• 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.

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
If you make poeple afraid enough to distance whilst doing a task, a large number of them simply wont do the task any more.

Can't have it both ways.
Do you want a functioning economy long term or do you want social distancing.

The economy is being propped up by enormous and unsustainable government largesse.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Justin Smith

Member
Joined
14 Nov 2009
Messages
1,052
Location
Sheffield
I think we need to know why. If it's because people are using them not to distance at all (rather than to drop to 1m where 2m is genuinely not possible), we perhaps need to ramp up "project fear" to get them to distance again.

Are you being ironic ? The problem with forums is you can't always tell.....

I'll take your answer seriously, after all some people (in this post rational world of ours probably do think that) the problem we have is too much fear and too little understanding of risk probability......
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Are you being ironic ? The problem with forums is you can't always tell.....

I'll take your answer seriously, after all some people (in this post rational world of ours probably do think that) the problem we have is too much fear and too little understanding of risk probability......

I was a bit, but if masks are causing people not to distance, getting rid of masks is not necessarily the fix, educating people to distance as well as masks (for a better overall effect) could well be.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,219
Location
London
I think we need to know why. If it's because people are using them not to distance at all (rather than to drop to 1m where 2m is genuinely not possible), we perhaps need to ramp up "project fear" to get them to distance again.

The whole point of masks, at least as we were told at first, is to allow people to mix in situations where distancing isn’t possible.
 

birchesgreen

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2020
Messages
5,044
Location
Birmingham
Not getting into a pro-anti argument, i finally received my new mask i ordered which you tie behind your head instead of using elastic ear hoops. What a revelation! Much more comfortable and convenient. So if you are wearing a mask, i recommend it.

As an added bonus if you like to pretend you are a cool TV surgeon when you are masked up it makes it more realistic.
 

Richard Scott

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
3,673
I think we need to know why. If it's because people are using them not to distance at all (rather than to drop to 1m where 2m is genuinely not possible), we perhaps need to ramp up "project fear" to get them to distance again.
That's the last thing we need. What we need to do is realise this virus isn't as bad as first thought and get on with things. If more people are getting it but leading to no increase in hospital admissions or deaths then we'll sooner reach herd immunity and get on with life, which'll be better for everyone. However it seems some people still think we need to spend every minute of the day worrying about this virus and trying every measure possible, no matter how futile, to try and control it; which we can't.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The whole point of masks, at least as we were told at first, is to allow people to mix in situations where distancing isn’t possible.

Not quite. They exist as one of the possible mitigations (there are several) to reduce to "1m plus", i.e. a minimum of one metre. They have never been sold to allow reduction to 0m, and if people are doing that (and my observation is that they are), we need a campaign to point out that that's not what people should be doing.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
I think we need to know why. If it's because people are using them not to distance at all (rather than to drop to 1m where 2m is genuinely not possible), we perhaps need to ramp up "project fear" to get them to distance again.

Perhaps look into why the medical profession has strict protocols on masks & their use in medical scenarios?
 

big_rig

Member
Joined
21 Aug 2020
Messages
394
Location
London
I don't want to be too much of a pedant, but given the importance of correct mask usage - should Mr Cruise be wearing a valved mask in his nice looking trip round London in a cab and to a cinema? Do they not expel one's exhaust gas (I am more afraid of the gas coming out of the back of the cab but oh well) into the indoor areas our mayor is happy to see him in with his covering?


Tom.jpg
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
I don't want to be too much of a pedant, but given the importance of correct mask usage - should Mr Cruise be wearing a valved mask in his nice looking trip round London in a cab and to a cinema? Do they not expel one's exhaust gas (I am more afraid of the gas coming out of the back of the cab but oh well) into the indoor areas our mayor is happy to see him in with his covering?


View attachment 82764

You are right of course, it defeats the point of using a mask entirely to use a valved mask. However, it is enough just to have a piece of cloth in front of your face, doesn't matter if it's valved or not, doesn't matter if the mask has been sitting in a pocket all day, or if you were handling something and haven't sanitised your hands before touching your face...
 

185143

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2013
Messages
4,486
I've just been into a shop with signage up telling customers that face covering are now a legal requirement. Fair enough, it is what it is. Then a line saying something along the lines of "we understand some people may not be able to do so, so please wait outside until it's safe to enter. Mask wearers will have priority entering."

That just seems so wrong and appears to be blatant disability discrimination to me. I won't be returning.
 

