Face coverings compulsory on public transport in England from 15 June

[Starmill]

Government advice is to avoid drinking more than 14 units of alcohol a week. Police have no business monitoring people's drinking habits and asking them why they are not following governement advice.

Police have no more business asking why someone is not following advice on mask wearing than they had demanding to see the contents of people's supermarket trolleys. The latter was rightly called out - police should stick to enforcing the law.

This is, on its own terms, quite right. Official guidance cannot be something police forces are asked to deal with on a regular basis. There is a reason we have legislation. And there is a reason why we have a parliament and opposition lawmakers: their input is necessary in drafting. Ministers ignored them, and did basically whatever they liked, both for their official guidance and their "emergency" legislation. Look at the mess that has got us into.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Government advice is to avoid drinking more than 14 units of alcohol a week. Police have no business monitoring people's drinking habits and asking them why they are not following governement advice.

Police have no more business asking why someone is not following advice on mask wearing than they had demanding to see the contents of people's supermarket trolleys. The latter was rightly called out - police should stick to enforcing the law.

As previously noted, the number of units of alcohol you have consumed is only your issue. Wearing a mask is for others' benefit. It's more comparable to, say, a Police Officer knocking on your car window and suggesting that, while where you've parked isn't illegal per-se, it's a bit of a silly place that puts others at risk of an accident.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is, on its own terms, quite right. Official guidance cannot be something police forces are asked to deal with on a regular basis. There is a reason we have legislation. And there is a reason why we have a parliament and opposition lawmakers: their input is necessary in drafting. Ministers ignored them, and did basically whatever they liked, both for their official guidance and their "emergency" legislation. Look at the mess that has got us into.

True. TBH, I think it should go into the Regulations along with a list of locations where it is mandatory (any public indoors location where it would be defined as indoors under smoking legislation, unless 2m distancing can be ensured beyond reasonable doubt[1], would be a start) and a list of specific exemptions (e.g. someone who has one of a specific list of medical conditions). This would be done as "exceptions include for example", allowing a Court to consider other ones and Police to use discretion.

[1] No point mandating it in a work setting where the desks have been placed 2m or more apart, nor for someone who's in a van on their own, nor for someone in their own office, for instance, whereas smoking would be banned in all those locations.

 

[ashkeba]

But didn't other European countries start wearing face masks early on?

Our government advised told us early on not to wear face masks as they were needed for the NHS (who couldn't get them in any case); now that there is spare capacity; suddenly, the government now do a u-turn and mandate them?

We do not have to wear NHS masks. Scarves are OK unless you want to obey the conservative WHO.

Some countries adopted masks early, others only adoptded them when public transport restarted.

 

[sheff1]

As previously noted, the number of units of alcohol you have consumed is only your issue. Wearing a mask is for others' benefit. It's more comparable to, say, a Police Officer knocking on your car window and suggesting that, while where you've parked isn't illegal per-se, it's a bit of a silly place that puts others at risk of an accident.

But it isn't. It has been proven, for example, that people who drink to excess are more likely become a burden on the health service than people with otherwise similar characteristics who do not.

My understanding is that parking which causes an obstruction on the public highway is an offence so not comparable at all to non-mask wearing under current legislation.

 

[sheff1]

Official guidance cannot be something police forces are asked to deal with on a regular basis. There is a reason we have legislation. And there is a reason why we have a parliament and opposition lawmakers: their input is necessary in drafting. Ministers ignored them, and did basically whatever they liked, both for their official guidance and their "emergency" legislation.

Exactly, as I stated some time ago. My, and others, objection is to the way the requirement to wear masks has come about ... not the requirement per se. Unfortunately a distinction which is too difficult for some (not you) to understand.

 

[Tetchytyke]

There is a reason we have legislation. And there is a reason why we have a parliament and opposition lawmakers: their input is necessary in drafting. Ministers ignored them, and did basically whatever they liked, both for their official guidance and their "emergency" legislation. Look at the mess that has got us into.

Do you not see the contradiction between this view, and support for the Government's attempt to bring in these masks by changing the conditions of travel and not legislation?

As an aside, most legislation is pushed through by statutory instruments which go nowhere near Parliament.

 

[sheff1]

As an aside, most legislation is pushed through by statutory instruments which go nowhere near Parliament.

But only after the Primary legislation has been passed by Parliament following due process.

The argument is that the current "emergency" legislation is ultra vires.

 

[ashkeba]

As an aside, most legislation is pushed through by statutory instruments which go nowhere near Parliament.

I know I am not as familiar with English law as I could be, but do statutory instruments not say "laid before Parliament" on top of every one?

It would seem a better tool for this than amending ticket sale conditions, too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But only after the Primary legislation has been passed by Parliament following due process.

