Face coverings compulsory on public transport in England from 15 June

[NorthOxonian]

We could virtually wipe out the spread of HIV by making it illegal to have sex without using a condom but it is recognised that this would have other negative consequences for society. So we collectively accept the risk of HIV transmission (which is ubiquitous in some parts of Africa) without insisting on evidence based preventative measures. But in the case of this disease we are expected to accept the imposition of universal preventive measures which are not scientifically proven.

I'm passionately anti-mask but there's a big difference between deciding to have sex with someone and sitting next to someone on public transport or being in an enclosed space with someone! The former is far rarer an event than the latter.

 

[Journeyman]

I see. And, following your logic, would you consider scrapping those pesky laws that destroy people's freedom by making it illegal to drive through towns at 80mph? And would you further tell anyone who's concerned about being run over by an 80mph car that fear is that person's biggest problem?

No, because that's completely different. I obey speed limits religiously, because I appreciate that I'm driving something that is potentially very dangerous.

My objection to masks is the effect they have on interpersonal relationships, the dystopian and depressing effect they have, the poor justification behind compulsion, the way they exacerbate people's fears about approaching others, and the civil rights issues of being denied services and access on a very flimsy pretext.

See, I've actually thought about this, and don't need to indulge in some pointless whataboutery.

 

[C J Snarzell]

Just a very quick question in relation to this - are face coverings just necessary on carriages and buses? I was wondering whether they need to be worn in all bus/train station areas (ie platforms, waiting rooms).

Also does anyone know if TOCs will be providing disposable face masks for passengers or will the onus be on everyone to provide their own?

CJ

 

[NorthOxonian]

Also does anyone know if TOCs will be providing disposable face masks for passengers or will the onus be on everyone to provide their own?

Don't know in general, but at some locations (like Waterloo) face masks are being provided. I would have hoped they'd provide non-disposable options to minimise the level of litter and encourage sustainability.

 

[Bantamzen]

In normal circumstances, then you don't wear one.

In these special circumstances, when there's quite a reasonable chance of you having one but not knowing it, you do.

So when will these "special circumstances" end? With a hoped for vaccine? A zero R0 value? When he'll finally freezes over?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So when will these "special circumstances" end? With a hoped for vaccine? A zero R0 value? When he'll finally freezes over?

A vaccine would end them, yes. As would a treatment which was effective in considerably reducing one, or potentially both, of the number of deaths or the length of time an intensive care bed is needed for. I suspect the latter will be here before the former.

 

[Journeyman]

So when will these "special circumstances" end? With a hoped for vaccine? A zero R0 value? When he'll finally freezes over?

Yeah, it's funny how governments always manage to make circumstances "special" when they need to.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

No, because that's completely different. I obey speed limits religiously, because I appreciate that I'm driving something that is potentially very dangerous.

I would disagree: It's not really qualitatively different at all in principle - there's some difference in the degree of risk, which is greater for a speeding car. Driving dangerously is more likely to kill someone than going out without a mask into a public confined space where social distancing is impossible, but in both cases you are causing some risk to other people's lives.

My objection to masks is the effect they have on interpersonal relationships, the dystopian and depressing effect they have, the poor justification behind compulsion, the way they exacerbate people's fears about approaching others, and the civil rights issues of being denied services and access on a very flimsy pretext.

What effect on interpersonal relationships? Noone is telling you to wear a mask at home, or outside - the places where you probably spend 99% of your interactions with your friends, family, and loved ones. You're being required/advised to wear a mask in a few public places where interactions with other people are generally minimal anyway. Yes it's frustrating not being able to smile at people, but all my experience with a mask is that you can still talk, make eye contact, nod to acknowledge people, and so on.

Dystopian and depressing are value judgements - personally I also find masks a bit depressing; I wouldn't say dystopian, as long at it's only a temporary measure. But we are where we are: There's a virus that's dangerous, and compared to having more people die or having to endure the lockdown for a lot longer (which are the likely results of people not wearing masks), having to wear a mask seems like by far the lesser of two evils. I don't see that they exacerbate fears about approaching others - I'd say the opposite: I feel more comfortable interacting with strangers who are wearing masks - both because I know that means the risk to me is less, and because the wearing of the mask implicitly communicates to me that that stranger is being considerate and helping to protect other people.

 

[Journeyman]

I am a threat to other people if I drive like a dick and cause an accident.

I am not a threat to other people simply by existing.

 

[LAX54]

I see. And, following your logic, would you consider scrapping those pesky laws that destroy people's freedom by making it illegal to drive through towns at 80mph? And would you further tell anyone who's concerned about being run over by an 80mph car that fear is that person's biggest problem?

