Face coverings compulsory on public transport in England from 15 June

[AM9]

While the face coverings on public transport in the short term ( a few months) don’t actually bother me, I also hate the phrase “new normal”. I rather liked the old normal myself. ...

Well, 'normal' in the future is unlikely to satisfy all of those calling for getting 'back to normal', so we should all be prepared for something different. 'Normal' in terms of society, its freedoms and its restrictions is a human concept and as it changes, everybody (except Rees-Mogg maybe ) just has to get on with it.
My first adult understanding of what was normal was in the '60s, and almost everybody under 40 years old now would probably feel quite uncomfortable with much of what went on then. People of my age have had to accept several 'new normals' and so will everybody in the near future.

 

[Bantamzen]

A little concerned that the R number has gone up since some restrictions were relaxed from June 1.

It is estimated that it has gone up, and there may be an explanation for that further upthread. However if you are concerned that any relaxation might see a rise, then I guess we'd all better not ever leave our homes again....

 

[Bletchleyite]

But many of those deaths are likely to have occurred anyway. Without any analysis, the numbers alone are meaningless. As someone upthread mentioned, a previous outbreak of Hong Kong flu in this country killed about 80,000, and we carried on as normal.

The number of excess deaths (i.e. the number higher than normal so far for a year) is actually more - 55K - because of other things e.g. untreated cancers as well as COVID.

 

[philosopher]

Well, 'normal' in the future is unlikely to satisfy all of those calling for getting 'back to normal', so we should all be prepared for something different. 'Normal' in terms of society, its freedoms and its restrictions is a human concept and as it changes, everybody (except Rees-Mogg maybe ) just has to get on with it.
My first adult understanding of what was normal was in the '60s, and almost everybody under 40 years old now would probably feel quite uncomfortable with much of what went on then. People of my age have had to accept several 'new normals' and so will everybody in the near future.

The 60’s were I am sure very different from today, however the change in ’normal’ from the 60’s to today was gradual, giving people time to adjust. A very sudden shift in what is ‘normal’ to me is unsettling, particularly if the new normal becomes permanent.

With masks, wearing them on public transport for a few months to a year I would find acceptable if it allows society to return closer to what was considered normal last year. I would say having to wear masks on public transport is closer to normality then being discouraged to use public transport for leisure.

 

[yorksrob]

As far as I'm concerned, what will emerge is very much a temporary normal. I am prepared to suspend certain aspects of life due to the current crisis, however I have no intention of permanently succumbing to some sort of dystopian future.

 

[sjpowermac]

The 60’s were I am sure very different from today, however the change in ’normal’ from the 60’s to today was gradual, giving people time to adjust. A very sudden shift in what is ‘normal’ to me is unsettling, particularly if the new normal becomes permanent.

With masks, wearing them on public transport for a few months to a year I would find acceptable if it allows society to return closer to what was considered normal last year. I would say having to wear masks on public transport is closer to normality then being discouraged to use public transport for leisure.

That’s exactly how I feel. There’s nothing ‘normal’ about travelling around on trains with the majority of seats taped ‘out of use’. I’ve attached a picture of the interior of a Northern Class 170. Perhaps someone could explain how how this feels more ‘normal’ to them than wearing a mask?

 

[nedchester]

That’s exactly how I feel. There’s nothing ‘normal’ about travelling around on trains with the majority of seats taped ‘out of use’. I’ve attached a picture of the interior of a Northern Class 170. Perhaps someone could explain how how this feels more ‘normal’ to them than wearing a mask?
View attachment 79025

If the wearing of face coverings means that these ridiculous 'out of use' labels then I am happy to comply. However, if it goes on for more than a few months I don't think it is acceptable. My worry was that Shapps said the face coverings were to be written into the NRCOT.......

 

[NorthOxonian]

That’s exactly how I feel. There’s nothing ‘normal’ about travelling around on trains with the majority of seats taped ‘out of use’. I’ve attached a picture of the interior of a Northern Class 170. Perhaps someone could explain how how this feels more ‘normal’ to them than wearing a mask?
View attachment 79025

It isn't. The problem is that taping off seats is obviously a temporary measure - it cannot be sustained. They could easily force masks for an indefinite period of time, essentially becoming permanent.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

That’s exactly how I feel. There’s nothing ‘normal’ about travelling around on trains with the majority of seats taped ‘out of use’. I’ve attached a picture of the interior of a Northern Class 170. Perhaps someone could explain how how this feels more ‘normal’ to them than wearing a mask?
View attachment 79025

Wow, I didn't realise it was that bad in term of tagging seats out of use. To my mind that looks daft. Surely putting so many seats out of use means that the few people on the train are more likely to be sitting in seats that someone else vacated 10 minutes beforehand - which makes virus transmission more likely?

