Face coverings compulsory on public transport in England from 15 June

[Journeyman]

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.

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.

Masks were advised. There's no way people should be hassled by police over something advisory.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

I'm not saying it's nice to wear one, it's not. But there are people (non-drivers) who simply can't travel at the moment and that's really unfair.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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

I can't remember now, to be honest. Might have been the "insider" I know and have chatted to a few times about it. (I apologise for this being rather vague - but for obvious reasons I can't name him - it isn't one of the big names you'd have heard of, in any case - and he's not letting anything go that would be secret - that is, I'm not getting anything in advance of the Press Conferences! ).

I can however totally believe it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Masks were advised. There's no way people should be hassled by police over something advisory.

It is probably along the lines of Police stopping people for not wearing a cycle helmet, which I have heard of once or twice.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

If you have other methods of transport available to you which allow you to travel as you need/wish (i.e. a car or motorcycle), then that's probably good, to be honest, as it keeps numbers down to reduce risk for those who don't. Also, in your car/with your motorcycle helmet on you would be at less risk yourself than on the train.

 

[Darandio]

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).

In that case it's highly likely that they have touched the same surface and then touched their face.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Masks were advised. There's no way people should be hassled by police over something advisory.

Do we know what the conversation was? I don't see why the Police shouldn't advise, e.g. a polite "Excuse me, is there a reason why you're not wearing a face covering?" / "Sorry, Officer, but I find they make it hard for me to breathe" / "OK, fair enough, though you might want to try some different ones to see if different types help as they really are to everyone's benefit.", rather than "Excuse me, is there a reason why you're not wearing a face covering?" / "F*** off, the law doesn't require me to so I won't if I choose not to" / <escalation>?

Because wearing one is for the benefit of others, this really is a case of responsibilities over rights, which is difficult for some to comprehend. Keep the exceptions for people who have real problems with them for medical reasons (including severe autism, so not just physical), don't go looking for them just because you don't like masks. I don't either, but I'd rather wear one than have it on my conscience that I didn't take a minor inconvenience on the chin (ha!) to prevent someone else potentially dying.

Very often (though not always), cases of staff or Police "being unreasonable" are because of failure of the attitude test.

In that case it's highly likely that they have touched the same surface and then touched their face.

Possibly a hymn book, prayer cushion or something.

 

[AM9]

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. ...

I wouldn't be so sure of that. The current legislation dealing with the pandemic has powers normally associated with national emergencies, I.e., specific existing rights and contracts can be interrupted or changed as needed in order to address the emergency. Compare the additional restrictions that have been introduced to air passenger rights as a consequence of terrorist activities. When it was discovered that there were explosives that could be carried on board disguised as a bottle of water, all passengers were required to surrender any liquids and all luggage except travel documents were only accepted as hold luggage. That happened on a Monday morning at airports with no prior warning. There were no exceptions and I don't think that there was any compensation for loss of possesions not normally entrusted to baggage handlers.
Slightly different circumstances now but this is still a national emergency. So a person arriving at a station with a ticket purchased before the announcement who wasn't prepared to use a face covering could be offered a full refund as the railway couldn't carry them.

 

[Bantamzen]

I can't remember now, to be honest. Might have been the "insider" I know and have chatted to a few times about it. (I apologise for this being rather vague - but for obvious reasons I can't name him - it isn't one of the big names you'd have heard of, in any case - and he's not letting anything go that would be secret - that is, I'm not getting anything in advance of the Press Conferences! ).

I can however totally believe it.

So can I....

 

[yorkie]

I wouldn't be so sure of that....

Sure of what? If the NRCoT is going to be used? No, I am not sure, which is why I asked

If they want to enforce it for everyone with immediate effect, then as you say, they could amend the current legislation accordingly.

 

[LOM]

Do we know what the conversation was? I don't see why the Police shouldn't advise, e.g. a polite "Excuse me, is there a reason why you're not wearing a face covering?" / "Sorry, Officer, but I find they make it hard for me to breathe" / "OK, fair enough, though you might want to try some different ones to see if different types help as they really are to everyone's benefit.", rather than "Excuse me, is there a reason why you're not wearing a face covering?" / "F*** off, the law doesn't require me to so I won't if I choose not to" / <escalation>?

“Excuse me, is there a reason why you are stepping on the cracks in the pavement?”

The police are there to uphold the law. Not invent new ones.

 

[AM9]

“Excuse me, is there a reason why you are stepping on the cracks in the pavement?”