The argument is that the current "emergency" legislation is ultra vires.

It was, wasn't it? The Coronavirus (Restrictions) legislation for each country is subsidiary to the main Coronavirus Act, isn't it?

 

[ashkeba]

It was, wasn't it? The Coronavirus (Restrictions) legislation for each country is subsidiary to the main Coronavirus Act, isn't it?

No, the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 and the similar for other countries.

 

[sheff1]

It was, wasn't it? The Coronavirus (Restrictions) legislation for each country is subsidiary to the main Coronavirus Act, isn't it?

The suggestion is that the Coronavirus Act is ultra vires.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The suggestion is that the Coronavirus Act is ultra vires.

It was put before Parliament, though if I recall rightly it was some sort of "put your hand up if you object" type thing.

 

[sheff1]

I know I am not as familiar with English law as I could be, but do statutory instruments not say "laid before Parliament" on top of every one?

They do but, to take the latest one as as example it includes the wording (my bold);

"the Secretary of State is of the opinion that, by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make this instrument without a draft having been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament."

The whole question of legislation is complex and I am certainly not an expert. At present a 1,000 page (!) document is with the High Court - covered last month on another thread on here.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Wear a mask.

The WHO has updated their guidance.

Will it kill you to do it? No, it may kill others if you don't.

Please - pick a fight with peer-supported evidence.

 

[PupCuff]

Wear a mask.

The WHO has updated their guidance.

Will it kill you to do it? No, it may kill others if you don't.

Please - pick a fight with peer-supported evidence.

Genuine question - have you read the WHO's guidance, in particular the specifications for non-medical masks? If so, do you think that the majority of people who've channelled their inner Blue Peter to make their own have produced anything which provides even close to the level of protection the WHO are advising governments to recommend?

 

[xc170]

Wear a mask.

No.

 

[sefton]

Government advice is to avoid drinking more than 14 units of alcohol a week. Police have no business monitoring people's drinking habits and asking them why they are not following governement advice.

Police have no more business asking why someone is not following advice on mask wearing than they had demanding to see the contents of people's supermarket trolleys. The latter was rightly called out - police should stick to enforcing the law.

As previously noted, the number of units of alcohol you have consumed is only your issue. Wearing a mask is for others' benefit. It's more comparable to, say, a Police Officer knocking on your car window and suggesting that, while where you've parked isn't illegal per-se, it's a bit of a silly place that puts others at risk of an accident.

Actually I would suggest a better analogy is the police office knocking on your car window and asking you to blow into this tube, because although you think you are safe to drive you are actually pissed as a fart.

The police action isn't to directly to save you from putting yourself in intensive care, but it is to stop you killing others on your drive home.

 

[sefton]

Wear a mask.

No.

So happy to risk killing others - nice.

 

[Yew]

Wearing a mask is for others' benefit.

May be for others benefit, if it evens has a significant effect at all.

 

[Mojo]

Are there any details yet on the legal basis for this ban, what will be required of customers, and who will be exempt/how one will be expected to prove their exemption?

 

[island]

An article in today’s Times (paper version only, it seems) suggests that the rules requiring masks shall potentially be deferred and taken through as secondary legislation under the Public Health Act 1984, rather than added to the NRCoT and the like.

This solves the issue with respect to holders of tickets purchased prior to the change not being covered by a new NRCoT, but introduces new ones, including a likely need to have the regulations rubber-stamped in the House of Commons.

Facemask rules on public transport under a shadow

Plans for compulsory face coverings on public transport risk being thrown into disarray after operators raised doubts over enforcement. Labour has written to the Department for Transport seeking clarify over the reforms.
Passengers have been told that face coverings will be compulsory on all transport from Monday. They could be barred or fined for failing to comply. ...
The DfT is understood to be considering dropping plans to enforce the rules through the “conditions of travel”...

Edit: of course I found it online just after posting: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...2?shareToken=bb21520afc8ad2b16ba2e4819de6f94a

 

[MarkyT]

May be for others benefit, if it evens has a significant effect at all.

The evidence is growing that the effect is substantial, as might be expected from East Asian experience, in Hong Kong for instance, with COVID-19 deaths per capita OVER ONE THOUSAND TIMES fewer than in the UK.

