• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

UK face coverings discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
2,742
The bag charge was to encourage reuse and less wasted plastic (which now seems to be a problem with all these masks) and supermarkets would sell you a bag for life for 10-50p. Not quite on same scale?

The use of masks is to encourage fewer deaths and less wasted lives. 10 bags for life are £5, a more durable shopping bag around £4 upwards. Similar costs.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
In your scenario, we're giving with one hand and taking away with the other. However, if we continue to practise good hand hygiene the risk of transmission via surfaces it counters the risk that you identify, whilst the risk of airborne transmission is also reduced. I think we can at least agree that the ongoing government advice has been to "Wash your hands"?

It has always been the case that hand washing is by far and away the most effective method of reducing spread, along with covering your mouth and nose when sneezing or coughing. However it is not unreasonable to assume that someone who has the the virus, wears a mask & constantly touches it is far more likely to risk passing the virus on through surface contact than they are through breathing.

Not that easy. The uptick started after the pubs and restaurants re-opened and generally, we've seen a decline in social distancing and greater mixing. People have started to use public transport for leisure trips and mixing between households has been allowed, in some regions. There are too many variables to say that widened mask usage is having an effect. To get that quality of data we would need a proper trial, which is not ethically practical. The best we can hope for is a lab-based study/simulation with an observational study of compliance.

So which is it? Pubs opening, more use of public transport, households mixing? Because strangely enough here in the plagued north we are told the extra restrictions are because of the latter.
 

Richard Scott

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
3,673
The use of masks is to encourage fewer deaths and less wasted lives. 10 bags for life are £5, a more durable shopping bag around £4 upwards. Similar costs.
Still not proven, though is it? How many lives are we saving as current figures show masks have made no difference?
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
4,435
Yes, a system of defined stages of restrictions, where everyone is on the same page as to what each stage means, would be ideal to help with this. People would hear that "we're reverting to level 4 restrictions" and they'd know that, for example, this meant that indoor gatherings were banned.
They did unveil such a system before the lockdown was eased. Made a lot of sense, but Boris started ad-libbing almost immediately. It appears to have been quietly dropped, which is a shame.
 

Mag_seven

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
1 Sep 2014
Messages
9,994
Location
here to eternity
They did unveil such a system before the lockdown was eased. Made a lot of sense, but Boris started ad-libbing almost immediately. It appears to have been quietly dropped, which is a shame.

Is this what you mean?

1596367301347.png

I don't think it has been dropped?
 

Mugby

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2012
Messages
1,917
Location
Derby
I caught a train yesterday at 1130. It was still rather hot and humid as I walked to the station but I wore my mask as I approached, bought a ticket, crossed by the footbridge to the appropriate platform and boarded.
When I sat down, I simply had to remove my mask in order to breathe a little easier and cool down somewhat. I used a clean handkerchief to wipe some sweat from my face because I was feeling very uncomfortable indeed and the mask was making it worse.
After a couple of minutes, I replaced the mask and wore it until my journey was completed and I got off the train but my point is, there are circumstances when touching, adjusting, fiddling with your mask is absolutely unavoidable.
 

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
2,742
Still not proven, though is it? How many lives are we saving as current figures show masks have made no difference?

I thought you were objecting on a purely financial basis. I've answered that. We could continue to go around in circles, though I sense there is little point continuing with that.

There is evidence to show that masks control the emission of the virus from a wearer into the air, reducing the risk of transmission to others.

What has not been studied is the efficacy of mask-wearing in the general population right now - something that cannot be done easily due to a large number of confounding variables.

The government, for better or worse, is working on the presumption that reducing the airborne presence of the virus will help control the overall spread.

Unfortunately, this is a new and novel disease and our understanding is growing on a daily basis as we see more evidence and trials are conducted. We use models of similar viruses to inform our decisions until we gather enough good data from our current situation.

Many people do not like masks. I don't like masks. I am prepared to wear a mask if that allows more freedoms in other areas of life by keeping the virus under control. That's it. I don't see any benefit in continuing the debate with you.

Apologies for asking a question which has no doubt already been raised before.