 

[philosopher]

That’s exactly how I feel. There’s nothing ‘normal’ about travelling around on trains with the majority of seats taped ‘out of use’. I’ve attached a picture of the interior of a Northern Class 170. Perhaps someone could explain how how this feels more ‘normal’ to them than wearing a mask?
View attachment 79025

A passenger boarding that train would think they have entered into some grim crime scene rather than a mode of transport!

 

[nedchester]

Well, 'normal' in the future is unlikely to satisfy all of those calling for getting 'back to normal', so we should all be prepared for something different. 'Normal' in terms of society, its freedoms and its restrictions is a human concept and as it changes, everybody (except Rees-Mogg maybe ) just has to get on with it.
My first adult understanding of what was normal was in the '60s, and almost everybody under 40 years old now would probably feel quite uncomfortable with much of what went on then. People of my age have had to accept several 'new normals' and so will everybody in the near future.

It's about the passage of time for changes in societal normals. Changes happen gradually and that is normal evolution but when a whole society is built around a certain structure then changing that is going to be a disaster.

 

[sjpowermac]

It isn't. The problem is that taping off seats is obviously a temporary measure - it cannot be sustained. They could easily force masks for an indefinite period of time, essentially becoming permanent.

Given that the face masks won’t be surgically attached to the face (or at least I hope they won’t!) there’s no proof they will be permanent. I still hope they will be dispensed with once we reach level 2 or 3 on the alert scale.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the wearing of face coverings means that these ridiculous 'out of use' labels then I am happy to comply. However, if it goes on for more than a few months I don't think it is acceptable. My worry was that Shapps said the face coverings were to be written into the NRCOT.......

I understand the reason for this is that Bojo refused to allow them to go in the Coronavirus (Restrictions) Regulations 2020 because the science is so borderline.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wow, I didn't realise it was that bad in term of tagging seats out of use. To my mind that looks daft. Surely putting so many seats out of use means that the few people on the train are more likely to be sitting in seats that someone else vacated 10 minutes beforehand - which makes virus transmission more likely?

You don't transmit virus through your skin.

 

[sjpowermac]

Wow, I didn't realise it was that bad in term of tagging seats out of use. To my mind that looks daft. Surely putting so many seats out of use means that the few people on the train are more likely to be sitting in seats that someone else vacated 10 minutes beforehand - which makes virus transmission more likely?

I agree, let’s hope that such scenes are temporary. I don’t think there are any easy answers, but I hope this isn’t it.

 

[sjpowermac]

A passenger boarding that train would think they have entered into some grim crime scene rather than a mode of transport!

Whilst I can understand why this has been done, I agree with you, it’s a real shocker when you board.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree, let’s hope that such scenes are temporary. I don’t think there are any easy answers, but I hope this isn’t it.

Well, I think there's a good chance face coverings will be "it" for now. Seems to be working in other countries which don't have such stringent restrictions on loadings and their caseload is not running away.

I think we got fixated on "they don't stop you catching it" rather than looking at what they do seem to do, which is stop you spreading it if you don't know you have it. As they have been used in basically every respiratory pandemic ever, it's bizarre we didn't even try it early on, to be honest. If it didn't work, bin it, but the cost of trying it is near nil - literally everyone's got a least favourite T-shirt, shirt or teatowel and a pair of scissors.

I'll admit I was fixated with this too, but then I'm not paid to make these decisions.

 

[sjpowermac]

If the wearing of face coverings means that these ridiculous 'out of use' labels then I am happy to comply. However, if it goes on for more than a few months I don't think it is acceptable. My worry was that Shapps said the face coverings were to be written into the NRCOT.......

The railway is currently a very unwelcoming place. I’m not sure that masks will necessarily make it look more welcoming, but let’s see. I still think linking mask use to the virus alert level would be the best way to allay many of the fears: level 4 with social distancing in place, put a mask on where this isn’t possible, then at level 3 dispense with them.