The police are there to uphold the law. Not invent new ones.

Obviously not meant to be a joke so what was the point of your post?

 

[LOM]

The point is that the police should not be questioning members of the public in the street about not wearing a face mask until it is a legal requirement. If we accept seemingly minor things like this then it creates an atmosphere where tyranny can flourish.

 

[Jimini]

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).

Thinking of this one maybe?

Coronavirus: The mystery of asymptomatic 'silent spreaders'

Scientists have discovered more evidence about a strange and worrying feature of the coronavirus.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Journeyman]

If you have other methods of transport available to you which allow you to travel as you need/wish (i.e. a car or motorcycle), then that's probably good, to be honest, as it keeps numbers down to reduce risk for those who don't. Also, in your car/with your motorcycle helmet on you would be at less risk yourself than on the train.

Fully agree. I don't want to take up space unnecessarily when people without cars don't have any choice. None of my travel at the moment is particularly important, anyway.

I'm not planning on using the railway for leisure purposes until it's completely free of restrictions.

 

[MarkyT]

It was only 8 months ago that Hong Kong actually banned them in public.

However once the virus first appeared there people started wearing and although there were some initial prosecutions, the Beijing imposed ruling was overturned quickly as unreasonable in the circumstances. Since then authorities have made masks easily available and wearing has been nearly universal. Deaths attributable to C-19 have been ONE THOUSAND TIMES fewer per capita than in the UK at a total of 4 throughout the emergency in a city of 7.5 million people. They don't even publish the updated R number anymore as it's no longer possible to calculate with no new infections for weeks. There was never a full lockdown in HK, only targeted shutdowns of large events and certain businesses involving crowds such as cinemas, nightclubs etc, and transit remained well used throughout.

 

[Bletchleyite]

“Excuse me, is there a reason why you are stepping on the cracks in the pavement?”

If stepping on the cracks in the pavement wasn't Government advice I'd agree, but face masks already are in Scotland even though they are not legislated.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The point is that the police should not be questioning members of the public in the street about not wearing a face mask until it is a legal requirement. If we accept seemingly minor things like this then it creates an atmosphere where tyranny can flourish.

I just can't see how people are comparing a minor inconvenience for altruistric purposes to "tyranny". Crikey, airport security is well in excess of this. It's incredibly minor, and you're being asked to give it a go to see if it stops people dying. I really don't see the problem here at all. If it doesn't work, it'll just go away.

Conspiracy theories about the wearing of face coverings are about as sensible as the ones about 5G or making tin-foil hats. They're just utter rubbish. And there's one very good reason why - the Government likes CCTV, and they render it useless - they will have an actively negative effect on law enforcement. This being the case, they will be around for no longer than is absolutely necessary.

 

[Journeyman]

I just can't see how people are comparing a minor inconvenience for altruistric purposes to "tyranny". Crikey, airport security is well in excess of this. It's incredibly minor, and you're being asked to give it a go to see if it stops people dying. I really don't see the problem here at all. If it doesn't work, it'll just go away.

This was about a specific instance of someone being pestered by the police to do something that is not currently a legal requirement. That is actually an extremely big deal, and I shouldn't have to explain to you why it is.

 

[Tetchytyke]

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.

But everyone on here is saying the science is so completely unequivocal that it's a complete no-brainer to enforce masks, and that anyone who objects is basically trying to kill their granny. So I'm rather confused now!

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.

It'll be the opposite, people with genuine health conditions will still be pressured into wearing them, either by staff or by other passengers. Just look at the abuse people with blue badges get if they dare to look like they can walk more than a few paces.

Crikey, airport security is well in excess of this.

Airport security in its current guise is a temporary measure brought in to face a specific challenge. Nineteen years later, all the stupid rules with no basis in reality are still with us.

It's amazing how "temporary measures" don't ever quite seem to get abolished...

 

[Bletchleyite]

This was about a specific instance of someone being pestered by the police to do something that is not currently a legal requirement. That is actually an extremely big deal, and I shouldn't have to explain to you why it is.

I still think we don't have the full story and there may be an "attitude test" issue in play here. Some people like to shout about their rights when the Police make a polite request, and those people are the ones who invariably have bad experiences. I can't recall ever having had a bad experience with a Police officer.

But even so it is clearly ScotRail's well-publicised policy that they be worn, and I don't see why a BTP officer who happens to see a breach of a TOC policy shouldn't at least have a polite word about it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But everyone on here is saying the science is so completely unequivocal that it's a complete no-brainer to enforce masks, and that anyone who objects is basically trying to kill their granny. So I'm rather confused now!