If the general consensus (either rightly or wrongly) is that folk should wear face coverings to prevent the wearer (since they may be asymptomatic) from inadvertently spreading COVID-19 to others, to what extent does the already-infected wearer adjusting such coverings cause a further issue, given that they already have the virus?! (Unless, of course, by adjusting the face covering, it no longer adequately covers the airway, meaning a greater likelihood of the infected-wearer expelling virus in airborne droplets).

So, if there is an issue with adjusting face coverings, is there a greater risk for non-infected wearers (i.e. all those who don't have COVID-19) that of possibly transferring virus, from the face-covering they are wearing, into their own nose and eyes?

So, in this circumstance, is the face covering, if it is fulfilling a role by acting as a crude filter for the virus, helping or not?

Appreciate commentary from those with a better understanding on this issue than me.

In theory, virus trapped in the mask could be transferred by the wearer to a surface, where it could be collected by another.

If we all stick to good hand hygiene then the risk will be contained. Wash your hands after touching your mask, before touching something else that may be handled by another, or before touching your face and mask again.

Wash your own hands before touching your face/mask.

We then all benefit from the reduction in airborne transmission.


I caught a train yesterday at 1130. It was still rather hot and humid as I walked to the station but I wore my mask as I approached, bought a ticket, crossed by the footbridge to the appropriate platform and boarded.
When I sat down, I simply had to remove my mask in order to breathe a little easier and cool down somewhat. I used a clean handkerchief to wipe some sweat from my face because I was feeling very uncomfortable indeed and the mask was making it worse.
After a couple of minutes, I replaced the mask and wore it until my journey was completed and I got off the train but my point is, there are circumstances when touching, adjusting, fiddling with your mask is absolutely unavoidable.

Wash your hands before/after adjusting and you'll be fine.
 

westv

Established Member
Joined
29 Mar 2013
Messages
4,203
It's all very well telling people to wash their hands every time but sometimes that isn't possible, which is why the old advice to avoid touching your face was given - something you can't always follow with a mask.
 

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
2,742
It's all very well telling people to wash their hands every time but sometimes that isn't possible, which is why the old advice to avoid touching your face was given - something you can't always follow with a mask.

Carry a bottle of hand sanitiser. It's possible if you want it to be.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
I caught a train yesterday at 1130. It was still rather hot and humid as I walked to the station but I wore my mask as I approached, bought a ticket, crossed by the footbridge to the appropriate platform and boarded.
When I sat down, I simply had to remove my mask in order to breathe a little easier and cool down somewhat. I used a clean handkerchief to wipe some sweat from my face because I was feeling very uncomfortable indeed and the mask was making it worse.
After a couple of minutes, I replaced the mask and wore it until my journey was completed and I got off the train but my point is, there are circumstances when touching, adjusting, fiddling with your mask is absolutely unavoidable.

Coming back from Leeds yesterday with several large and heavy bags, I found wearing a covering extremely uncomfortable to the point I found myself struggling to breath, and so I had to adjust it to allow myself the selfish privilege of taking in air.

In theory, virus trapped in the mask could be transferred by the wearer to a surface, where it could be collected by another.

If we all stick to good hand hygiene then the risk will be contained. Wash your hands after touching your mask, before touching something else that may be handled by another, or before touching your face and mask again.

Wash your own hands before touching your face/mask.

We then all benefit from the reduction in airborne transmission.




Wash your hands before/after adjusting and you'll be fine.

Or perhaps consider that masks are simply not the answer? Just a thought like.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,538
Location
UK
No. The viewpoint states the need for more and better trials. Did you miss my earlier quote from the piece? It does say that the most recent research
Which is not mutually exclusive from saying that the best quality evidence shows no clear effect.
Maybe your definition of "agree unanimously" is different to mine? Or maybe you missed this when you read the viewpoint?
All randomised control trails do agree unanimously. It is explicitly stated in the article. The you seem to conveniently gloss over the fact that the trials that support the case are indeed a week effect.

Since you are seeking to reduce this to a financial argument, the introduction of the carrier bag charge imposed a similar, if not greater, financial burden on households though I didn't see the same vociferous complaints at the time. If it's just finances that are the problem, why not give away masks or remove the carrier bag charge to reduce the impact?

