In practice, yes. I caught a bit of "
File on 4 - Occupational Hazard: The Bus Drivers who died from Covid" the other day. In the section I heard, they were following the TfL enforcement team as they enforced the condition of carriage, and their rules of engagement were to back off immediately if someone claimed an exemption, much to the frustration of the team.
This says a lot about the sort of people in the team; people like that would not be able to cut it and would not be appropriate people at my workplace.
However, your understanding is not strictly correct in England. The mask requirements in England were never an absolute prohibition on challenging a claimed exemption, while the legal basis on which to claim exemption under English law was removed on July 19th along with the legal requirement to wear a mask in public places.
Again I would say it is you who is misunderstanding. Yes there is no absolute prohibition in theory, but in practice there will be due to company policies, the risk of the company breaking the law, the risk of escalating the situation and creating conflict, and also defeating the entire purpose of some of the exemptions, such as those around anxiety and distress.
The idea that anyone with an exemption should be questioned is absolutely absurd.
I was just about to ask why the officers felt frustrated. As you rightly say, they are not there to make medical judgments, it sounds to me like they were looking for an argument.
I agree. And if they come across me, they'd be getting the full argument.
The role of a mask enforcement officer is a rather contradictory one. In that either they don’t really believe in their work (in which case they’re not going to be fussed either way), or they do believe in it (in which case they must believe they are putting themselves at risk by talking to unmasked passengers).
The whole thing is completely bonkers
Quite. I know only that no-one is exempt from catching covid and neither are they exempt from passing it on.
What a weird thing to say, as well as being utterly irrelevant.
Exemption from wearing a mask in the U.K. is entirely a matter for the person claiming it, with no 'proof' required because, simply, there can be no 'proof' because there is no definition!
I completely agree with you on this point.
It's really no different from someone declaring 'I am a woman' or even 'I am black' when it might just appear to a casual observer that was not the case.
I don't think this is an entirely sensible post and is certainly not a valid comparison (the first part of your post instantly reminds me of Emily Howard but let's move swiftly on....)
Its a thankless job because they were / are enforcing a rule that few particularly want, and that has no proven effectiveness.
True.
Clearly they were not accepting it, just following the rules that said they were not allowed to challenge people.
Indeed; if people dislike doing the job in accordance with instructions then they either have to lump it or look for a new job.
A fear that was driven by a government messaging that implied that the very act of breathing close to someone else would kill them. This messaging was a sloppy & irresponsible method of forcing people through guilt to obey whatever rules they dreamt up at the time.
Agreed.
And as above, there is no tangible proof that masks used in public settings without rigorous medical discipline have any effect on transmission levels.
Unless the masks are N99/FFP3 or similar, I agree there is absolutely no such evidence.
From the short section I heard, the frustration was based on a mixture of a thankless job, working in an environment where too many colleagues had died, and finding 20% of passengers were "exempt" when the exemption conditions are estimated at covering about 10% of the population. I also got no sense of looking for an argument in what I heard.
If they were not looking for an argument, they'd not be challenging anyone, given anyone can self-certify exemption, there is no such thing as an exemption certificate, and there is no requirement for any proof or evidence to be provided. Of course now no-one is legally required to wear a mask so it would be even more pointless.
For clarity, they didn't question exemptions and were quite explicit that if an exemption was claimed, they accepted it.
Good.
I also agree with you that the
intent of the legislation was that claimed exemptions would be accepted at face value. My observation to
@james60059 was that there was and is a difference between legislation and practice, a difference that is worth being aware of.
Yes I agree and people probably should have been more assertive on this front; I think people will be if there was ever a mandation in future.
I wouldn't go that far, as I think some did take the proverbial - which is why the legislation left the door ajar to exemption claims being challenged. I also believe that staff are entitled to do the jobs they are asked to do without fear.
Government and employers should never require people to do jobs that are not possible without fear. No-one should be challenged; it's as simple as that.
No, the fear I refer to is of people attacking staff doing their job enforcing their employers’ policy. Whether it’s masks, tickets, smoking, feet on seats, or whatever else.
There are enough other things for enforcement offers to enforce without them requiring passengers to wear flimsy, loose fitting masks for which anyone could have declared themselves exempt from wearing and now no-one is obliged to wear.
Regardless of opinion of masks, I found a post by one railwayman suggesting that his colleagues deserve what they get if they take one action he disapproves of deeply unpleasant.
I found nothing unpleasant about the post as it is matter of fact and reefers only to people who behave inappropriately. I would say they would deserve to be on the receiving end of disciplinary action at least.
Not really the thread for this, but the ONS put out a
paper (entirely retrospective based on Covid patients surveyed between 29 August - 11 September ) that found based on those patients that there is a 50% increased probability that those routinely not wearing masks in crowded locations would suffer Covid.
It's absolute nonsense.
The following people are unlikely to wear face coverings and are also more likely to test positive, for independent reasons:
- younger people, especially children
- working people
- people who are sociable
- people who live their lives as humans and not as hermits.
- unvaccinated people
The people who are more likely to wear face coverings are also less likely to test positive, but not because they are wearing flimsy ineffective masks. Examples include elderly people who interact with fewer people.
It begs a load of questions, and I’m far from regarding it as proof, but struck me as an interesting and unexpected finding.
It is an entirely expected set of circumstances that naturally go together because the majority of people are not wearing masks and are also not reducing their interactions.
I could say people who attend night clubs are less likely to die from Covid than people who attend Bingo sessions, for example!
I haven't a clue what killed the drivers, and need to listen to the programme to learn more - I only caught a few minutes, which are what I shared earlier about the TfL enforcement team. But I am sure - and pleased - that we haven't seen a noticeable increase in assaults on public transport workers, and disappointed that one of their colleagues might actually wish for it.
The phrase "deserve everything they get" does not necessarily imply assault.
As for the ONS data that's the subject of what you quoted, I don't know what to make of it. It's counter-intuitive on a number of levels, but the nature of the way it's gathered makes it fairly proof against observational bias.
The sort of people who do polls and tick a box to say they wear face coverings are not the same as your ordinary everyday working people (as a rule; there will always be edge cases).
Also these polls always end up with much more people claiming to wear face coverings than actually wear face coverings; you should know that by now!