Face coverings compulsory on public transport in England from 15 June

[sjpowermac]

Its pretty much the way I feel. Had these measures kicked in from the start, I still wouldn't like them but at least it would be consistent to a degree. But just lobbing them in randomly, and politically means I feel the need to object.

The railway network, certainly in the north, isn’t currently functioning in any meaningful way. Northern trains are running round with the majority of seats taped off ‘out of use’, they really do look like a crime scene rather than a pleasant environment in which to travel. Passenger numbers are very low, I’ve seen trains that are normally rammed where numbers are in single figures.
If you don’t like masks, what’s your suggestion for the way forward?

 

[Journeyman]

I really don't get this idea of masks promoting "security" or "confidence". They have the exact opposite effect on me - I find them creepy and oppressive, and seeing lots of people wearing them makes me anxious, even though I have very little fear of contracting the virus.

 

[Tetchytyke]

People have linked to peer reviewed papers, politely, again and again, for your benefit.

Except they haven't, have they. An op-ed in The Lancet is not a peer reviewed scientific trial. Its just "wot I reckon".

Even with the aerosol effect, there's no evidence that a face mask provides any more protection than, say, sneezing into a handkerchief or coughing into a tissue. Something which everyone already does anyway.

I think you need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture here.

26,000 a year die or are seriously injured on the roads, yet banning private motor vehicles is never considered. Shall we go back to the bloke with a red flag walking in front of cars?

 

[Bantamzen]

No of course not, why would that even be a question ? If you did have a cough or something similar pre-Covid-19 then yes you would wear a mask, me included, we call it civic responsibility.

I'm not sure now many times people need to hear this before it sinks in, masks will NOT stop you from contracting the virus but they WILL stop you from spreading it, even China learned this. This is not andecdotal, this is fact, we have the numbers here that prove it. Some people will not believe it but I'm not going to try to convince you as I have better things to do. Wear or don't wear, up to you.

in Hong Kong, we has SARS in 2003, which did not make its way in any notable form to Britain. SARS in 2003 infected 1750 people here and 286 of those died. People in HK learned from that episode, me included, which is why in a population of nearly 8 million densely packed people we have had 4 deaths.... 4 ! Britain has had 10x more than that in the time it has taken me to type this.

As soon as this infectious Covid-19 virus was made public and the first case was confirmed in HK on Jan 23, 2020 the masks came out. Social distancing is very difficult here but people did their bit, we still do it even after a couple of spikes.

Lastly, we've seen here so many people are Asymptomatic, i.e carriers and spreaders without symptoms, this will be the same in Britain. Wearing a mask will help prevent you spreading this virus, even if you show no symptoms, it has worked here. How hard can it be?

But what do we know ? we've only been through this 17 years ago and we're 98% back to normal now, something that will not be possible in Britain until goodness knows when. Not this year for sure.

Long story short, if you don't want to wear a mask then don't. Boris talks about the public using their common sense but right now I'm not sure there is any.

Thank you, that confirms what I have been saying all along. People who showed symptoms wore them, not everyone. So why do we now have to wear masks in certain places, i.e. public transport, but not in others, i.e. shops, offices, even public sector hubs?

Answer, because this is purely a political decision, nothing do do with the science, as it probably was in China & Hong Kong. And you say masks will prevent it, well this is not backed up fully, or even closely by science. It is a highly contentious claim.

And then there is the asymptomatic argument. Someone walking around not coughing or sneezing is many times less likely spreading the virus, partly because breathing alone isn't going to be a major source of infection. If it were pretty much the entire planet would have the damn thing. But also, and here is the shocker, most people walking around don't actually have the active virus in their systems. So standing next to someone on the train who does not have the active virus in their bodies has 0%, yes zero percent chance of passing it on. Yet the entire travelling public have to wear masks "just in case". That is, in my humble opinion the wrong way around.

This now sets a precedent, and one I want no part of. Covid isn't going anywhere anytime soon, so does this mean that masks will be needed forever more? What about influenza and all the other airborne nasties out there? Now that the neurotic genie has been let out of the bottle, it is going to be very hard to stuff back in.