As an aside I was against the carrier bag charge, but that's a story for another time

Where the money comes from is irrelevant for the evaluation of the cost effectiveness of the public health measure, the fact is that this isn't a minor inconvenience with no cost, it's an expensive and invasive measure with minimal evidence that it actually works in any setting, never mind produces a measurable effect given the low prevalence of the virus, and apparently low transmission in supermarkets.

Even if masks were 100% effective, it requires a lot of masks to even get one on the face of someone with COVID (1/4000 of us have it, probably half are self isolating due to symptoms, and even with the remaining half, the general consensus is that presymptomatic transmission is less probable) That probably means we have 8000 masks to even get on on the face of someone with presymptomatic COVID. All for a situation where people don't regularly spend 15 mins in close proximity to each other , and that doesn't seem to be a major driver of transmission.

In all honesty,even with 100% effective masks, I think the supermarket mandate would probably save single digits of lives. Yet the costs and downsides are very real.
 

SouthEastBuses

On Moderation
Joined
15 Nov 2019
Messages
1,800
Location
uk
I just read this morning an article on the Guardian which is whether people should consider wearing face shields and goggles too, as well as masks:


May sound weird and extreme, I know, but I think it's a good idea. They do help, as they give you extra protection, and can reduce the risk of infection even more. Indeed, if everybody started wearing these in addition to masks in high risk settings such as supermarkets and public transport, I think we'd be able to nearly defeat the virus, if not even eradicate it, thanks to the extra protections!

So what do you all think? Should people consider wearing shields and goggles too (in addition to a mask), or not?
 

Richard Scott

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
3,673
I just read this morning an article on the Guardian which is whether people should consider wearing face shields and goggles too, as well as masks:


May sound weird and extreme, I know, but I think it's a good idea. They do help, as they give you extra protection, and can reduce the risk of infection even more. Indeed, if everybody started wearing these in addition to masks in high risk settings such as supermarkets and public transport, I think we'd be able to nearly defeat the virus, if not even eradicate it, thanks to the extra protections!

So what do you all think? Should people consider wearing shields and goggles too (in addition to a mask), or not?
Are you seriously for real? How many times do people have to reiterate we cannot defeat this virus. Face coverings of any sort, lock downs closing borders etc are just not going to defeat this virus. Many deluded people out there.
 

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
2,742
Which is not mutually exclusive from saying that the best quality evidence shows no clear effect.

All randomised control trails do agree unanimously. It is explicitly stated in the article. The you seem to conveniently gloss over the fact that the trials that support the case are indeed a week effect.

They do not. I suggest you re-read the article. I have not glossed over the the fact that the trials have a week [sic] effect. I have posted twice about "using lower quality evidence found masks to be effective". The evidence may be lower quality, it is there.


Even if masks were 100% effective [...] probably half are self isolating [....] general consensus [....] That probably means [....] doesn't seem to be.
I think

Consider the words you use. You cannot be picky about evidence and support then launch into a very subjective thought piece.

I just read this morning an article on the Guardian which is whether people should consider wearing face shields and goggles too, as well as masks:


May sound weird and extreme, I know, but I think it's a good idea. They do help, as they give you extra protection, and can reduce the risk of infection even more. Indeed, if everybody started wearing these in addition to masks in high risk settings such as supermarkets and public transport, I think we'd be able to nearly defeat the virus, if not even eradicate it, thanks to the extra protections!

So what do you all think? Should people consider wearing shields and goggles too (in addition to a mask), or not?

I think you're very brave posting that in here.
 

greyman42

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2017
Messages
4,894
Coming back from Leeds yesterday with several large and heavy bags, I found wearing a covering extremely uncomfortable to the point I found myself struggling to breath, and so I had to adjust it to allow myself the selfish privilege of taking in air.
If the mask was causing that much distress you are entitled to remove it.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
Travelled from my parents home to my own via train (ICEC followed by TPE)

Not a pleasant experience, I'm rather unfit but still felt like I was going to suffocate whilst trying to rapidly more along the platform.

Also guidance on National Rail indicates aren't supposed to eat or drink on trains any more.
Essentially, no more rail travel for me until this mask requirement is dropped.
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
15,982
Location
0036
I took a bus in London today. The driver challenged a passenger joining the bus after me for not wearing a face covering. The passenger made some half-baked effort with the sleeve of a jumper he was carrying, and took it down as soon as he was seated.