 

[NorthOxonian]

The railway is currently a very unwelcoming place. I’m not sure that masks will necessarily make it look more welcoming, but let’s see. I still think linking mask use to the virus alert level would be the best way to allay many of the fears: level 4 with social distancing in place, put a mask on where this isn’t possible, then at level 3 dispense with them.

Completely agree that masks make public transport extremely unwelcoming and sinister. But to play devil's advocate, shouldn't we be making it so, at least while transmission rates are still very high?

 

[sjpowermac]

Well, I think there's a good chance face coverings will be "it" for now. Seems to be working in other countries which don't have such stringent restrictions on loadings and their caseload is not running away.

I think we got fixated on "they don't stop you catching it" rather than looking at what they do seem to do, which is stop you spreading it if you don't know you have it. As they have been used in basically every respiratory pandemic ever, it's bizarre we didn't even try it early on, to be honest. If it didn't work, bin it, but the cost of trying it is near nil - literally everyone's got a least favourite T-shirt, shirt or teatowel and a pair of scissors.

I'll admit I was fixated with this too, but then I'm not paid to make these decisions.

Agreed. I think the idea is definitely ‘my mask protects you, your mask protects me’. In the short run, if masks result in an increase in capacity on the railway then it seems a proportional measure. I’m at something of a loss over the more hysterical posts on the thread.

 

[sjpowermac]

Completely agree that masks make public transport extremely unwelcoming and sinister. But to play devil's advocate, shouldn't we be making it so, at least while transmission rates are still very high?

To an extent I agree. At the same time though that then leads us on to how wise it is to release any of the lockdown measures. If we are to have more children back in school and more shops open, I’m not sure the current 10% or so capacity of the railway will be able to cope. I also don’t think that making the railway so unwelcoming now will do it any favours in the long run.

 

[alex397]

Sadly this virus has evolved as it has. Nobody asked for it. But it is what it is.

Sadly we might have to say goodbye to some people - just as we do to the many thousands of poor souls who die of flu every year.

“Until a vaccine is found” - it may never be found!

I can only assume you’re either retired or independently wealthy enough not to have a mortgage?!

'Sadly we might have to say goodbye to some people'. Now, that sounds dystopian! You can't compare Covid to the flu, as many experts have made clear. If we returned completely to normal, we would have more avoidable deaths from elderly and vulnerable people.

Thank you for the presumption but I'm neither old nor rich. I understand the economic concerns, which is why I said we need to return to something close to normal as soon as possible. But returning to full normal would not be possible at the moment!

That's ridiculously exaggerated, and certainly not what we did in the past, when outbreaks of diseases now considered rare and minor regularly killed thousands of people (measles, TB etc). For the vast majority of the population, COVID-19 is not particularly dangerous.

Covid can't be compared to past viruses. The world is a different place!

I agree, Covid is not particularly dangerous to most. It is however dangerous to a significant minority.

Having 40,000 deaths in this country alone is not something we'd normally see.....

Blimey. What do you think the death rate is and where do you get your information from?

As above, Covid is not a major threat to most of us, but it appears to be dangerous to a significant minority.

This is what happens when people are endlessly bombarded with BARRICADE YOURSELF IN YOUR HOUSE OR EVERYONE WILL DIE propaganda for months on end.

I still don't know a single person who has even had it, let alone died from it.

Now that's exaggeration.

And lucky you! I know 3 people who have had it - healthy people too - they have all said it was the worst they've felt from anything before. I also have heard of family of friends who have died from it.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Wow, I didn't realise it was that bad in term of tagging seats out of use. To my mind that looks daft. Surely putting so many seats out of use means that the few people on the train are more likely to be sitting in seats that someone else vacated 10 minutes beforehand - which makes virus transmission more likely?

You don't transmit virus through your skin.

I'm pretty sure I recall reading about a case in South Korea (where tracking and tracing is well developed) where it turned out that the virus was spread apparently through someone sitting in the same seat in a church that a carrier had sat in earlier that day. I assume for that to be possible, both people must have inadvertently touched the same part of the seat, presumably with bare hands. Unfortunately I can't currently find the link (I'm fairly sure I recall it being from a reputable source).

 

[ashkeba]

I understand the reason for this is that Bojo refused to allow them to go in the Coronavirus (Restrictions) Regulations 2020 because the science is so borderline.

Where did that rumour come from? And the science isn't borderline if it makes the UN U-turn.

