unauthentic or inferior. There are many more examples of terms which are not intended to be taken literally; it's part of our language and culture to do that.

 

[bramling]

As it's not the law, BTP aren't relevant, it is a matter of company policy. Whether the TOCs would risk upsetting the Unions by enforcing that I don't know, probably not.

It’s not a case of upsetting the unions, but a case of upsetting individual members of staff. Not everything on the railway leads to unions, as some people here seem to believe!

 

[87electric]

Or to put it another way, muzzles are about exerting control over one animal regardless of the health risks, for the perceived safety of another, which is exactly what masks are all about...

Although unlike face masks, muzzles are probably more effective at their intended purpose.

Is the correct answer and I defy anyone who argues against it.

 

[py_megapixel]

Or to put it another way, muzzles are about exerting control over one animal regardless of the health risks, for the perceived safety of another, which is exactly what masks are all about...

Is the correct answer and I defy anyone who argues against it.

Moving on from the term "muzzle" I fail to see how masks are "exerting control" over anybody.
If your only argument is "because it's another rule we have to follow" then restaurants that have a formal dress code are "exerting control", on-the-spot penalties for dog fouling are "exerting control", and I could go on. You can argue that masks aren't beneficial, that's fine. But it's daft to suggest that masks are some enormous conspiracy by the government to control the population more closely.

What I assume you actually mean is that is sets a dangerous precedent for other more restrictive regulations in the future. But I don't think the general population is oblivious enough to continue to wear masks once the virus is gone.

 

[trainophile]

The TM on the TPE I’m currently on is announcing after every stop that “blah blah blah... unless you have an exemption certificate”. I don’t feel it’s my place to put him right but I expect somebody will.

 

[Tetchytyke]

But I don't think the general population is oblivious enough to continue to wear masks once the virus is gone

I've highlighted the interesting bit.

Lockdown was originally to prevent the NHS becoming overrun. Now we're seeing lockdowns in local areas because reported infection rates are rising, despite the fact a) testing capacity has increased and b) there is no corresponding increase in hospital admissions. This, in turn, is despite the over-reporting of Covid admissions during lockdown, as reported by The Telegraph (paywall): https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...s-inflated-height-pandemic-investigation/amp/

I think it is interesting how the government are moving the goalposts to maintain the sense of fear and emergency. It's also interesting that mask rules change whenever criticism of other government activities ratchets up, with an effect of diverting attention.

I don't know if this any of this is deliberate or sinply an act of political cowardice or what. But the "emergency" (and removal of normal procurement rules) has certainly been lucrative for friends of the government.

Like flu, I suspect SARS-type viruses are here to stay in the wild. I think local eradication is possible (as here on the Isle of Man) but global eradication isn't. So how long will masks stay?

 

[MikeWM]

Like flu, I suspect SARS-type viruses are here to stay in the wild. I think local eradication is possible (as here on the Isle of Man) but global eradication isn't. So how long will masks stay?

Exactly so - SARS-1 is still with us, as indeed is the Spanish Flu 102 years later. Viruses don't just disappear. [Edit : as has been pointed out to me, actually SARS-1 *isn't* with us anymore, and did actually just disappear in 2004. Seems less likely that SARS-2 will be quite so obliging given how more prevalent it has become, however]

Plus, if Hancock manages to get his insane idea of 4 million tests a day up and running, we'll be getting about 4000 'cases' a day reported through *false positives* alone, even if the virus *had* entirely disappeared.

There is little-to-none connection between what is going on with the virus and what is going on with the masks. That's why people are now searching for other motives (of various nefariousness).

 

[yorkie]

Here is a question regarding exemptions:

What advice would you give to someone who is exempt?

I've heard reports of people being challenged in an inappropriate way (e.g. some Northern Guards have shouted at people; some Scotrail Guards have asked for medical certificates); clearly this is unacceptable and complaints need to be made to their employers.

I've also been made aware that some people who are covered by exemptions are wearing masks for some of the time, either from the start of their journey for as long as they can until they are no longer able/comfortable doing so, or only doing so when social distancing isn't possible (as per WHO guidelines), either way limiting the time they are wearing a mask. However this does lead to other passengers, staff, and others, assuming such people are not covered by an exemption, on the basis that they are capable of wearing one, and therefore should be wearing one.