Here is a study that looks at figures for new infections in Jena, an 'early adopter' of masking, compared to other regions in Germany, and employing statistical techniques to extrapolate what might have happened in Germany as a whole if widespread masking had been introduced earlier. While the statistical methods still need review, the initial evidence from Jena itself is surely unequivocal, with new infections almost stopping overnight, but that of course is not 'proof'.

http://ftp.iza.org/dp13319.pdf

There is a general perception in Germany that public wearing of face masks reduces incidences considerably. This perception comes mainly from the city of Jena. After face masks were introduced on 6 April 2020, the number of new infections fell almost to zero. Jena is not the only city or region in Germany, however, that introduced face masks.
...
We indeed find strong and convincing statistical support for the general perception that public wearing of face masks in Jena strongly reduced the number of incidences. We obtain a synthetic control group that closely follows the Covid-19 trend before introduction of mandatory masks in Jena and the difference between Jena and this group is very large after 6 April. Our findings indicate that the early introduction of face masks in Jena has resulted in a reduction of almost
25% in the cumulative number of reported Covid-19 cases after 20 days. The drop is greatest, larger than 50%, for the age group 60 years and above. Our results are robust when we conduct sensitivity checks and apply several placebo tests, e.g. tests for pseudo-treatment effects in similarly sized cities in the federal state of Thuringia and for pseudo-treatment effects in Jena before the treatment actually started. We also test for announcement effects.

 

[underbank]

Our government advised told us early on not to wear face masks as they were needed for the NHS (who couldn't get them in any case); now that there is spare capacity; suddenly, the government now do a u-turn and mandate them?

We didn't need to wear masks early on, because we shouldn't have been going out except for essential shopping or essential work etc. Far fewer people out and about so pretty pointless wearing a mask if the 2 metre social distancing was being complied with.

From Monday, we're in a completely different place, with public transport back open to all, people going to work, people shopping, people going to zoos, etc. Far more people out and about increases the risks and makes it harder to maintain the 2m social distancing, so makes sense to encourage people to wear masks.

So not really comparing like for like is it? Circumstances have changed, so rightly advice needs to change accordingly.

 

[MikeWM]

An article in today’s Times (paper version only, it seems) suggests that the rules requiring masks shall potentially be deferred and taken through as secondary legislation under the Public Health Act 1984, rather than added to the NRCoT and the like.

Which could be both good and bad. It makes it more enforceable and offers the potential of fines (or criminal penalties) for non-compliance. But it would also give an automatic 'self-destruct' date for any such measures.

I am increasingly concerned that no clear mention is being made that there are genuine exemptions to these new rules (assuming whatever means they enshrine the rules actually bother to allow that, of course). We seem to be setting up some potential very nasty conflict situations - and also the brash messaging is causing concern to those who are unable to wear masks. I know someone who fears she'll never be able to get on a bus to visit her family ever again as she is unable to wear a mask, but isn't confident about people potentially confronting her over it.

 

[Gadget88]

Reply from cross country regarding face masks and my panic attacks

“
Hi ... thank you for your DM.

We are very sorry to hear this, ..... Panic attacks and anxiety disorder are very serious. Please be assured that if an ambulance is required, our train crews call 999.

Following the government advice, face coverings are mandatory on board our trains in England from Monday 15th June. Our role as a social media team is to inform passengers of this requirement and advise accordingly. People with specific conditions that mean they cannot wear a face covering will not have to do so.

We are sorry to hear that your concerns were not answered earlier. Regrettably, we do not deal with complaints over social media and we would advise that you make a formal complaint here: https://www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk/customer-service/contact-us/general-enquiries.

Many thanks,

^AZ”

 

[Gadget88]

LNER said I can let staff know about breathing issues but were going to force masks they did say I was allowed to wear a face shield

 

[Bletchleyite]

An article in today’s Times (paper version only, it seems) suggests that the rules requiring masks shall potentially be deferred and taken through as secondary legislation under the Public Health Act 1984, rather than added to the NRCoT and the like.

If they're going to do it, it needs to go in the Coronavirus (Restrictions) Regulations 2020. Putting it anywhere else makes no sense, and is a fudge because I believe Bojo doesn't want it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

May be for others benefit, if it evens has a significant effect at all.

If you like. But what it definitely isn't for is to protect the wearer, which is all a visor does.

 

[WM Bus]

We didn't need to wear masks early on, because we shouldn't have been going out except for essential shopping or essential work etc. Far fewer people out and about so pretty pointless wearing a mask if the 2 metre social distancing was being complied with.

From Monday, we're in a completely different place, with public transport back open to all, people going to work, people shopping, people going to zoos, etc. Far more people out and about increases the risks and makes it harder to maintain the 2m social distancing, so makes sense to encourage people to wear masks.

So not really comparing like for like is it? Circumstances have changed, so rightly advice needs to change accordingly.

People have still been travelling on the buses to go shopping at the supermakets and go to work.
More recently in the past 2 weeks or so passenger limits on buses have been introduced to prevent to many people being on a single bus - which weren't in place throughout the majority of the lockdown.
I think these limits look likely to still be in place on Monday, and I have not seen anything to say that this will change to allow them to carry more people to go shopping and to zoos
So in terms of that I can't see why much would change in terms of distancing, unless the limits go.