I wasn't that bothered, it let in the DC motor thrash as well as the cold air!A very magnanimous response. It would have been more polite of her to simply move to another seat if she felt uncomfortable, rather than imposing on someone else.
I wasn't that bothered, it let in the DC motor thrash as well as the cold air!A very magnanimous response. It would have been more polite of her to simply move to another seat if she felt uncomfortable, rather than imposing on someone else.
* - There is a (deeply dubious) "meta analysis" in circulation by some economists at John Hopkins University, "proving" that "lockdowns" don't work.
Because, for the journey I made, I had reasonable alternative options that would not have required me to use TfL.Being legally permissable does not make it morally right. You claim that you entered into the contract freely, but how is that the case given that TfL have a monopoly on an essential public service?
Fair enough in this instance, but don't assume everyone has a reasonable alternative for every journey they make. Not everyone who is bound my TfL's terms entered into the contract genuinely by choice.Because, for the journey I made, I had reasonable alternative options that would not have required me to use TfL.
If the >20% effect on transmission in that John Hopkins study is justified (a big if!), then in a pre-vaccination society, I believe the gain from mass mask wearing would have been justified. In today's UK, I do regard it as disproportionate. I do then agree with you that a side effect of the focus on mass mask wearing has been to diminish focus on how the CEV can be protected most effectively, leading to the very confused and unhelpful debate that we have at present.I realise you’re talking about where we are now.
But curious to know, given the enormous experiment in “face covering” mandation that has taken place over the last two years, do you think the government was right to take the approach they did? I have a sneaking suspicion that you will agree that mask mandates, requiring low quality masks to be worn in everyday settings, simply haven’t been shown to be effective.
My personal view is that a recommendation to CEVs to wear FFP type masks would certainly have been more proportionate, and likely more useful response that what we ended up with. Unfortunately an honest discussion about the relative effectiveness of different types of mask has been stifled, presumably because it would have undermined the (extremely tenuous) justifications offered for mandating face coverings. As a result many people clearly believe that all face coverings are equal.
I've known plenty who'd have argued that being made to wear black tie is as onerous an imposition on their freedom of expression as a mask! More seriously, I consider that mask wearing is different in degree for precisely the reasons you give, but not to the point of onerousness that you and others would argue.I’d have to fundamentally disagree with you there, given how important facial expressions are for human interaction. I’m sure you can see how being asked to wear a facial mask isn’t the same as being asked to wear a Tux to the opera!?
Which is a matter that applies to a number of the conditions of carriage of railway companies, and the way that they are heavily weighted to the operator. That does not take them to illegitimacy (by which I mean that a court would not uphold them).Fair enough in this instance, but don't assume everyone has a reasonable alternative for every journey they make. Not everyone who is bound my TfL's terms entered into the contract genuinely by choice.
Which is a matter that applies to a number of the conditions of carriage of railway companies, and the way that they are heavily weighted to the operator. That does not take them to illegitimacy (by which I mean that a court would not uphold them).
On which note we will have to agree to disagree, as our views on whether masks are "degrading" are obviously so far apart that there can be no agreement on whether requiring them could ever be moral.Again, a court upholding something does not mean that it is morally right. Nor does the same situation also existing elsewhere, if any other train company chose to unilaterally impose degrading conditions on the public then that would also be morally wrong.
This ignores the fact that you contribute to those social norms. If you would like to see mask wearing not be a social norm at this point in time, then not wearing one is the best way to do so, and this has the most influence in the range of the mid point.No, choosing to fit in with social norms in the places I go. Because I ultimately don't think mask wearing is a hill worth dying on
Why are you so keen to fit in with what everyone else is doing?No, choosing to fit in with social norms in the places I go. Because I ultimately don't think mask wearing is a hill worth dying on.
Because I think that particular norm will fade away over time, and that it is better that it does so of its own accord than that the issue is forced.This ignores the fact that you contribute to those social norms. If you would like to see mask wearing not be a social norm at this point in time, then not wearing one is the best way to do so, and this has the most influence in the range of the mid point.