My conclusion is that people who are exempt are entitled to not carry an exemption card, wear a lanyard or anything else, and are also entitled to wear a mask for a limited time as they deem fit, but I would instead recommend they do wear an exemption lanyard and do not attempt to wear a mask any of the time, thus minimising the possibilities of being on the receiving end of unpleasant communications or being wrongly deemed/assumed to be guilty of wrongdoing.

Thoughts?

 

[MikeWM]

My conclusion is that people who are exempt are entitled to not carry an exemption card, wear a lanyard or anything else, and are also entitled to wear a mask for a limited time as they deem fit, but I would instead recommend they do wear an exemption lanyard and do not attempt to wear a mask any of the time, thus minimising the possibilities of being on the receiving end of unpleasant communications or being wrongly deemed/assumed to be guilty of wrongdoing.

As previously mentioned, I've migrated from attempting to wear one occasionally, to not doing so at all, partly because of the issues you raise about people assuming you're not exempt if you're doing so for *some* of the time.

I also agree that wearing a lanyard is probably better if you want to minimise potential confrontation. Personally I've chosen not to, though I've printed out the cards from the government website and am prepared to produce them if necessary, and have this government page bookmarked ('No person needs to seek advice or request a letter from a medical professional about their reason for not wearing a face covering') to also show if required. So far neither has been necessary.

One potential positive to consider about wearing a lanyard is that it also informs other people who may be struggling that there are exemptions available - as we know, this hasn't been especially well communicated so far.

 

[adc82140]

Regarding the school masks, I've just had a look at the Facebook page of my local radio station, which is the natural habitat of the Karen. They asked whether their listeners supported masks in schools. I'd say it was 90% no, which is encouraging. There was still one on there who said they "didn't want the little ones to get sick and die", but they had that statement well and truly dissected by the other users.

 

[Andyh82]

According to the BBC News at One, Labour saying the government hasn’t gone far enough, masks should be compulsory in secondary schools, not just at the head teachers discretion .

Surprisingly despite Wales not making a decision yet there is no “Welsh government under pressure” angle

 

[island]

A slight injection of sanity this morning, when the chaps from Currys came to deliver my new oven one suggested he could wear a mask if we wanted, we said of course not and asked if he wanted us to take any precautions, he said of course not and got on with it. We stayed out of one another’s ways as we would have done anyway.

Far more problematic is that there are nine different cooking modes on the oven, at least five of which seem superfluous...

 

[Bletchleyite]

According to the BBC News at One, Labour saying the government hasn’t gone far enough, masks should be compulsory in secondary schools, not just at the head teachers discretion

I think realistically it would tidy up the mess to simplify it apply to everyone in "all indoor public places, where indoor is defined by the smoking ban and public place is defined as a place which is not a private dwelling or vehicle in which there are people from more than one household, where not needing to be removed to eat or drink where the wearer wishes to do so", and setting a minimum age (is it 11?) and the exemptions already in place.

 

[trainophile]

Wales doesn’t even require them in shops apparently. Talk about mixed messages.

 

[island]

Wales does even require them in shops apparently. Talk about mixed messages.

Did you mean “doesn’t”?

I think realistically it would tidy up the mess to simplify it apply to everyone in "all indoor public places, where indoor is defined by the smoking ban and public place is defined as a place which is not a private dwelling or vehicle in which there are people from more than one household, where not needing to be removed to eat or drink where the wearer wishes to do so", and setting a minimum age (is it 11?) and the exemptions already in place.

I strongly disagree. This considerably widens the requirement to require mask-wearing in gyms, swimming pools, escape rooms, pubs, restaurants, indoor parts of theme parks, and numerous other buildings. We need fewer restrictions, not more.

 

[trainophile]

Yes

Did you mean “doesn’t”?

Yes I did. This iPhone has a mind of its own. I will edit...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Did you mean “doesn’t”?

I suspect so. But this isn't incongruous, shops are probably lower risk for transmission than secondary schools (and then they take it home and give it to more vulnerable people). In secondary schools, children will sit within 2m for more than 15 minutes all day. In supermarkets, it's perfectly possible not to do that.

 

[43066]

My conclusion is that people who are exempt are entitled to not carry an exemption card, wear a lanyard or anything else, and are also entitled to wear a mask for a limited time as they deem fit, but I would instead recommend they do wear an exemption lanyard and do not attempt to wear a mask any of the time, thus minimising the possibilities of being on the receiving end of unpleasant communications or being wrongly deemed/assumed to be guilty of wrongdoing.

