Face coverings compulsory on public transport in England from 15 June

[al78]

Question for those of you who don't like masks; if mandatory use of face coverings was linked to the full return of leisure travel on trains (ie bye bye 'essential journeys only'), would you change your minds and wear them so you could do what you enjoy doing most?

It's a tiny price to pay if it's part of a route back to normality. I've zero qualms about wearing them.

I don't particularly relish the idea of wearing one, but I will comply if it were compulsory on public transport, because the freedom of mobility is more important to me than any inconvenience or discomfort of wearing a mask.

 

[nlogax]

I’m well aware of that. My point is that I’d rather it was still here for another ten years than live in a dystopian world where masks are compulsory.

This 'dystopian' thing I keep reading about here..it's tin foil hattery at its finest. There's nothing dystopian about wearing masks for a short period of time to help prevent the spread of a disease for which there is no known cure.

 

[Clayton]

I’d much prefer the virus was still around and we didn’t have to wear masks than have it gone and be forced to wear them. I doubt I’m alone.

That doesn’t make sense!! Why do you have such a problem with wearing a mask? Are you vain?

 

[nlogax]

I don't particularly relish the idea of wearing one, but I will comply if it were compulsory on public transport, because the freedom of mobility is more important to me than any inconvenience or discomfort of wearing a mask.

Completely agree with you.

 

[al78]

Take a good drink before boarding and you will not need another before arriving unless you have a medical condition relating to this. Tube journeys (unless you're riding laps of the Circle Line for a laugh) are simply not long enough for you to dehydrate to a dangerous extent if you were properly hydrated before you boarded.

Whether it is "needed" is irrelevant. You can survive up to about three days without water, but the point is if people were forced to go hours without a drink, that would be uncomfortable, especially in hot weather, and would be unreasonable. Part of the reason you get a thumping headache the morning after overindulgance in alcohol is because of dehydration.

 

[Bantamzen]

This 'dystopian' thing I keep reading about here..it's tin foil hattery at its finest. There's nothing dystopian about wearing masks for a short period of time to help prevent the spread of a disease for which there is no known cure.

Define "a short period of time"....

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whether it is "needed" is irrelevant. You can survive up to about three days without water, but the point is if people were forced to go hours without a drink, that would be uncomfortable, especially in hot weather, and would be unreasonable. Part of the reason you get a thumping headache the morning after overindulgance in alcohol is because of dehydration.

If you were properly hydrated before starting a Tube journey, you will not be dehydrated to the extent of having a "thumping headache" by the end of it even in the hottest weather unless there is something wrong with you.

This obsession with carrying a bottle of water is recent - early 2000s I think. It is not necessary.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Define "a short period of time"....

A couple of years, potentially.

If they cause a sustained downturn in spread and allow other measures to be relaxed (e.g. we can remove all social distancing controls on trains) then they are a benefit for as long as the virus remains in circulation. And there is only one way to really know if they will do that - try it for a few weeks.

 

[al78]

Firstly, see the quote from @nedchester

Secondly seat belts and helmets have scientific evidence behind them.

It has been theorised that when seat belts were made compulsory, KSI for motorists went down but for vulnerable road users/pedestrians they increased. The seatbelts made drivers feel safger so they subconsciously took more risks, externalising the consequences. It would be a pity if compulsory face masks made people feel safer from COVID to the point where they became more careless with their personal hygiene.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It has been theorised that when seat belts were made compulsory, KSI for motorists went down but for vulnerable road users/pedestrians they increased. The seatbelts made drivers feel safger so they subconsciously took more risks, externalising the consequences. It would be a pity if compulsory face masks made people feel safer from COVID to the point where they became more careless with their personal hygiene.

If the overall effect is positive (the virus drops more than it would have been expected to) then that doesn't matter. Indeed, it might be a benefit - if they work well, 2m could be reduced to 1m or even removed entirely, which is a far better thing for the wider economy than the minor inconvenience of wearing one.

If the effect isn't positive, quietly drop them.

 

[Bantamzen]

A couple of years, potentially.

If they cause a sustained downturn in spread and allow other measures to be relaxed (e.g. we can remove all social distancing controls on trains) then they are a benefit for as long as the virus remains in circulation. And there is only one way to really know if they will do that - try it for a few weeks.

That's not a short period of time. In fact a more cynical person might suggest that such a period of time would be far easier to extend.

It has been theorised that when seat belts were made compulsory, KSI for motorists went down but for vulnerable road users/pedestrians they increased. The seatbelts made drivers feel safger so they subconsciously took more risks, externalising the consequences. It would be a pity if compulsory face masks made people feel safer from COVID to the point where they became more careless with their personal hygiene.