Islineclear3_1

Established Member
Joined
24 Apr 2014
Messages
5,810
Location
PTSO or platform depending on the weather
I've just been into a shop with signage up telling customers that face covering are now a legal requirement. Fair enough, it is what it is. Then a line saying something along the lines of "we understand some people may not be able to do so, so please wait outside until it's safe to enter. Mask wearers will have priority entering."

That just seems so wrong and appears to be blatant disability discrimination to me. I won't be returning.

2 things:

In many of the shops I frequent, staff are not wearing masks (or wearing them inconsistently) so pot, kettle, black; one rule for us and another for them...

I will wear my exemption lanyard and will not be treated like a second-class citizen for not wearing a mask. And I will politely, but firmly tell them (if challenged) that they are breaking both the Disabilities and Equalities Acts and that I would have no hesitation in reporting them.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
And so if masks are worn in public, shouldn't the shame protocols be applied? Otherwise isn't there the possibility of infection through contact if masks are not applied, worn, removed and disposed of?

No, because we are not going for the same level of absolutism that the medical profession quite rightly requires.
 

farleigh

Member
Joined
1 Nov 2016
Messages
1,145
My local secondary school has instructed staff not to wear facemasks to avoid difficulties with students with hearing difficulties. They may wear a visor if they choose. Hat's off to a common sense approach.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
No, because we are not going for the same level of absolutism that the medical profession quite rightly requires.

Why not? Surely the point is to reduce infection, not just simply change how it spreads, and in some countries the goal is even to eliminate it? If you are going to mandate masks because of a biological hazard, you have to apply standards to the level where protocols exist because of biological hazards, right? Otherwise you are either mandating masks simply to appear to be doing something about the virus, or mandating them to appease part of the population.

So it is apply the medical standards if the virus really is that dangerous, apply the political standard and pretend its really that dangerous, or remove the mandate & explain that it turns out it really isn't that dangerous.
 

jumble

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2011
Messages
1,099
I’m waiting for proof that asking the public to wear masks is in fact problematic and likely to increase transmission rates of Covid as some have said.

Someone posted elsewhere that if masks are effective why do ones under pants not stop the much bigger particles than the virus from escaping if one passes wind ?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Someone posted elsewhere that if masks are effective why do ones under pants not stop the much bigger particles than the virus from escaping if one passes wind ?

The answer to this is because the particles that cause smells are much smaller than viruses.

Sorry it's from the Mail, but this article refers:

Think wearing a mask stinks? Chemistry professor answers online queries about why jeans cannot stop the smell of a fart, but an N95 mask can prevent the spread of the coronavirus
  • A post has been floating around the web that asks one simple question
  • ‘If a fart can make it through jeans, how can a cloth mask save you from coronavirus’ and a Chemistry college professor has answered it on Twitter
  • Trevor Makal said an N95 mask can block particles up to 300 nanometers (nm)
  • Molecules in farts are just 0.4 nm, where viruses range from 20 up to 400 nm
  • The current coronavirus spreading around the world ranges from 60 to 140 nm
 

Bayum

Established Member
Joined
21 Mar 2008
Messages
2,902
Location
Leeds
I, and many of my colleagues wear visors. Many of our patients do too
Unfortunately, lots of anecdotal evidence from other countries is showing that visors are not effective enough by themselves to prevent transmission of coronavirus. Might be something to bear in mind.

2 things:

In many of the shops I frequent, staff are not wearing masks (or wearing them inconsistently) so pot, kettle, black; one rule for us and another for them...

I will wear my exemption lanyard and will not be treated like a second-class citizen for not wearing a mask. And I will politely, but firmly tell them (if challenged) that they are breaking both the Disabilities and Equalities Acts and that I would have no hesitation in reporting them.
Shop staff aren’t required to wear masks. Customers should wear masks to prevent/protect shop staff from the virus.
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
4,435
I was a bit, but if masks are causing people not to distance, getting rid of masks is not necessarily the fix, educating people to distance as well as masks (for a better overall effect) could well be.
But if you're distant from other people the mask is completely unnecessary, even if you believe it's effective.
Not quite. They exist as one of the possible mitigations (there are several) to reduce to "1m plus", i.e. a minimum of one metre. They have never been sold to allow reduction to 0m, and if people are doing that (and my observation is that they are), we need a campaign to point out that that's not what people should be doing.
The government is already pumping out loads of information. I now turn the radio off whenever I hear "Listen to Sharon, she's a bus driver" or the actor pretending to be a cafe owner.
What they should have done was clearly defined the 5 level thing, with exactly what the protocol and control measures are for each level. Then it's easy to put out consistent messages. What we have is as libbing and u turns based upon a perception of public opinion (which is quite often wrong anyway).
When the 5 levels thing was unveiled as a vague notion of reducing restrictions, and Boris started saying "well we are still at 4 but moving towards 3", that was the point I decided the government didn't know its arse from its elbow and that it was pointless paying any attention to it.

