can public transport ever recover from COVID-19

[trebor79]

When the spray droplet has completely evaporated the virus within it dies - it needs moisture to survive.

That's just not true and exposes why the rest of your argument for masking is facile. You literally don't know what you are talking about and are likely regurgitating some pro-madk propaganda.
Viruses are not living organisms, they do not "live" and they do not "die". The don't need anything in particular to "survive" ready to infect a host.
A virus is just a little package of proteins. It can be destroyed by heat, UV light, soaps, detergents and disinfectants. Otherwise it'll just sit there.
A virus particle will not remain trapped on your mask fabric, it's going to be expelled either when its droplet evaporates, or be picked up by smaller droplets and expelled that way. It's entirely possible the mask increases the airborne time and thus range of any virus or other pathogen you exhale.

 

[Richard Scott]

A few people where I work are insistent that the hospitals were not overrun at all. One cites that A&E was virtually empty - I cannot convince him that behind the public area was a full ICU. Until there are people writhing on the floor in the public part of A&E due to overcrowding then we wont convince them. Its a two edged sword of course - perhaps many people that are still travelling are doing so because they think it is all a figment of some scientists imagination.

At risk of going off topic if I remember correctly another poster who works in medical environment said that ICU units were run at near to capacity anyway so that wouldn't be unusual. Not a reason for not travelling and going out and about.

 

[Bikeman78]

My partner commutes by bus. that is £1,300 per year (£25/week). I don't think leisure travel is a significant part of public transport's income - yet.



A few people where I work are insistent that the hospitals were not overrun at all. One cites that A&E was virtually empty - I cannot convince him that behind the public area was a full ICU. Until there are people writhing on the floor in the public part of A&E due to overcrowding then we wont convince them. Its a two edged sword of course - perhaps many people that are still travelling are doing so because they think it is all a figment of some scientists imagination.


The common/simple mask is to protect others from the WEARERS spray. The spray droplets are quite large as they leave the mouth / nose so easy for a mask to collect. Within the droplet is the virus. A person will not know they have Covid-19 at the stage where they can spread it so a mask is a precaution. As the droplets float through the air they evaporate so the droplet becomes smaller and harder for a mask to catch. So to protect YOURSELF you do need a better mask - one that is potentially harder to breath in. When the spray droplet has completely evaporated the virus within it dies - it needs moisture to survive. So the further people are a apart then the less chance there is of someone inhaling enough of the virus to get infected or getting it on other pats of the body that are vulnerable to attack. On public transport that social distancing limits the number of people who can travel unless masks are used. So to get more people safely on public transport relies on people to wear a mask. Not wearing a mask puts your fellow travellers at risk.

I disagree with your first point. Trains into Cardiff at 'peak' time are not busy. The 0815 arrival from Swansea used to be packed. Hardly anyone gets off now and it's pretty quiet all the way up to Paddington. Whereas a Friday lunchtime IET was well over half full. Same coming back on Sunday afternoon. A 12 car 377 from East Croydon to Victoria was full and standing throughout. The IET back to Cardiff was well loaded too. From my observations, leisure travel was keeping the railway alive over the summer.

 

[The Ham]

My partner commutes by bus. that is £1,300 per year (£25/week). I don't think leisure travel is a significant part of public transport's income - yet.

Something like 2/3rds of 2019 passengers were commuters (with the rest being business and leisure), so unless they are getting very cheap tickets they make up most of the income.

 

[GodAtum]

Same coming back on Sunday afternoon. A 12 car 377 from East Croydon to Victoria was full and standing throughout. The IET back to Cardiff was well loaded too. From my observations, leisure travel was keeping the railway alive over the summer.

Really?? I mean there's nothing open, what on earth are they doing!?

 

[Peter Sarf]

Or perhaps people are travelling for reasons that the guidance allows.

Thay haven't nailed us up in our homes just yet.

Thats what I hope !. The guidance that allows use of public transport amongst other things. As for nails - noo they can hurt you !.

That's just not true and exposes why the rest of your argument for masking is facile. You literally don't know what you are talking about and are likely regurgitating some pro-madk propaganda.
Viruses are not living organisms, they do not "live" and they do not "die". The don't need anything in particular to "survive" ready to infect a host.
A virus is just a little package of proteins. It can be destroyed by heat, UV light, soaps, detergents and disinfectants. Otherwise it'll just sit there.
A virus particle will not remain trapped on your mask fabric, it's going to be expelled either when its droplet evaporates, or be picked up by smaller droplets and expelled that way. It's entirely possible the mask increases the airborne time and thus range of any virus or other pathogen you exhale.