Thoughts?

I quite agree.

If you’re exempt, and yet wear a mask for some of the time, that will completely undermine your credibility.

If people feel more comfortable carrying a lanyard they should, although there is absolutely no obligation to do so. Personally I’ve had no issues simply explaining that I’m exempt on the (rare) occasions where I’ve been asked, over the last few weeks.

 

[yorkie]

I strongly disagree. This considerably widens the requirement to require mask-wearing in gyms, swimming pools, escape rooms, pubs, restaurants, indoor parts of theme parks, and numerous other buildings. We need fewer restrictions, not more.

I completely agree!

I suspect so. But this isn't incongruous, shops are probably lower risk for transmission than secondary schools (and then they take it home and give it to more vulnerable people). In secondary schools, children will sit within 2m for more than 15 minutes all day. In supermarkets, it's perfectly possible not to do that.

Which makes masks pointless, in these sorts of settings.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which makes masks pointless, in these sorts of settings.

Only if you believe (as I know you do) that they achieve nothing. If like me you believe they have an effect, that will reduce transmission, even if only by a small amount.

 

[py_megapixel]

Only if you believe (as I know you do) that they achieve nothing. If like me you believe they have an effect, that will reduce transmission, even if only by a small amount.

But you have to see it in proportion. A tiny reduction in transmission may not be worth the complexity of enforcing a mask mandation while ensuring that those with exemptions are fairly treated.

 

[43066]

Only if you believe (as I know you do) that they achieve nothing. If like me you believe they have an effect, that will reduce transmission, even if only by a small amount.

I’m glad you accept it’s a belief. That’s all it is, given the lack of evidence.

Other people might believe that carrying cloves of garlic wards off the virus, should the government make that a legal requirement too, “just in case”?

 

[py_megapixel]

I’m glad you accept it’s a belief. That’s all it is, given the lack of evidence.

We must also treat the assumption that they do nothing as just a belief.

 

[Justin Smith]

Yet more proof face masks may be doing more harm than good (apart from upsetting loads of people that is) :

The Times 24 Aug (p10)

Sweden claims fall in coronavirus infection rate is down to immunity

Sweden is beating many European countries in the fight against new coronavirus infections, possibly because of its decision not to implement tough lockdown measures.As cases surge across Europe, leading to new restrictions such as the mandatory wearing of facemasks in many public areas, the infectio

www.thetimes.co.uk

Sweden which decided not to implement compulsory measures and which rejected the use of masks has a [infection] rate of 37 per 100,000. The government is recording between 200 and 300 cases a day, with deaths down to three last Friday. Anders Tegnell, the Swedish state epidemiologist leading the response to the pandemic, has noted that infection rates have increased in countries such as Spain, Belgium and France during and following the mandatory wearing of masks in many public areas. The belief that masks can solve our [Covid] problem is very dangerous he said last week.

 

[MikeWM]

But you have to see it in proportion. A tiny reduction in transmission may not be worth the complexity of enforcing a mask mandation while ensuring that those with exemptions are fairly treated.

We also need to start asking ourselves how necessary reduction in transmission actually *is* anymore. If people are getting infected but no longer getting seriously ill - which increasingly seems to be the case - then who cares?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yet more proof face masks may be doing more harm than good (apart from upsetting loads of people that is) :

The Times 24 Aug (p10)

Sweden which decided not to implement compulsory measures and which rejected the use of masks has a [infection] rate of 37 per 100,000. The government is recording between 200 and 300 cases aday, with deaths down to three last Friday. Anders Tegnell, the Swedish state epidemiologist leading the response to the pandemic, has noted that infection rates have increased in countries such as Spain, Belgium and France during and following the mandatory wearing of masks in many public areas. The belief that masks can solve our [Covid] problem is very dangerous he said last week.

I think we need to know why. If it's because people are using them not to distance at all (rather than to drop to 1m where 2m is genuinely not possible), we perhaps need to ramp up "project fear" to get them to distance again.

 

[43066]

We must also treat the assumption that they do nothing as just a belief.

Proving a negative is impossible.

Science generally works on the basis that theories are proven to be correct before they are believed. What we have at the moment is a legal requirement to wear face coverings, which has been introduced despite little to no evidence of their efficacy.

That is deeply worrying.