Not "keen", but choosing to fit in with those norms. Perhaps I'm just a conformist?Why are you so keen to fit in with what everyone else is doing?
Fair enough. I guess you would make a good anthropologistBecause I think that particular norm will fade away over time, and that it is better that it does so of its own accord than that the issue is forced.
If the >20% effect on transmission in that John Hopkins study is justified (a big if!), then in a pre-vaccination society, I believe the gain from mass mask wearing would have been justified. In today's UK, I do regard it as disproportionate. I do then agree with you that a side effect of the focus on mass mask wearing has been to diminish focus on how the CEV can be protected most effectively, leading to the very confused and unhelpful debate that we have at present.
I've known plenty who'd have argued that being made to wear black tie is as onerous an imposition on their freedom of expression as a mask! More seriously, I consider that mask wearing is different in degree for precisely the reasons you give, but not to the point of onerousness that you and others would argue.
Not "keen", but choosing to fit in with those norms. Perhaps I'm just a conformist?
I will wear a mask in some situations as long as I feel it is needed, years if needed and if some people don't like that, well that tough as far as I'm concerned, as far as mitigations before covid goes, as was advised to avoid very crowded environments if possible, so I would tend to try avoid situations where that might be a particular issue but overall it didn't put much restriction on my daily life.With all due respect, that’s likely to be the case whatever measures everyone else takes, and you are of course free to avoid settings you consider to be “high risk” in your own life. But unless you want to remain in perpetual restrictions we are going to have to go back to normal at some stage, and indeed are now doing so (too late in my view).
Out of interest were you also following mitigations pre Covid?
I will wear a mask in some situations as long as I feel it is needed, years if needed and if some people don't like that, well that tough as far as I'm concerned, as far as mitigations before covid goes, as was advised to avoid very crowded environments if possible, so I would tend to try avoid situations where that might be a particular issue but overall it didn't put much restriction on my daily life.
I can easily mitigate some issues, ordering groceries online picking up as click and collect instead of going into the store is no hardship as far as I'm concerned, and the Carvery meals that we used to go to the pub for we can get them to take out and have them at home.
Well its not ideal but people have to adapt as everyone has to adapt to situations that they find themselves in.I don’t think anyone should criticise you if you wish to wear a face covering.
However, from what you say you are making some quite big changes to your life compared to as it was prior to Covid. You say it’s not much hardship but surely such a substantial change must cause some amount of distress?
The answer is simple: they erroneously do not believe we will (or should) reach endemic equilibriumThis a particularly bizarre claim given that it is presumably based on the premise that masks slow transmission, so how can they think that slowing transmission will result in endemic equilibrium being reached sooner?
Most people have no interest in wearing a mask, no desire to do so, no wish for anyone else to do, but equally are not interested in getting into a debate either.Judging by much of the discussion on here over the last couple of years, I'm not sure I could agree with that premise.
Correct; surveys are often done by people with a lot of time on their hands. I did a few back in the first lockdown and then I realised what a waste of time it was and I found other things to do!Who fills in these surveys? People that don't use trains?
There is no legal requirement; TfL requested one and the Government so. It's nothing more than a request and all anyone has to say is "I am exempt" and that is the end of the matter.That's as maybe, but you were questioning the right of TfL to impose this particular requirement, not the reasonableness of that requirement.
Exactly; I am glad you admit it.I'm well aware it's a political move by Khan to push it as hard as he does, though the requirements elsewhere suggest a range of reasons which go beyond politics
How convenient- I am not commenting on those*.
But you are; you can deny it all you want but you are well aware there is no actual requirement for you to wear a mask; no-one can make you wear a mask; the reasons for you being asked to wear a mask are purely due to Khan's political posturing.It is however legally permissible for TfL to impose mask wearing as a condition of carriage and, as a contactless user, that is part of the contract I commit to when I use TfL services. Please do not presume to tell me what I am or am not endorsing when I obey a contract I have freely entered into.