And this is one of the reasons why the WHO don't recommend masks in public.

 

[al78]

On the contrary, if the government wishes to compel the entire population to do something on pain of legal penalties for not complying then it had better be on the basis of overwhelming scientific evidence and sound reasoning. Which this is not.

"If it helps just a little bit it's worth it".

Compulsory motorcycle helmets for motorists and pedestrians then. That would significantly reduce severe head injuries, so it must be worth doing.

I would wear a mask if it was required, and I would likely get used to it quickly, but those with the strongest support for their compulsion are really going to have to come up with some better logical arguments if they want to persuade me that it is really essential. If you really are right, such a persuasive logical argument should exist.

 

[Mintona]

That doesn’t make sense!! Why do you have such a problem with wearing a mask? Are you vain?

1. There is no scientifically proved point.
2. Everybody looks stupid.
3. I can’t wear one without it fogging up my glasses.

 

[AM9]

Agree, but many think that wearing the masks will stop them getting the virus, and that is not correct They may wll help others, and I have not said otherwise, but those that think they will be protected by wearing one, will be disappointed.

It is clear from here that there are many - shall we say 'misconceptions', about the various measures' intended effect. However this thread is specifically about the mandating of wearing masks to reduce the incidence of persons infecting others whilst using public transport. In that respect, the majority of wearers are fully aware of why masks are being worn (I.e. we are talking about passengers who will mostly be of working age). So as has been noticed in other countries* where the population has complied with requests, there is a case for those travelling in this country to do same.
Controlling (and eradicating) the virus is a national task which relies on the majority of people doing the right thing. Most will, - just as the majority of the population complied with the stay at home requests over 10 weeks, and so it will be on the wearing of face covering on public transport. Those objecting have four choices:
1) stay away (or be stopped when trying) from using public transport
2) if there is a genuine medical resonance for not being able to wear a mask, get verification from a GP
3) wear a mask
4) just keep splitting hairs here, - it won't change the rules but it might give them some self-satisfaction
* see post #285 from xydancer above

 

[Tetchytyke]

then that starts to look like good evidence that they are doing something right that we aren't.

I completely agree, but that doesn't mean face coverings are that thing. It's interesting though; face coverings are culturally used across most of the Far East, and places like Japan and Singapore are also doing better than the UK. But then places like New Zealand, which doesn't force their use, are doing better too.

The Isle of Man is a small, and somewhat isolated, island. That by itself gives a fair degree of protection.

Again, I completely agree, which was kind of my point. Correlation and causation are not the same thing.

I can agree with the argument "there's no evidence they work, but they don't do any harm so why not?". I'm not so sure I agree that's the best way to write legislation.

My view? If you want to wear one, fill your boots but forcing their use is unnecessary and is purely politically motivated.

 

[AM9]

1. There is no scientifically proved point.
2. Everybody looks stupid.
3. I can’t wear one without it fogging up my glasses.

Sounds like the poster is vain then, given the response to question 2. Better to look good and ignore the health of others. M.....!

 

[yorksrob]

There is such a thing as the precautionary principle.

In this instance, we're not certain about the evidence, but there is a good chance that it has had a positive effect in other countries, and we know that face covering can impede the distribution of saliva droplets, therefore under the current circumstances, it is worth taking the precaution of wearing face coverings (subject to any further evidence emerging/change to the overall situation).

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's not a short period of time. In fact a more cynical person might suggest that such a period of time would be far easier to extend.

What on earth would be the motivation to do that? (Conspiracy theories don't count).

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is such a thing as the precautionary principle.

In this instance, we're not certain about the evidence, but there is a good chance that it has had a positive effect in other countries, and we know that face covering can impede the distribution of saliva droplets, therefore under the current circumstances, it is worth taking the precaution of wearing face coverings (subject to any further evidence emerging/change to the overall situation).

This is my take on it exactly. Basically, it is worth a go as something which is minor inconvenience and negligible cost.

 

[Bantamzen]

I can agree with the argument "there's no evidence they work, but they don't do any harm so why not?". I'm not so sure I agree that's the best way to write legislation.

There no evidence wearing a paper bag over our heads works, but it doesn't do any harm so why not?

Seriously though, despite the government admitting masks may have little benefit, they are still perfectly happy to fine us if we don't comply. Dystopian much?

What on earth would be the motivation to do that? (Conspiracy theories don't count).

