I am a key worker, and have been travelling to and from work in London. I use trains, and less frequently, the tube (which I tend to avoid in summer, due to the temperature in the carriages). I also use buses to / from my home station.
From my observations, we've gone from a situation where I was sometimes one of only three or four people on a 12-car train, to more recently, upwards of 40 people* in a 4-car Class 701 London Overground train, at off-peak times.
The vast majority of travellers I've seen have, unlike myself, not been wearing a face-covering. I wear one because it isn't a major difficulty to do so.
(Some 'wear' a mask, that's pulled down and resting under their chin, while the wearer talks loudly on a mobile phone and is doubtless projecting microdroplets into the surrounding air).
I cannot, however, understand the 'logic' of mandating the wearing of face-coverings on public transport if Dominic Cummings the government are not simultaneously mandating it for all public spaces. Surely, if lots of shops re-open on June 15, and the inevitable intermingled queues lead to 2m social distancing being compromised, then all the arguments for the alleged benefits of compulsory coverings must apply just as much to these potential transmission hotspots too ? Why has public transport been singled out ?
Don't misunderstand, I don't like the requirement for face-coverings, as I have my concerns that this will be something that will become permanent, just like the 'temporary' changes after 9/11, which are still with us nearly two decades later. I like even less the inconsistent and way-too-late introduction of these measures. By the time it comes in, the requirement for face-coverings will be 12 weeks to the day from when house arrest lockdown was introduced.
Horse.
Stable.
Bolted.
*the open nature of these trains makes it easy to see right down the length of the unit