The onus is on those who believe in lockdowns to prove they do work; as stated in the appropriate thread.* - There is a (deeply dubious) "meta analysis" in circulation by some economists at John Hopkins University, "proving" that "lockdowns" don't work.
That's clearly nonsense because if it was true that there was a 20% drop in mask wearing, how did cases end up so incredibly high in mask-mad countries like France? Why did cases fall in England after the mask mandate ended on 19th July and yet cases rose in Scotland soon after that date, where masks were still required? And why aren't cases going up 20% in England now that masks are no longer mandated?What is interesting is that the data they publish, based on the studies (actually, I believe, really only one that they have cherry picked) shows a >20% reduction in transmission from mask wearing - picked up from a Twitter thread by Tom Whipple - https://twitter.com/whippletom/status/1489197133509054471?s=20&t=DqrIp0qdR3Zy4a4j7TJ7Mg, and especially a reply by Abish Stephen including this screenshot:
View attachment 109747
Mask wearing is not a social norm here and never will be.No, choosing to fit in with social norms in the places I go. Because I ultimately don't think mask wearing is a hill worth dying on.
It sounds like you are not prepared to adapt to the inevitable fact that you are going to be exposed to Sars-CoV-2 though.Well its not ideal but people have to adapt as everyone has to adapt to situations that they find themselves in.
You cannot avoid exposure to Sars-CoV-2 indefinitely.I will wear a mask in some situations as long as I feel it is needed, years if needed and if some people don't like that, well that tough as far as I'm concerned, as far as mitigations before covid goes, as was advised to avoid very crowded environments if possible, so I would tend to try avoid situations where that might be a particular issue but overall it didn't put much restriction on my daily life.
You can restrict your life as much as you want as long as you are no longer calling for restrictions on our lives.I can easily mitigate some issues, ordering groceries online picking up as click and collect instead of going into the store is no hardship as far as I'm concerned, and the Carvery meals that we used to go to the pub for we can get them to take out and have them at home.
Rogue companies like LNER are trying to force masks upon us with appalling messaging like "be considerate and wear a mask" and for as long as this messaging continues I am going to be pushing back against it.Because I think that particular norm will fade away over time, and that it is better that it does so of its own accord than that the issue is forced.
You are not conformist to the majority of people, who are unmasked. Selective conformism?Not "keen", but choosing to fit in with those norms. Perhaps I'm just a conformist?
Not only that but a huge (and ever increasing) proportion of cases are asymptomatic, but that's for another thread!This is why track and trace was doomed to failure. Who is going to admit that they went round their mate's house or attended an illegal party? Maybe we should all have said we were round Boris Johnson's place!
This annoys me so much - it's very guard dependent and thankfully some say nothing at all, but when I was in Oxford last weekend periodic announcements at the station were "thank you for wearing a face covering and being considerate for other passengers" or something of the like - great, yep, I'm inconsiderate / selfish, etc.....Rogue companies like LNER are trying to force masks upon us with appalling messaging like "be considerate and wear a mask" and for as long as this messaging continues I am going to be pushing back against it.
Yes thanks but no thanks for the advice, I know you think you are some kind of self appointed expert and anti mask crusader but I will take my advice from appropriate medical people thanks. In my case there was no antibody response after 2 jabs so I am relying on a T cell response, and like many very high risks groups we have been sent PCR kits and a number to ring in case of infection, so as far as I'm concerned avoiding covid infection as long as possible is preferable.That's clearly nonsense because if it was true that there was a 20% drop in mask wearing, how did cases end up so incredibly high in mask-mad countries like France? Why did cases fall in England after the mask mandate ended on 19th July and yet cases rose in Scotland soon after that date, where masks were still required? And why aren't cases going up 20% in England now that masks are no longer mandated?