I beg to differ. Most if not all the basic masks include chemical to kill the virus. That is why they have a limited life span - no more than one days work in the case of the ones I am issued with. But some are limited to four hours iirc.

If you were right about masks being pointless then the two metre rule would be pointless.

Its true that it has been said that UV light kills virus'. That is one reason why summer is safer.

Summer also means people are more likely to be spread out outside and the virus exposed to UV light. We expect Winter to be a problem as it suits the more common Flu virus as well. For winter we are more likely to be close together indoors with less ventilation. That is where the risk with public transport comes in. But better ventilation, masks and cleanliness help mitigate the risks.

At risk of going off topic if I remember correctly another poster who works in medical environment said that ICU units were run at near to capacity anyway so that wouldn't be unusual. Not a reason for not travelling and going out and about.

But then hospitals increase the number of beds/wards turned over to ICU (also called intensive care aiui) as demand requires. BUT there is an overall limit to the number of empty wards, equipment and staff that are available. That was why the hospitals were sending old people into care homes, cancelling operations and outpatient appointments. Winter is when we reach the practical limit of expansion in ICU capacity. So a lockdown now is more urgent than it was back in Spring. So even more reason to be responsible on public transport.

Basically it would be nice if everyone did what they reasonably can to make public transport as safe as possible. Every little helps avoid a more draconian lockdown. Hide those nails !.

 

[Greybeard33]

From my observations, leisure travel was keeping the railway alive over the summer.

No, the railway is being kept alive by massive cash transfusions from the Treasury, to the tune of £14bn per year. See this post for @Bald Rick's calculation.

 

[Bikeman78]

Really?? I mean there's nothing open, what on earth are they doing!?

This was in August and early September. I've not been on a train since late September.

No, the railway is being kept alive by massive cash transfusions from the Treasury, to the tune of £14bn per year. See this post for @Bald Rick's calculation.

Fair enough but my point still stands. No commuter train into Cardiff has been full and standing since Mid March. Plenty of Welsh trains to tourist hot spots were full over the summer.

 

[GodAtum]

This was in August and early September. I've not been on a train since late September.


Fair enough but my point still stands. No commuter train into Cardiff has been full and standing since Mid March. Plenty of Welsh trains to tourist hot spots were full over the summer.

Ah OK. Hardly anyone on the train from East Croydon to Victoria and back this weekend.

 

[trebor79]

I beg to differ. Most if not all the basic masks include chemical to kill the virus. That is why they have a limited life span - no more than one days work in the case of the ones I am issued with. But some are limited to four hours iirc.

You're making stuff up again. I have seen one mask claiming to have a virucidal action, and this was a washable one.
The reason for changing masks after a few hours use is because they get damp and loaded with all sorts of pathogens and mould spores.
The cloth masks and surgical style make categorically do not "kill" viruses.

Please stop spreading this misinformation.

The reason distancing works is because you're outside of droplet range. If you double the distance you will quarter the dose you receive, and that's neglecting to account for droplets dropping to the floor, evaporating etc, so it's going to be a reduction in due of multiples of that.

 

[Bikeman78]

Further evidence of the commuter/leisure market split today. Cardiff roads at 0900, moderately busy but free flowing. Certainly nothing like commuters flows in February. When I entered Cardiff Central station concourse, I was the only passenger! No one else there in the time it took me to get to the ticket gates. The 09:36 to Rhymney was dead. Several staff, a few enthusiasts and maybe three 'normals.'

Heading back down the triple 153 on the 11:14 was quite busy with around 50% of seats taken south of Caerphilly. Presumably these were mainly shoppers. My joy was short lived as the roads outside were very busy. The queue for the John Lewis car park stretched back to the prison.

 

[Peter Sarf]

You're making stuff up again. I have seen one mask claiming to have a virucidal action, and this was a washable one.
The reason for changing masks after a few hours use is because they get damp and loaded with all sorts of pathogens and mould spores.
The cloth masks and surgical style make categorically do not "kill" viruses.

Please stop spreading this misinformation.

The reason distancing works is because you're outside of droplet range. If you double the distance you will quarter the dose you receive, and that's neglecting to account for droplets dropping to the floor, evaporating etc, so it's going to be a reduction in due of multiples of that.