Later in the trip, the driver got out of his cab and shouted at two passengers, including the one from earlier, for not wearing face coverings. One of the passengers claimed to be exempt, and the driver retorted “where’s your letter?” The passenger (correctly) responded that a letter was not required. The driver replied that he had seen that passenger wearing a face covering on a previous trip. At that, both passengers covered back up until they got off a few stops later.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,538
Location
UK
Consider the words you use. You cannot be picky about evidence and support then launch into a very subjective thought piece.

The thing is that I'm just discussing this on a forum. Not forcing 65 million people to an unnatural behaviour. Whilst my speculation was low-fidelity, it followed the principles of Fermiisation. Here's a nice example, though it's a little long for a quotation (https://www.wired.com/2014/08/how-t...stions/#:~:text=9.,58 piano tuners in Chicago.)

But in summary, even if masks are effective, the number of lives saved is likely to be very small at our current infection rates; yet the costs are very large.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,538
Location
UK
I took a bus in London today. The driver challenged a passenger joining the bus after me for not wearing a face covering. The passenger made some half-baked effort with the sleeve of a jumper he was carrying, and took it down as soon as he was seated.

Later in the trip, the driver got out of his cab and shouted at two passengers, including the one from earlier, for not wearing face coverings. One of the passengers claimed to be exempt, and the driver retorted “where’s your letter?” The passenger (correctly) responded that a letter was not required. The driver replied that he had seen that passenger wearing a face covering on a previous trip. At that, both passengers covered back up until they got off a few stops later.
Such a charming individual.
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
I took a bus in London today. The driver challenged a passenger joining the bus after me for not wearing a face covering. The passenger made some half-baked effort with the sleeve of a jumper he was carrying, and took it down as soon as he was seated.

Later in the trip, the driver got out of his cab and shouted at two passengers, including the one from earlier, for not wearing face coverings. One of the passengers claimed to be exempt, and the driver retorted “where’s your letter?” The passenger (correctly) responded that a letter was not required. The driver replied that he had seen that passenger wearing a face covering on a previous trip. At that, both passengers covered back up until they got off a few stops later.

Transport for London actually have a download from their website which says "I am exempt from wearing a face covering".

Of course there is no check on whether you are eligible so anyone can download it and print it off.

But this should be sufficient for the bus driver.

There really is no need for the driver to be rude to the passengers like that, and he should be reported. He is only making life difficult for himself, and such behaviour could potentially lead to an incident like the one in France where a bus driver was attacked and later died.
 

Smidster

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2014
Messages
561
But in summary, even if masks are effective, the number of lives saved is likely to be very small at our current infection rates; yet the costs are very large.

I know that no Impact Assessment was undertaken for the mask requirement but you only seem to be looking at one side of the equation.

Yes, there are costs associated with the rules - though I am sure that everyone has something that would be suitable if they didn't want to buy something new (surely everyone has a scarf at least)

But you also need to consider the wider benefits beyond what might be a small impact on infection rate (although QALY's are valuable)

For example there may be a positive economic impact if they help to make other people feel safe when shopping.

They may also make it possible to open, or keep open, things that may be closed otherwise. The judgement may have been made that you can either have masks but keep cinemas or galleries open or no requirement but they must close.

Wearing one isn't enjoyable but to be honest the constant talk of "muzzles" etc do you no good at all.

Let's at least give it a few weeks and see what happens.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,219
Location
London
I took a bus in London today. The driver challenged a passenger joining the bus after me for not wearing a face covering. The passenger made some half-baked effort with the sleeve of a jumper he was carrying, and took it down as soon as he was seated.

Later in the trip, the driver got out of his cab and shouted at two passengers, including the one from earlier, for not wearing face coverings. One of the passengers claimed to be exempt, and the driver retorted “where’s your letter?” The passenger (correctly) responded that a letter was not required. The driver replied that he had seen that passenger wearing a face covering on a previous trip. At that, both passengers covered back up until they got off a few stops later.

I hope you (or they) reported him. London bus drivers have been instructed not to enforce this ridiculous policy.

If he keeps getting out of his cab and betrating people he’ll do it to the wrong person sooner or later.
 