Mask wearing is not a social norm here and never will be.
It sounds like you are not prepared to adapt to the inevitable fact that you are going to be exposed to Sars-CoV-2 though.
You cannot avoid exposure to Sars-CoV-2 indefinitely.
I appreciate you are distrusting of vaccines (even though they are highly effective against severe illness, including those who are immunocompromised ) and you therefore aim to avoid exposure but it's just not going to be possible. All you will do is delay it.
You'll need to wear a tight fitting FFP3 mask, replaced on a regular basis, and correctly handled/stored when removed, indefinitely to have any chance and you'd need to never eat or drink out. The mask would need to be worn in the presence of any friends or family members, not just in public.
You can restrict your life as much as you want as long as you are no longer calling for restrictions on our lives.
Rogue companies like LNER are trying to force masks upon us with appalling messaging like "be considerate and wear a mask" and for as long as this messaging continues I am going to be pushing back against it.
If you want the issue to no longer be "forced" from any side, there must either be no messaging or entirely neutral messaging e.g. "Masks are optional; please respect each person's choice" or words to that effect. We've had this debate many times before.
You are not conformist to the majority of people, who are unmasked. Selective conformism?
Not only that but a huge (and ever increasing) proportion of cases are asymptomatic, but that's for another thread!
You are rejecting my advice regarding effective FFP3 masks? I thought you previously said you were wearing "high grade" masks; what did you mean by that?Yes thanks but no thanks for the advice....
I think you will find genuine experts on virus transmission will agree that you would need to wear a tight fitting FFP3 mask (or similar; an FFP2 is not quite as good but far better than a flimsy masks) if you want to avoid transmission and that flimsy, loose fitting masks don't cut it.I know you think you are some kind of self appointed expert and anti mask crusader but I will take my advice from appropriate medical people thanks.
T cells are the key to fighting Sars-CoV-2 and there is no need to have antibodies prior to a Sars-CoV-2 infection.In my case there was no antibody response after 2 jabs so I am relying on a T cell response
Feel free to delay it as long as possible if you like but you are going to be exposed to it.and like many very high risks groups we have been sent PCR kits and a number to ring in case of infection, so as far as I'm concerned avoiding covid infection as long as possible is preferable.
Some areas of Germany mandated FFP2 masks but their case rates still shot up massively.I wouldn't claim that although if everybody had worn FFP2/3 masks I suspect things would have been better...
And how would you force that upon people? Employ mask police to harass people as if we were living in China?it would also would have course needed for people to wear them properly and not under their nose as many people do.
For two years people have debated the value of masks, vaccine passports and more, to the point that they are no longer opinions but identities. And when opinions become identities, they warp our understanding and make it harder to change one’s mind as the situation changes. The truth is that we are all biased.
But some are more biased than others!!A good article on the question posed by this thread in the New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/04/opinion/covid-denmark-end-of-pandemic.html?smid=tw-share
Indeed; it's very easy to do a bit of research and realise that tight-fitting FFP3 masks, when correctly worn/handled/stored are highly effective, whereas flimsy masks which are worn as standard to comply with mandates are ineffective.But some are more biased than others!!
Well you seem to have gone to a lot of effort there to try and manipulate my answers negatively.You are rejecting my advice regarding effective FFP3 masks? I thought you previously said you were wearing "high grade" masks; what did you mean by that?
I think you will find genuine experts on virus transmission will agree that you would need to wear a tight fitting FFP3 mask (or similar; an FFP2 is not quite as good but far better than a flimsy masks) if you want to avoid transmission and that flimsy, loose fitting masks don't cut it.
T cells are the key to fighting Sars-CoV-2 and there is no need to have antibodies prior to a Sars-CoV-2 infection.
Feel free to delay it as long as possible if you like but you are going to be exposed to it.
Some areas of Germany mandated FFP2 masks but their case rates still shot up massively.