I am not "making stuff up" it is what I was told and I believe I understand it. So do not be so rude. But you are entitled to your belief and I am entitled to my belief. It is always trotted out that it is misinformation. But from where I stand I see different misinformation. And I also tend to believe personally that masks have a benefit. Further more my employer is spending money on them so must think there is a benefit. Indeed a lot of employers and countries seem to think masks have a benefit. Until someone scientific can prove masks are dangerous then I prefer to see people wearing them as it benefits public transport and should reduce the need to restrict life so that people lose their jobs and sanity.

As for the water droplets. Are you saying that the water they are formed of does not evaporate ?.

 

[Domh245]

But you are entitled to your belief and I am entitled to my belief.

In the context of scientific evidence, belief has no place.

It is always trotted out that it is misinformation. But from where I stand I see different misinformation. And I also tend to believe personally that masks have a benefit. Further more my employer is spending money on them so must think there is a benefit. Indeed a lot of employers and countries seem to think masks have a benefit.

Very few people are disputing the effectiveness of masks (singular). More generally people dispute the effectiveness of mass mask wearing by the public, but in this specific case your statement about masks including a "chemical to kill the virus" is absolutely misinformation, unless you can provide some evidence of this claim?

 

[Peter Sarf]

In the context of scientific evidence, belief has no place.



Very few people are disputing the effectiveness of masks (singular). More generally people dispute the effectiveness of mass mask wearing by the public, but in this specific case your statement about masks including a "chemical to kill the virus" is absolutely misinformation, unless you can provide some evidence of this claim?

I agree scientific evidence trumps belief. (EDIT - I just realised there is maybe a pun there).

I will see what I can find about what I have been told and the masks we use. I was told that some last for only about four hours whereas other last for about one day.

One concerning thing I have noticed and will flag up is that some people think that something that kills or filters bacteria is equally effective for a virus. I have also seen this with cleaning chemicals. I think that maybe boils down to not understanding the difference between a virus and bacteria. Does that seem correct ?.

Do you think that a mask at least reduces the spread of water droplets that can contain a virus ?. Otherwise I wonder why we are encouraged to put a (our !) hand / sleeve over our mouth when we sneeze.

 

[Richard Scott]

Further more my employer is spending money on them so must think there is a benefit. Indeed a lot of employers and countries seem to think masks have a benefit.

So are many probably falling into the being seen to be doing something category. Masks are cheap and if something does go wrong they can say they took precautions so not their fault. Doesn't mean they believe they work. Having said that think lots of people have been duped into thinking they are some kind of saviour as they don't bother researching to find out, just take it as read.

 

[Peter Sarf]

So are many probably falling into the being seen to be doing something category. Masks are cheap and if something does go wrong they can say they took precautions so not their fault. Doesn't mean they believe they work. Having said that think lots of people have been duped into thinking they are some kind of saviour as they don't bother researching to find out, just take it as read.

I certainly agree that bodies like employers will avoid potential blame by playing safe. But it is a lot of people getting fooled if this is all a fallacy. I would not see masks as a saviour but just one of many things that can reduce risk. I believe that, unless masks are proved to be counterproductive rather than potentially ineffective, we should use them. This is because masks, even if not very effective, are a lot cheaper than restricting movement which results in job losses etc.

This is getting dangerously narrow in relation to the overall topic of the thread .

 

[big_rig]

Have you considered wearing goggles too at all times, Peter? They’ll stop covid getting into your eyes after which you may start a chain of transmission which makes its way to a vulnerable person. Imagine having that on your conscience! Just another thing to do to reduce risk, keep PT going and prevent lockdowns

 

[Peter Sarf]

Have you considered wearing goggles too at all times, Peter? They’ll stop covid getting into your eyes after which you may start a chain of transmission which makes its way to a vulnerable person. Imagine having that on your conscience! Just another thing to do to reduce risk and prevent lockdowns

Tee Hee.

Some at work are trying the face shield. I think that would also cover that. But yes it has been said that the virus can get you infected via the eyes.

Actually what you say brings up two alternative uses of masks :-

Some see a mask as a method of protecting the wearer from infection. The masks that achieve that tend to be better fitting, more expensive and hard work to wear. Certainly the ones I tried were. The goggles you mention of course would be needed to accompany that.

The alternative (which is what everyone is generally wearing) is a mask that prevents the wearer from spreading any infection they might already have. Those masks, from what I see, are generally the disposable ones. The idea being that the individual is responsible for trying not to spread any infection they already have. That seems to be what is dictated for public transport or public places. It makes sense that the first type will fulfil this role as well. The goggles would not be part of that type of protection as I understand it.