More information campaigns would have zero impact on this citizen.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Shop staff aren’t required to wear masks. Customers should wear masks to prevent/protect shop staff from the virus.

I find this incongruous. Unless other protection is in place e.g. screens, shop staff should wear masks to protect customers from the virus.

When the 5 levels thing was unveiled as a vague notion of reducing restrictions, and Boris started saying "well we are still at 4 but moving towards 3", that was the point I decided the government didn't know its arse from its elbow and that it was pointless paying any attention to it.

There is that. However, if you listen to what pretty much every other Government worldwide is saying (except Sweden which took a totally different line, and the US which is worse than ours) they are all saying essentially the same thing.
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
4,435
Shop staff aren’t required to wear masks. Customers should wear masks to prevent/protect shop staff from the virus.
Suppose for a moment masks actually worked.
What's stopping to customers being infected by the staff then?
This is the problem, customers tend not to interact with other customers. But they do interact with staff - at the tills, can you tell me where the anchovies are etc? The people most likely to pass on an infection, to more people than another punter, are exempt.
Or are shop staff more important than the rest of us?
The whole thing is an utter nonsense.
 

Bayum

Established Member
Joined
21 Mar 2008
Messages
2,902
Location
Leeds
Suppose for a moment masks actually worked.
What's stopping to customers being infected by the staff then?
This is the problem, customers tend not to interact with other customers. But they do interact with staff - at the tills, can you tell me where the anchovies are etc? The people most likely to pass on an infection, to more people than another punter, are exempt.
The whole thing is an utter nonsense.
But most shops have installed perspex screens between staff and customer to reduce that infinitely?
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,433
Location
Yorkshire
I've just been into a shop with signage up telling customers that face covering are now a legal requirement. Fair enough, it is what it is. Then a line saying something along the lines of "we understand some people may not be able to do so, so please wait outside until it's safe to enter. Mask wearers will have priority entering."

That just seems so wrong and appears to be blatant disability discrimination to me. I won't be returning.
This sounds illegal to me.

Can you get a photo of this shop? Also are you able to say where it is? (Some people may want to visit to check they are complying with the law)
...The people most likely to pass on an infection, to more people than another punter, are exempt....
I think that's because either the Government think that employers cannot legally force this upon someone at work, or because they think it would be unwise for them to do so. This does raise questions about whether teachers can be forced to, and whether employers could insist that employees produce proof of exemption (I think they can't)

My employer (in the education sector) does not sound keen on compulsory face coverings, and nor do any of the staff I've yet spoken to. I'll speak to more in the next couple of weeks and see if I can find anyone who thinks they should be compulsory, and see what they have to say. I think I may struggle to find anyone though....
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
4,435
But most shops have installed perspex screens between staff and customer to reduce that infinitely?
At the till yes. But what about the shelf stackers, the online order pickers, and the staff member who shows you where stuff is or gets things down from high shelves for you?
It's a muddled nonsense. Designed to make people "feel safe", it has the opposite effect for me, filthy disgusting bits of cloth on people's faces.
 

Bayum

Established Member
Joined
21 Mar 2008
Messages
2,902
Location
Leeds
At the till yes. But what about the shelf stackers, the online order pickers, and the staff member who shows you where stuff is or gets things down from high shelves for you?
It's a muddled nonsense. Designed to make people "feel safe", it has the opposite effect for me, filthy disgusting bits of cloth on people's faces.
Well, they should know better and keep the social distance.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
At the till yes. But what about the shelf stackers, the online order pickers, and the staff member who shows you where stuff is or gets things down from high shelves for you?
It's a muddled nonsense. Designed to make people "feel safe", it has the opposite effect for me, filthy disgusting bits of cloth on people's faces.
Well where I do almost all my grocery shopping, the majority of the staff (including those behind screens), are wearing masks. Those that don't, I assume have the same exemptions as some of the general public claim to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top