nlogax
Established Member
No. I have a car and would use that rather than have to wear masks.
Not everyone has that luxury. If you didn't have have a car, would you not travel because of the face covering rule?
No. I have a car and would use that rather than have to wear masks.
IF you get them in place quickly enough.
3. I can’t wear one without it fogging up my glasses.
Not everyone has that luxury. If you didn't have have a car, would you not travel because of the face covering rule?
Not everyone has that luxury. If you didn't have have a car, would you not travel because of the face covering rule?
When I was suffering from high pollen counts early last week, I took to just sneezing into my elbow/shoulder when out and about - far easier/quicker than any tissues and significantly less unpleasant than a mask!
Until yesterday, woven plastic face coverings were 75p in Spar and reusable cloth ones £3-5 in Decathlon. They may sell out now, of course, but if you can't find one, make one. There are lots of patterns online, including no-sew.
Someone I know involved in the response planning in the civil service (who I've mentioned here before, though obviously not by name) says the Unions insisted, and the Goverment doesn't want to pick fights with them at the moment. This would explain why public transport but not supermarkets, and might also explain why public transport has been "essential use only" so far - you may recall it being posted here that the Unions had said it before.
Rail unions have threatened to strike over government plans for an “army” of volunteers at transport hubs to remind travellers to wear a face covering.
The transport secretary, Grant Shapps, announced the policy of using volunteers without consultation according to the RMT union, which condemned moves to put unpaid workers in “safety critical roles”.
...
The RMT general secretary, Mick Cash, said the Department for Transport had “done a backroom deal to recruit unpaid and unskilled workers on our railway without even so much as conversation with rail unions,” and the union would consider a strike ballot.
So you can get fined £80 for failing to wear a face covering on public transport, despite non medical grade coverings being next to useless. You really couldn’t make it up. 1984!
The Spar I went to was charging £3.99 for a single mask.
A SINGLE MASK.
No wonder its "So dear, so Spar"
Given the virtually-simultaneous messages from the Unions in response yesterday, I can believe this.
Although it seems they may be about to find that this was a bad plan
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-strike-over-shappss-face-covering-volunteers
!
I've always been very pro-Unions. But given the actions of the rail unions (along with the teachers unions) over the last few months, I'm sorry to say they are rapidly losing my support.
Given the virtually-simultaneous messages from the Unions in response yesterday, I can believe this.
Although it seems they may be about to find that this was a bad plan
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-strike-over-shappss-face-covering-volunteers
!
I've always been very pro-Unions. But given the actions of the rail unions (along with the teachers unions) over the last few months, I'm sorry to say they are rapidly losing my support.
So you can get fined £80 for failing to wear a face covering on public transport, despite non medical grade coverings being next to useless. You really couldn’t make it up. 1984!
40,000 people have died in this country alone due to the virus, and you're calling out 1984 because you're being told to wear a face mask? I think you need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture here.
Even if they aren't a huge amount of use, if this change can save even one person's life, I can't see how you can actively be against it.
1. There is no scientifically proved point.
2. Everybody looks stupid.
3. I can’t wear one without it fogging up my glasses.
Is it not obvious? Because currently many people without car access are being prevented from travelling further than they can walk in any circumstances, unless they are going to work perhaps.How exactly is forcing someone to wear a face mask if they wish to travel further than walking distance 'getting back to normal' ?
Your claim that they have no effect is a false claim. People have linked to peer reviewed papers, politely, again and again, for your benefit.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.
Quite. It was appalling to send the message that masks are foolish. But so many things the government did early on the crisis were appalling, this one is easily missed.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..?
How exactly is forcing someone to wear a face mask if they wish to travel further than walking distance 'getting back to normal' ?
Your claim that they have no effect is a false claim. People have linked to peer reviewed papers, politely, again and again, for your benefit.
Either you could come up with comprehensive rebuttals to these, or you could drop it. Regardless of what you say, the evidence is convincing: the coverings reduce the transmission of the disease by aerosol particles from infected people. They are being recommended in spaces where closer contact is inevitable, which increases risk, where people are inside, which increases risk, and where there are an increasing number of people who mix widely every day, which increases risk.
Nothing you try to complain about is going to make this less true. No claims are being made that cloth masks protect their wearer. No claims are being made that they are 100% effective, or even very effective, because even some wearing of the coverings reduces the reproduction rate of the virus.
Quite. It was appalling to send the message that masks are foolish. But so many things the government did early on the crisis were appalling, this one is easily missed.
Even if they aren't a huge amount of use, if this change can save even one person's life, I can't see how you can actively be against it.
I'd rather put up with masks (in far more settings than they are being required here) for a year or two to knock it on the head sooner and ensure it stays gone. It's a minor measure which could help greatly, and if it doesn't it can just be dropped.
I was a rep for the NUT for many years so am a big supporter of the unions. I think the teaching unions have been quite reasonable just wanting reasonable adjustments. My wife is still a teacher and they are introducing groups over the next couple of weeks not shouting 'strike' like the RMT.
Put it this way if we can't get people back on the trains the RMT will have more to worry about than a few volunteers.
The RMT has been campaigning for compulsory wearing of masks on public transport and this is long overdue, but we fear this announcement is being driven not by safety concerns but by the premature easing of the lockdown which is swelling passenger numbers and making social distancing on transport increasingly impossible
By themselves, face masks are nowhere near enough to protect passengers and worker safety on public transport. They need to be combined with preventing non-essential travel and compulsory enforcement of two-metre social distancing.
200,000 people a year die from Malnutrition, yet plenty of people are against raising the aid budget.40,000 people have died in this country alone due to the virus, and you're calling out 1984 because you're being told to wear a face mask? I think you need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture here.
Even if they aren't a huge amount of use, if this change can save even one person's life, I can't see how you can actively be against it.
40,000 people have died in this country alone due to the virus, and you're calling out 1984 because you're being told to wear a face mask? I think you need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture here.
Even if they aren't a huge amount of use, if this change can save even one person's life, I can't see how you can actively be against it.
Exactly...... how much trouble is it just to put a face covering on? Seriously if that's all people have got to worry about........,
Ok, I propose all motor vehicles from now on are restricted to 5mph at all times. That will save thousands of lives a year. Why would anyone oppose that?
Seriously though, this 'safety-ism' appears to be going to become the 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear' of the 2020s
I agree with all you’ve put there. The teaching unions have been excellent, certainly at a local level, and have actually worked very hard to help get schools open.I was a rep for the NUT for many years so am a big supporter of the unions. I think the teaching unions have been quite reasonable just wanting reasonable adjustments. My wife is still a teacher and they are introducing groups over the next couple of weeks not shouting 'strike' like the RMT.
The RMT probably don't have grounds for strikes here. The 'volunteers' are there to help rail staff not take their jobs. I suspect any ballot over this would be deemed illegal. Additionally, a Tory Government with a 80+ majority wanting to get the economy going again aren't going to take kindly to this.
Put it this way if we can't get people back on the trains the RMT will have more to worry about than a few volunteers.