SouthEastBuses

On Moderation
Joined
15 Nov 2019
Messages
1,800
Location
uk
Are you seriously for real? How many times do people have to reiterate we cannot defeat this virus. Face coverings of any sort, lock downs closing borders etc are just not going to defeat this virus. Many deluded people out there.

Ok, let me explain.

I am not deluded in any sort. I am just saying that Feuci made a good point on the extra precautions make. Of course, masks are enough for now in the summer where there is nice weather which means the risk of being infected is low, but once we get to October/November, it's apparently going to be so bad that the extra precautions are worth it to reduce the risk of being infected by then.

Feuci may have been specifically referring to American people, as the USA is the worst affected country from this pandemic, however he's made some good points that even non-Americans could learn.

And I did specifically "nearly defeat the virus", which means that it woudn't be 100% eradicated, but at least reduced to the point we should no longer have to worry about masks, social distancing etc. So, at the right time, the extra protection will be worth it if we want to try and forget about the worry of infections like we are currently dealing with.
 

Richard Scott

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
3,673
Ok, let me explain.

I am not deluded in any sort. I am just saying that Feuci made a good point on the extra precautions make. Of course, masks are enough for now in the summer where there is nice weather which means the risk of being infected is low, but once we get to October/November, it's apparently going to be so bad that the extra precautions are worth it to reduce the risk of being infected by then.

Feuci may have been specifically referring to American people, as the USA is the worst affected country from this pandemic, however he's made some good points that even non-Americans could learn.

And I did specifically "nearly defeat the virus", which means that it woudn't be 100% eradicated, but at least reduced to the point we should no longer have to worry about masks, social distancing etc. So, at the right time, the extra protection will be worth it if we want to try and forget about the worry of infections like we are currently dealing with.
If you can't eradicate it then we learn to live with it - the point a number of us have been making all along but this will mean most people will have to have it. Figures are currently around 750 new infections a day. Some very rough maths means it'll take 200 years for everyone to have it, how much lower do you need them to go? They are unlikely to stay low until sufficient people have had it so all the face masks (if they do make a difference, which I don't think they do, they're just another source of national divide) and everything else is doing is delaying the inevitable, the point being why don't we just get on with things and forget all the precautions and allow those people who need to shield to continue to do so. We'll be doing them a favour as at some point it will just become a background irritation and they won't need to shield and that day will come much sooner!
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
3,602
If you can't eradicate it then we learn to live with it - the point a number of us have been making all along but this will mean most people will have to have it. Figures are currently around 750 new infections a day

Estimated 4200 per day in England alone - see here. (2200 to 8100 with 95% confidence)

Not that this changes your point.

But either you are happy to see the health service collapse, or you are much more sanguine than the medical profession is that this isn't a serious risk, particularly as we come into Winter.
 

westv

Established Member
Joined
29 Mar 2013
Messages
4,203
Why not go the whole hog get everyone to don hazmat suits? :rolleyes:
 

Scrotnig

Member
Joined
5 Sep 2017
Messages
592
The judgement may have been made that you can either have masks but keep cinemas or galleries open or no requirement but they must close.
Amounts to the same thing. Can't see many wanting to sit for two hours in a stuffy cinema with a mask on.
 

Richard Scott

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
3,673
Estimated 4200 per day in England alone - see here. (2200 to 8100 with 95% confidence)

Not that this changes your point.

But either you are happy to see the health service collapse, or you are much more sanguine than the medical profession is that this isn't a serious risk, particularly as we come into Winter.
It hasn't up to now and infection rate lower than at lockdown and it didn't collapse then. Think the collapse in NHS is actually unlikely and scaremongering to try and get people to comply. Perhaps you'd prefer total collapse of economy as that'll be the way it goes? If it does come back then it does we cannot keep going the way we are. I'm more concerned about society breaking down than this virus.
 

adc82140

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2008
Messages
2,928
Estimated 4200 per day in England alone - see here. (2200 to 8100 with 95% confidence)

Not that this changes your point.

But either you are happy to see the health service collapse, or you are much more sanguine than the medical profession is that this isn't a serious risk, particularly as we come into Winter.

There are 85 people on ventilators with Covid in the whole of the UK. I don't see this as the health service collapsing. If this number starts to creep up significantly again, then you need to start taking extra measures.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top