How much do you think it would cost for everyone to wear FFP2/3 masks in accordance with the recommendations? What would you do with the landfill that would create and how would you pay for it? and for what purpose; to delay the onset of endemic equilibrium?
And how would you force that upon people? Employ mask police to harass people as if we were living in China?
While T Cells are important yes there is concern from my consultants that the vaccines will not be any where near as effective as a person with a normal immune system who has a vaccine, still maybe I should bow to your superior knowledge on this then again perhaps not. That's why the NHS has sent PCR tests to very high risk groups and number to ring so that potentially some of the early treatment drugs that are now available can be administered quickly.
The argument that people wear masks and cases still shoot up is an argument that frequently used against them, in your case your using the fact that some parts of Germany used FFP2 masks but how do you know that that things wouldn't have been even worse if no masks were worn, and the answer to that in my view is you don't.
I said it would be helpful if people wore masks properly I didn't say anything about forcing people to do that which is not really practical.
This.Were you masking prior to 2020? The only thing that has changed between now and then is that masks have been adopted for political reasons; the science hasn’t altered one iota.
That's not what I'm saying, what I am saying that just because cases rise when there is a mask mandate doesn't mean they don't work, yes you can also argue it doesn't mean they do work either.Well that’s unfortunate but the only practical thing for you to do is wear FFP2/3 type masks. If you’re already doing that I’m not sure what more can really be done?
So on that basis the government could adopt any arbitrary measure; requiring everyone to carry a crucifix around with them, for example. When that had no discernible difference in Covid infection rates. Your response would be, “we need to keep doing it, because how do you know things wouldn’t be worse otherwise?”.
Essentially it’s a massive exercise in confirmation bias: you’re starting from the basleess premise that this measure works and then ignoring any evidence that it doesn’t on the basis that “we aren’t doing enough of it”, or “things might be worse otherwise”.
That is a logical fallacy which makes it possible to justify any measure in perpetuity, however ineffective, and how ever negative its other impacts might be.
Were you masking prior to 2020? The only thing that has changed between now and then is that masks have been adopted for political reasons; the science hasn’t altered one iota.
It won’t be helpful for anybody if people wear low quality loose fitting surgical or fabric masks which don’t stop viral transmission. They have indeed been forced to do so over the past two years and it has made not the blindest bit of difference.
That's not what I'm saying, what I am saying that just because cases rise when there is a mask mandate doesn't mean they don't work, yes you can also argue it doesn't mean they do work either.
It seems to me that there are plenty of articles regarding studies on the internet that suggest that wearing of masks can be of some benefit, and that higher grade masks will likely work better, clearly the conclusion with higher grade masks is hardly rocket science.
Seems to me that your equally belligerent in your belief that masks are not effective, yet the scientists that recommended mask wearing must had some scientific basis for it, or did they just do it for a laugh and to annoy people like you.But there are still no proper randomised control test type studies showing a benefit. It’s impossible to identify at what point mandates were identified by looking at case figures.
At what point will you accept the measure (mandation if loose coverings in everyday settings) doesn’t make any discernible difference? It sounds to me like your mind is made up and you will never accept masks don’t work, much like a religious belief.
How is persisting in this belief (and that’s what it is) with no evidence underlpinning it any different to being an anti vaxxer?
You can find articles on the internet telling you the world is flat and that that Jews caused 9-11. These are conspiracy theories, difficult to disprove, because it’s impossible to prove a negative, but with no evidence underpinning them. Much like masks!
Look into the government's psychological "nudge" unit and the reasons for mask wearing will become clear. Unethical to say the least.Seems to me that your equally belligerent in your belief that masks are not effective, yet the scientists that recommended mask wearing must had some scientific basis for it, or did they just do it for a laugh and to annoy people like you.
Seems to me that your equally belligerent in your belief that masks are not effective, yet the scientists that recommended mask wearing must had some scientific basis for it, or did they just do it for a laugh and to annoy people like you.