 

[NorthOxonian]

One other problem (though not insurmountable) with mandating masks is disposability and littering. The best way to prevent that is to encourage reusable types of face coverings, but I haven't seen much of a push in that direction.

 

[xc170]

Thinking about this, maybe the best way to deal with this ridiculous rule is to just ignore it, if it's ignored by the majority enforcement will soon be forgotten.

 

[Searle]

26,000 a year die or are seriously injured on the roads, yet banning private motor vehicles is never considered. Shall we go back to the bloke with a red flag walking in front of cars?

I will repeat what I said - are you seriously equating the banning of all cars from the roads to wearing a face mask whilst on a train?

 

[MikeWM]

Thinking about this, maybe the best way to deal with this ridiculous rule is to just ignore it, if it's ignored by the majority enforcement will soon be forgotten.

I certainly still see enough people drinking alcohol on the Tube, despite the claim yesterday that the ban had been successful and was a model for this.

However, for starters, I think I'm going to go for the 'give it the respect it deserves' approach. Use a pair of underpants as a face covering or something equally stupid. Peter Hitchens' gas mask looks quite fun, but I'm not sure where I'd get one.

 

[Starmill]

Except they haven't, have they.

Yes they have.

An op-ed in The Lancet is not a peer reviewed scientific trial. Its just "wot I reckon".

They were peer reviewed. There may also have been an "op ed" or pre-print, among a collection posted by someone else.

Even with the aerosol effect, there's no evidence that a face mask provides any more protection than, say, sneezing into a handkerchief or coughing into a tissue.

Yes there is.

Something which everyone already does anyway.

No they don't.

Stop making false claims for no reason other than it satisfies you.

 

[Huntergreed]

I fully support the use of masks on public transport for the mean time . The evidence isn’t the strongest, but it is there, and if that means that we can get the infection rate down more quickly and get this Orwellian state back to a more free, democratic society then I’m all for it.

I do not however support this as a long term measure. Once the infection rate is down low enough to allow normal life to resume, I don’t think it will be necessary. My fear however is that the government are going to be exceptionally careful and enforce mandatory mask wearing and social distancing for far longer than is required on a purely “what if” basis (What if we didn’t and there was a second peak) at a vast cost to the economy and mental wellbeing.

 

[underbank]

Even with the aerosol effect, there's no evidence that a face mask provides any more protection than, say, sneezing into a handkerchief or coughing into a tissue. Something which everyone already does anyway.

No "everyone" does it at all. They should, but they don't. Just like the hand washing requirement before lockdown. I went to a football match and most people were still walking out of the loos without washing their hands. A few weeks ago, a jogger passed me and spat on the ground just in front of me. What people SHOULD do and what some filthy pigs actually do is very different. Hence why we need protection, social distancing, etc.

 

[43066]

I fully support the use of masks on public transport for the mean time . The evidence isn’t the strongest, but it is there, and if that means that we can get the infection rate down more quickly and get this Orwellian state back to a more free, democratic society then I’m all for it.

I do not however support this as a long term measure. Once the infection rate is down low enough to allow normal life to resume, I don’t think it will be necessary. My fear however is that the government are going to be exceptionally careful and enforce mandatory mask wearing and social distancing for far longer than is required on a purely “what if” basis (What if we didn’t and there was a second peak) at a vast cost to the economy and mental wellbeing.

My worry is that this is yet another profoundly illiberal measure, being imposed with little to no scientific justification, which has no defined end point.

 

[westv]

I went to a football match and most people were still walking out of the loos without washing their hands.
A few weeks ago, a jogger passed me and spat on the ground just in front of me.

A face covering won't stop those disgusting habits though.

 

[westv]

I do not however support this as a long term measure. Once the infection rate is down low enough to allow normal life to resume, I don’t think it will be necessary. My fear however is that the government are going to be exceptionally careful and enforce mandatory mask wearing and social distancing for far longer than is required on a purely “what if” basis (What if we didn’t and there was a second peak) at a vast cost to the economy and mental wellbeing.

And perhaps a fine that gets greater and greater for non compliance.

 

[Starmill]

If it was an appalling mistake to not encourage masks or mandate them early on, why are they not being mandated today but only from the 15th?