 

[AM9]

It's about the passage of time for changes in societal normals. Changes happen gradually and that is normal evolution but when a whole society is built around a certain structure then changing that is going to be a disaster.

By the time this is all over, there will have been a passage of time commensurate with that of some other step changes.

 

[ashkeba]

And lucky you! I know 3 people who have had it - healthy people too - they have all said it was the worst they've felt from anything before. I also have heard of family of friends who have died from it.

I know 5 who have had it. 2 railway workers. All lived in urban areas in London commuter belt. 1 dead and he was approaching retirement but not ill. 1 still ill and off work, about 3 months on. I know 2 other railway workers who are nervous about the next month or two, both from the anti-maskers causing disorder and generally stress and espetially the virus.

 

[Journeyman]

I know 5 who have had it. 2 railway workers. All lived in urban areas in London commuter belt. 1 dead and he was approaching retirement but not ill. 1 still ill and off work, about 3 months on. I know 2 other railway workers who are nervous about the next month or two, both from the anti-maskers causing disorder and generally stress and espetially the virus.

I should point out that however opposed I am to the wearing of masks - and I'm extremely opposed to it - I fully recognise that those out working at the moment are doing so under very difficult circumstances. There is no way I'd give railway staff grief over this. My solution to the problem - and again I know I'm lucky I can do this - is simply to avoid the railway while masks are compulsory.

 

[yorkie]

Do we know how this is going to be legislated for?

If it's simply an amendment to the National Rail Conditions of Carriage, as a contractual term, it will only be binding to any tickets purchased from the date the NRCoT is reissued (which, at the earliest, could perhaps be this Monday 8th June).

While I am obviously not recommending people flout guidance, if this is the method used, it would not be contractually binding for any tickets purchased under the current NRCoT.

Furthermore, do we know what the burden of proof will be for anyone who is exempt on medical grounds?

As stated above, it would be impracticable to require people to carry a Doctor's letter. So will it be a case of taking someone's word for it? If so, I don't see how it can actually be enforced.

And what about people who do have a genuine medical reason not to wear a mask but who also experience communication difficulties and/or anxiety?

https://twitter.com/k1tt1ek4t/status/1268967061746864133

. My friend has been using @ScotRail for the past 6 weeks to get to work and never has she been advised to wear one. Yet today she was approached by the police onboard and they demanded to know why she wasn't wearing one. She was made to feel bad

The above tweet was sent to Scotrail and Alex Hynes is aware of it, and yet there has been no answer. Are we going to see more incidents like this?

I am not necessarily against the wearing of face coverings but if we are going down that road, it needs to be properly thought out, and at the moment there are more questions than answers.

 

[Journeyman]

Do we know how this is going to be legislated for?

If it's simply an amendment to the National Rail Conditions of Carriage, as a contractual term, it will only be binding to any tickets purchased from the date the NRCoT is reissued (which, at the earliest, could perhaps be this Monday 8th June).

While I am obviously not recommending people flout guidance, if this is the method used, it would not be contractually binding for any tickets purchased under the current NRCoT.

Please don't go down this road, or encourage others to do so. All it will do is result in people being aggressive to railway staff. However opposed I am to this measure, I realise it puts rail staff in a difficult and stressful position, and there's no way I want to add to that. By publicising loopholes like this, there's a danger you'll encourage some dreadful behaviour.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

And what about people who do have a genuine medical reason not to wear a mask but who also experience communication difficulties and/or anxiety?

https://twitter.com/k1tt1ek4t/status/1268967061746864133

The above tweet was sent to Scotrail and Alex Hynes is aware of it, and yet there has been no answer. Are we going to see more incidents like this?

I am not necessarily against the wearing of face coverings but if we are going down that road, it needs to be properly thought out, and at the moment there are more questions than answers.

The Tweet you quote doesn't quite add up. From what I can see, the Scottish Government was advising wearing masks in confined spaces as far back as April. The following quote from the Guardian is dated 28 April.

Nicola Sturgeon has announced new guidance recommending that the Scottish public should wear face masks in enclosed spaces where social distancing is difficult to achieve, for example while shopping or using public transport.

Obviously we don't know how reasonable or otherwise the behaviour of the police in the quoted incident was, but if the passenger on the train in Scotland thought she had never been advised to wear a mask, then she must not have much awareness of events around her.