 

[trebor79]

I am not "making stuff up" it is what I was told and I believe I understand it. So do not be so rude. But you are entitled to your belief and I am entitled to my belief.

"Most if not all of the basic masks include chemical to kill the virus". That is made up nonsense, if not by you then by whomever told it to you. I have seen one single mask on the market (a cloth reusable type) that claims to contain "nano-copper" to destroy Coronvirus - I'm very sceptical of that claim. In fact it's getting increasing common to see mask packaging with disclaimers specifically pointing out that it will not provide any protection against viruses.
If you're so convinced "most" basic masks have this chemical, please point me towards a product information sheet that states this?

This isn't a question of belief. You're entitled to believe your mask protects you if you want to, but it's highly dangerous to go around trotting out this sort of nonsense. What if a vulnerable person believes you, then alters their behaviour and starts shopping in person rather than online, for example, safe in the false knowledge that their basic cloth mask contains a chemical that will destroy coronavirus?

It is always trotted out that it is misinformation.

That's be cause it is.

But from where I stand I see different misinformation. And I also tend to believe personally that masks have a benefit. Further more my employer is spending money on them so must think there is a benefit.

I don't know what industry you work in, but it's very possible its an industry that currently requires you to wear a mask by law in certain circumstances, and therefore your employer has little say in the matter.

Indeed a lot of employers and countries seem to think masks have a benefit. Until someone scientific can prove masks are dangerous then I prefer to see people wearing them as it benefits public transport and should reduce the need to restrict life so that people lose their jobs and sanity.

I don't think they help. I don't think they are dangerous from a COVID POV, (although I think they are disgustingly unhygienic and a source of all sorts of infection). However, trying to convince people that they have a magical chemical on them which will destroy virus particles is dangerous if vulnerable people chance their behaviour.

As for the water droplets. Are you saying that the water they are formed of does not evaporate ?.

No. I'm saying it does evaporate, so the chances of a droplet reaching you if you double your distance from the source is actually going to be even less than a quarter than it was if standing closer, because some of them will have evaporated.

 

[Peter Sarf]

"Most if not all of the basic masks include chemical to kill the virus". That is made up nonsense, if not by you then by whomever told it to you. I have seen one single mask on the market (a cloth reusable type) that claims to contain "nano-copper" to destroy Coronvirus - I'm very sceptical of that claim. In fact it's getting increasing common to see mask packaging with disclaimers specifically pointing out that it will not provide any protection against viruses.
If you're so convinced "most" basic masks have this chemical, please point me towards a product information sheet that states this?

This isn't a question of belief. You're entitled to believe your mask protects you if you want to, but it's highly dangerous to go around trotting out this sort of nonsense. What if a vulnerable person believes you, then alters their behaviour and starts shopping in person rather than online, for example, safe in the false knowledge that their basic cloth mask contains a chemical that will destroy coronavirus?


That's be cause it is.

I don't know what industry you work in, but it's very possible its an industry that currently requires you to wear a mask by law in certain circumstances, and therefore your employer has little say in the matter.


I don't think they help. I don't think they are dangerous from a COVID POV, (although I think they are disgustingly unhygienic and a source of all sorts of infection). However, trying to convince people that they have a magical chemical on them which will destroy virus particles is dangerous if vulnerable people chance their behaviour.

No. I'm saying it does evaporate, so the chances of a droplet reaching you if you double your distance from the source is actually going to be even less than a quarter than it was if standing closer, because some of them will have evaporated.

I agree that the further away people are the better. I have said the same. But the point of face masks is to reduce the number of droplets sprayed out by a person thus allowing people to be in closer proximity. That is very important in enclosed places like public transport.

I will go away and find out more about the chemical argument when I get a chance. But if incorrect that does not invalidate the argument for masks which was the original point before we got fixated on one point.

As for your concern that people might mistakenly think they are safe to go shopping, or indeed any other activity because of a certain mask being allegedly superior when it is not. I agree that is not good and Donald Trumps ideas fall into that category. However I see more people taking the risk in the sense of not believing there is anything to be cautious about in the first place. It is not too sinister as I think a growing number of people are fed up with it all and want to believe Covid-19 is not that bad, tbh even I sometimes get tempted or at least lower my guard. Apart from that there is a danger of building more and more argument based on a tenuous line of potential cause and effect.

Public transport is normally in an enclosed space. Enclosed spaces are believed to present a higher risk of infection. Face masks are supposed to be a way of preventing that spread. If that saves lives and encourages the use of public transport then it is a good thing.