It wasn't my claim that it was a mistake not to mandate them (which may or may not be true), rather that it was a mistake to imply that to wear them was entirely unnecessary at best and quite foolish at worst.

 

[Starmill]

Ok, I propose all motor vehicles from now on are restricted to 5mph at all times.

This has massive cost. Wearing a mask? Very tiny cost. Totally not comparable, and you know it.

 

[mmh]

I certainly still see enough people drinking alcohol on the Tube, despite the claim yesterday that the ban had been successful and was a model for this.

However, for starters, I think I'm going to go for the 'give it the respect it deserves' approach. Use a pair of underpants as a face covering or something equally stupid. Peter Hitchens' gas mask looks quite fun, but I'm not sure where I'd get one.

I've been wondering what short, snappy but polite, phrase or logo could be dreamt up to indicate "I don't want to be wearing this."

I have a gas mask similar to Peter Hitchens', I think people would definitely leave 2 metres free from you in one! It is very, very hot though.

 

[MikeWM]

This has massive cost. Wearing a mask? Very tiny cost. Totally not comparable, and you know it.

As you know, I was responding to a comment that said 'if this change can save even one person's life, I can't see how you can actively be against it', *not* 'if this change can save even one person's life *and doesn't cost too much*, I can't see how you can actively be against it'. Two different arguments, the first is an absolute statement, the second requires us to assess which side of a balance to land ourselves on.

 

[Horizon22]

This is going to be highly unenforceable. Are we really going to have BTP at every single transport entry point and put staff in a potential conflict situation? The principle is sound but in practice I think this will be very difficult.

 

[Journeyman]

The thing that really concerns me is the way this whole crisis is conditioning people to view their fellow human beings as dirty, disgusting and dangerous, and widespread wearing of masks will make that even worse. I agree with everyone who has expressed concerns about the illiberal nature of this, and the potentially very negative effects that will have. You can guarantee that any measures in place will last far longer than necessary, and if we're not careful this will be the death of ever being able to relax in groups in public again.

As soon as this is imposed in one place, it'll be imposed elsewhere, and even where it isn't, the people who enjoy shaming others and throwing their weight around will think nothing of forcing others to do this. I guarantee there will still be people wearing masks in ten or twenty years because of this.

 

[Starmill]

As you know, I was responding to a comment that said 'if this change can save even one person's life, I can't see how you can actively be against it', *not* 'if this change can save even one person's life *and doesn't cost too much*, I can't see how you can actively be against it'. Two different arguments, the first is an absolute statement, the second requires us to assess which side of a balance to land ourselves on.

I read the original comment as an explanation that the cost of mask wearing is so low that it's justified, even for a small benefit i.e. not an absolute statement. Perhaps that's not what was meant, but it looked like it to me.

 

[furlong]

they do promote you a sense of security.

On the contrary - wearers give out the message "I think I might be dangerous but I only care about myself and have left my house anyway - you' should keep away from me for your own good!" People who should be remaining at home instead put on a useless mask and think it's then OK to go out and spread their ills. So masks do help to encourage physical distancing in that people know they need to keep away from people wearing masks - they act as a constant reminder to avoid getting close to the wearer's breath. If they are compulsory on public transport they reinforce the message that it is still dangerous to use public transport and you really should not be using it if at all possible i.e. the "stay at home!" message, essential travel only etc. (which is odd if the idea was to start lifting the lockdown).

Why doesn't the railway let people assess their own level of risk like it used to do with smoking, and have mask and non-mask carriages?

 

[nedchester]

The thing that really concerns me is the way this whole crisis is conditioning people to view their fellow human beings as dirty, disgusting and dangerous, and widespread wearing of masks will make that even worse. I agree with everyone who has expressed concerns about the illiberal nature of this, and the potentially very negative effects that will have. You can guarantee that any measures in place will last far longer than necessary, and if we're not careful this will be the death of ever being able to relax in groups in public again.

As soon as this is imposed in one place, it'll be imposed elsewhere, and even where it isn't, the people who enjoy shaming others and throwing their weight around will think nothing of forcing others to do this. I guarantee there will still be people wearing masks in ten or twenty years because of this.

I think this is a legitimate concern. In the space of three months we have gone to think of friends, family and strangers as potentially dangerous. It's become ingrained into the mentality of the population. Very concerning.