Does it matter? Give them a go, see if it works, if they don't they'll just be dropped.

How about let's all be part of a big experiment to see if we can stop it by doing something that in the scheme of things is an incredibly minor inconvenience, no more inconvenient than daily life is for most of us who have to wear spectacles?

 

[Journeyman]

I still think we don't have the full story and there may be an "attitude test" issue in play here. Some people like to shout about their rights when the Police make a polite request, and those people are the ones who invariably have bad experiences. I can't recall ever having had a bad experience with a Police officer.

Oh, I agree, there's plenty of people who like to engineer confrontations, and that may well have happened. I've never had any problems with the police either. However, it's an undisputed fact that a few of them enjoy throwing their weight around, and abusing their power. That may well have happened here.

Does it matter? Give them a go, see if it works, if they don't they'll just be dropped.

How about let's all be part of a big experiment to see if we can stop it by doing something that in the scheme of things is an incredibly minor inconvenience, no more inconvenient than daily life is for most of us who have to wear spectacles?

This isn't like wearing glasses at all. It's a government having the right to say we're denied access to a vital service unless we're carrying out an instruction that has been imposed with no debate, no warning, no justification and, it would appear, for almost entirely political and spurious reasons.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I still think we don't have the full story and there may be an "attitude test" issue in play here. Some people like to shout about their rights when the Police make a polite request, and those people are the ones who invariably have bad experiences. I can't recall ever having had a bad experience with a Police officer.

There shouldn't be an attitude test in play at all, the law is the law and it isn't for the police to invent new ones. I don't think that the police overstepping the mark should be dismissed with what can only be described as victim-blaming; "if only you'd been nicer to the police officer making stuff up as they go along, you wouldn't have had him sit on your neck for ten minutes George".

My experience of police officers is, by and large, that they are pathetic individuals who will only get all stroppy when they know that they're picking on someone who can't fight back. You never see them throwing their weight around to a big gang of youths who are likely to not take too kindly to it.

But my pragmatic view is that there's no point fighting someone like that if you don't need to, just agree with them sweetly then go back to whatever it was you were doing before as soon as you're out of view. Much easier all round.

 

[43066]

Does it matter? Give them a go, see if it works, if they don't they'll just be dropped.

And that’s an acceptable basis for the police to be allowed to force us to wear masks?

 

[Tetchytyke]

How about let's all be part of a big experiment to see if we can stop it by doing something that in the scheme of things is an incredibly minor inconvenience, no more inconvenient than daily life is for most of us who have to wear spectacles?

Tried that with airport security after 9/11, and two decades later I'm still not allowed to take a bottle of Evian through an airport.

Funny you mention glasses. A face mask with glasses is always so much fun, trying to peer through a steamy fog every time I breathe out.

As I've said, should I be in the UK needing to use public transport I would wear a mask, it's not really worth the hassle to do otherwise. But if there's a choice between having to dress up like Hannibal Lecter to catch a bus, or just getting in my car, I know what I will choose.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And that’s an acceptable basis for the police to be allowed to force us to wear masks?

People simply are not altruistic enough to do it without being forced. The problem is you need to wear a mask to protect ME. Not enough British people will do that without enforcemement. We are a very selfish culture compared with say Asians. (Blame Maggie if you like )

Therefore, like for instance speed limits, I support the measure (and would extend it to all indoor public places) for a period of at least 2 months which should be long enough to see the effect it has on deaths.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As I've said, should I be in the UK needing to use public transport I would wear a mask, it's not really worth the hassle to do otherwise. But if there's a choice between having to dress up like Hannibal Lecter to catch a bus, or just getting in my car, I know what I will choose.

And as things stand the Government is more than happy for you to make that choice!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Thinking of this one maybe?

Coronavirus: The mystery of asymptomatic 'silent spreaders'

Scientists have discovered more evidence about a strange and worrying feature of the coronavirus.

www.bbc.co.uk

Thanks, yes, I think that's the one. I certainly read that article when it was out. I'd been (mistakenly, apparently) thinking it was an article in New Scientist (which is where I get a lot of my info about Covid from, so didn't look back on BBC).

 

[Starmill]

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.

The ONS have looked into excess deaths and concluded that the majority of non-Covid excess deaths were undiagnosed or false negative Covid-19 deaths. Of course, as you suggest there's a small number from other causes too.