The law is very clear, masks are not required.
The government has signalled its intention to scrap the
general mask mandate on public transport.
But they have openly encouraged operators to introduce their own mandates through conditions of carriage.
Whilst it sounds like National Rail services will not have such a mandate (thank goodness!), I am sure there will be some operators that will decide in favour of a mandate. And that percentage will be rather higher than if the government hadn't made such a suggestion.
If the government considers it sufficiently "safe" to lift the general mask mandate, it should surely not be necessary to encourage operators to introduce them in their stead.
It's obvious they are trying to please everyone in their approach. In doing so, they are not really pleasing anyone - masktivists will be worried sick there is no longer a general mandate, and those in the opposite camp will be incensed that the government has given operators
carte blanche to bring in their own mandates.
There was literally no impact on cases, admissions or deaths whatsoever when England brought them in. Have a look at a case graph and try to guess what date they were made a legal necessity. You can’t. It’s poor policy, the way most masks are worn makes not a toss of difference to health outcomes.
45 million people now have a vaccine. That’s good news and provides a good level of safety for nearly everyone.
Precisely my view. If this were
really about preventing transmission to any sort of notable degree, why is there not a minimum required standard of FFP2 or FFP3? Why are pathetic little splash shields acceptable?
As far as I'm concerned, mask mandates in the way they've been implemented in the UK are pure security theatre - just like shops, restaurants etc. that
insist you must sanitise your hands before entering - more than a year after it became clear that fomite transmission of Covid was negligible.