 

[mmh]

This is going to be highly unenforceable. Are we really going to have BTP at every single transport entry point and put staff in a potential conflict situation? The principle is sound but in practice I think this will be very difficult.

It will be enforced by the public. If you can successfully make a good proportion of the country view fellow citizens as potential murderers for getting too close in Tesco, there will be a high enough proportion of people policing it themselves that the majority who don't care or actively disagree with masks will wear one in order to avoid confrontation. Like the queue to get inside Tesco, just on steroids.

 

[sjpowermac]

Lots of people jumping up and down getting very excited about what they don’t want, but without saying how they propose how we move from the current situation where many trains are limited to around 10% of their normal capacity.

Some of the arguments that were raised, quite correctly, on the furlough thread also apply here. I can’t imagine calling my line manager and telling him ‘I won’t be in at work today because I don’t like the idea of wearing a face mask on the train’. I suspect this will be the case for the overwhelming majority of commuters.

It is astonishing to see posters on this thread who were willing to accept what they admitted as weak evidence regarding children not spreading the virus and yet now because it might inconvenience them they are totally against the ‘weak’ evidence for masks. For the avoidance of doubt, I’m very much in favour of the re-opening of schools.

Anyhow, as usual, jumping up and down on a railway forum is unlikely to change government policy. Why not put the time and effort into writing to your MP if you really feel so strongly?

 

[Journeyman]

I think this is a legitimate concern. In the space of three months we have gone to think of friends, family and strangers as potentially dangerous. It's become ingrained into the mentality of the population. Very concerning.

It really is. I read some quite shocking comments on a Guardian article recently from people who genuinely seem to think that loads of activities should now stop forever because of this, and that basically we should just cower in our homes. A life without cinemas, live music, museums, pubs, restaurants, exhibitions, festivals, church services, parties, clubs, sports...forever. Just think about that for a minute.

 

[Tetchytyke]

are you seriously equating the banning of all cars from the roads to wearing a face mask whilst on a train?

We must do what it takes to save lives!

That's the Locktivist argument, right?

without saying how they propose how we move from the current situation where many trains are limited to around 10% of their normal capacity.

Taping up 90% of train seats is unnecessary and a stupid overreaction. Enforcing the wearing of masks is unnecessary and a stupid overreaction. Sorted? Sorted.

Why not put the time and effort into writing to your MP if you really feel so strongly?

Because that's a sure fire way to change government opinion

 

[Journeyman]

Lots of people jumping up and down getting very excited about what they don’t want, but without saying how they propose how we move from the current situation where many trains are limited to around 10% of their normal capacity.

Anyhow, as usual, jumping up and down on a railway forum is unlikely to change government policy. Why not put the time and effort into writing to your MP if you really feel so strongly?

Don't worry, I will be contacting my MP.

I propose that people should be properly informed about the risks to their demographic, and allowed to make their own decisions about where they go, what they do, who they meet, what they wear and the risks they're willing to take. Even a cursory look at the stats will tell you about 90% of COVID-19 fatalities are over 65 and/or already unwell with a variety of other conditions. The rest of us have to be allowed to get on with our lives sooner or later, and masks won't make any difference.

 

[yorksrob]

It really is. I read some quite shocking comments on a Guardian article recently from people who genuinely seem to think that loads of activities should now stop forever because of this, and that basically we should just cower in our homes. A life without cinemas, live music, museums, pubs, restaurants, exhibitions, festivals, church services, parties, clubs, sports...forever. Just think about that for a minute.

They're talking out of the side of their hats.

They'll be back down the pubs and restaurants as soon as the percieved threat receeds. In the meantime, if they're cowering in their homes, they can't stop us doing all those things when they reopen (albeit responsibly).

 

[nedchester]

It really is. I read some quite shocking comments on a Guardian article recently from people who genuinely seem to think that loads of activities should now stop forever because of this, and that basically we should just cower in our homes. A life without cinemas, live music, museums, pubs, restaurants, exhibitions, festivals, church services, parties, clubs, sports...forever. Just think about that for a minute.

Not read the guardian article on this but yes I can see that people like this exist. What do they think constitutes 'living'?