Well if we need them for covid, why not influenza, or any one of the myriad of other airborne viruses? You've witnessed on these forums just how hard some people pushed for this, all on unsubstantiated evidence, so what is to stop pressure on future governments in keeping the compulsion way into the future "just in case"? Indeed what's to stop pressure on making masks compulsory in all areas of public life. I'm pretty certain if the Tories haven't thought about this yet, at some point a wag like Cummings might point out that making people wear masks could used as an excuse for future healthcare cuts? After all if everyone is wearing masks, there will be less people needing the NHS right?

And before you instantly dismiss that as conspiracy, just think about it for a moment....

 

[nlogax]

1. There is no scientifically proved point.
2. Everybody looks stupid.
3. I can’t wear one without it fogging up my glasses.

Good grief. Also, you're wrong. I rock the face covering look

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well if we need them for covid, why not influenza, or any one of the myriad of other airborne viruses? You've witnessed on these forums just how hard some people pushed for this, all on unsubstantiated evidence, so what is to stop pressure on future governments in keeping the compulsion way into the future "just in case"? Indeed what's to stop pressure on making masks compulsory in all areas of public life. I'm pretty certain if the Tories haven't thought about this yet, at some point a wag like Cummings might point out that making people wear masks could used as an excuse for future healthcare cuts? After all if everyone is wearing masks, there will be less people needing the NHS right?

And before you instantly dismiss that as conspiracy, just think about it for a moment....

There's one reason why this won't happen - it makes CCTV basically useless. CCTV is more useful than preventing a few people getting flu. Though if we do get a particularly bad year and lots of people are dying, why not?

 

[Bantamzen]

There's one reason why this won't happen - it makes CCTV basically useless. CCTV is more useful than preventing a few people getting flu. Though if we do get a particularly bad year and lots of people are dying, why not?

Oooh I don't know, because we don't actually know that it works, that it might make people less conscious hygiene-wise, you know the reasons why the WHO don't recommend them in public....

 

[LAX54]

But making them mandatory, and people saying yes / no/ whatever, does deflect the conversation from the idiotic 14 day quarantine rule if you come in by Air, Sea or Train, unless you come via Eire ! plus the fact that there are some 2 million+ exempt, and the F1 teams too

 

[Tetchytyke]

Seriously though, despite the government admitting masks may have little benefit, they are still perfectly happy to fine us if we don't comply. Dystopian much?

Today's news is the government say they are being guided by their expert advisers at the Joint Biosecurity Centre. Sounds amazing. I'm reassured.

The Joint Biosecurity Centre doesn't actually exist.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

Matt Hancock has said that the Joint Biosecurity Centre, the body tasked with assessing the Covid-19 alert level, is not yet up and running.
The Joint Biosecurity Centre would have a national role "to provide the advice and the information that would then be acted on locally".

It would advise the UK's chief medical officers who would report to ministers and local health bodies.

Mr Hancock told the Downing Street press conference the Joint Biosecurity Centre “still formally needs to come into existence”, adding that “it’s being formulated at the moment”.

There no evidence wearing a paper bag over our heads works, but it doesn't do any harm so why not?

My wife tells me that me wearing a paper bag over my head works for her. That's evidence, right?

 

[Mojo]

2. Everybody looks stupid.

Society, aided by the government, has been mocking people who wear masks in public (outside of a medical / work setting) for the past 3 months, and now we’re told to get on with it and wear them..?

 

[nlogax]

But making them mandatory, and people saying yes / no/ whatever, does deflect the conversation from the idiotic 14 day quarantine rule if you come in by Air, Sea or Train, unless you come via Eire ! plus the fact that there are some 2 million+ exempt, and the F1 teams too

That it does. It's a ridiculous rule, but I'll reply to you on the correct thread

 

[Journeyman]

Question for those of you who don't like masks; if mandatory use of face coverings was linked to the full return of leisure travel on trains (ie bye bye 'essential journeys only'), would you change your minds and wear them so you could do what you enjoy doing most?

It's a tiny price to pay if it's part of a route back to normality. I've zero qualms about wearing them.

No. I have a car and would use that rather than have to wear masks.

 

[WM Bus]

So how will it be possible to tell who does/doesn't have an excemption such as breathing difficulties if this is going to be enforced?
And when will the full list of excemptions be published -

"The Department for Transport hasn’t yet published a full list of exactly who will be able to get away without wearing one".

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11785932/exemptions-face-masks-public-transport/

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oooh I don't know, because we don't actually know that it works, that it might make people less conscious hygiene-wise, you know the reasons why the WHO don't recommend them in public....

So let's give it one 4 week review period (they just changed it on the quiet from 3!) and see?