Oh and... for what it's worth, I'm not massively worried about the virus for myself - I'm not really in any high risk category - I'm just concerned enough to take sensible precautions, and concerned enough to think it's reasonable to expect others to take sensible precautions. But like many people here, I do have elderly/vulnerable friends and relatives who, as far as I'm aware, would quite like to be able to get out and about without having to be concerned about the possibility of getting a virus that could well kill them.

As you say many have old / vulnerable freinds and family, but of course seasonal flu, is also very infectious and can be just as fatal to the same group as this round of flu, alhtough I agree maybe not quite so high, but with a UK pop of 68 million, and 283K affected, the chances are still slim, many more may well have 'had it' and more than likely in Nov - Jan when those that felt ill, just thought seasonal flu, but will we ever know?

 

[Bantamzen]

A vaccine would end them, yes. As would a treatment which was effective in considerably reducing one, or potentially both, of the number of deaths or the length of time an intensive care bed is needed for. I suspect the latter will be here before the former.

Have you thought about a career in politics? Because that answer is certainly vague enough to secure you a top role in the BoJo's cabinet....

But herein lies the problem, there is no parameter for reducing the "need" for masks on public transport. Quite the opposite in fact. And now that the WHO have u-turned with their advice, the government has even more ammunition to potentially force compulsory wearing over a much wider spectrum than just public transport. And if anyone objects, just waffle about "civic duty" & "saving lives".

Yeah, it's funny how governments always manage to make circumstances "special" when they need to.

Indeed, I fear a certain cretin close to BoJo is already plotting his dystopian ideas for the "New Normal Regime" now that he knows the top brass can tell us to one thing, whilst doing the complete opposite themselves.

Welcome to UK Animal Farm!

 

[Islineclear3_1]

How would you feel if masks were found to be effective enough that they could be allowed again subject to wearing one?

I personally don't like large public gatherings so would be of no loss/consequence to me

 

[duncanp]

Welcome to UK Animal Farm!

So Boris Johnson is Napoleon, and Dominic Cummings is Squealer, or maybe it should be the other way round.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

I think it would be good if we did make it part of our culture, like most Asians do, to wear a mask when out and about if we have a contagious respiratory infection. You know, to help others. Having a cold is rubbish, how's about we put a little effort in ourselves to preventing others having one too?

I think that it would not be good if we made it part of our culture. Wearing a mask is not part of our culture and I do not wish it to become so.

But I do agree that wearing a mask might be a good idea if you have a contagious respiratory infection in order to help others.

But not for any other reason

 

[Journeyman]

I personally don't like large public gatherings so would be of no loss/consequence to me

I happen to love a couple of music festivals that are obviously cancelled this year. If they were allowed to go ahead but only if masks were worn, I wouldn't go.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am a threat to other people if I drive like a dick and cause an accident.

I am not a threat to other people simply by existing.

At the moment you might be, however, at least while in an indoor public place where distancing is difficult.

 

[Journeyman]

At the moment you might be, however, at least while in an indoor public place where distancing is difficult.

But I'm most likely not, and I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

 

[43066]

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.

I suppose one man’s selfishness is another man’s respect for the individual. I’d far rather live in a country where individual freedoms are respected than a collectivist culture. There is a severe downside to those cultures in terms of public shaming and ostracism of those who don’t conform.

It’s simply not right that people should be forced to wear masks when the science underpinning it is specious at best.

 

[43066]

At the moment you might be, however, at least while in an indoor public place where distancing is difficult.

If people are high risk it’s down to then to isolate themselves. If they’re out and about mixing with others then they’re doing so at their own risk.

As far as I’m concerned everyone I encounter should be in a low risk category.

 

[underbank]

As you say many have old / vulnerable freinds and family, but of course seasonal flu, is also very infectious and can be just as fatal to the same group as this round of flu, alhtough I agree maybe not quite so high, but with a UK pop of 68 million, and 283K affected, the chances are still slim, many more may well have 'had it' and more than likely in Nov - Jan when those that felt ill, just thought seasonal flu, but will we ever know?

There's a vaccine for seasonal flu.

283k affected is only that low because of the lockdown - if we'd done nothing it may well be in the millions now and still growing.

 

[Weekender]

A general question if I may, please.
i have mild asthma which is controlled by use of an inhaler. A doctor has told me that wearing a face covering could make the condition worse long term. If I was on a train without a face covering and showed you my inhaler, would you accept this as a satisfactory reason.

 

[underbank]

If people are high risk it’s down to then to isolate themselves. If they’re out and about mixing with others then they’re doing so at their own risk.

As far as I’m concerned everyone I encounter should be in a low risk category.

There are millions of vulnerable people who are also workers, carers, etc who can't just lock themselves inside. How about nurses, teachers, social workers, emergency workers, hospital consultants etc. How do you think "normal" things will continue to happen. How about our neighbour who's a clinical lead consultant at our local hospital who's vulnerable - if he doesn't go to work, people die due to lack of treatment! We really need to dispel this stupid myth that all the "high risk" are sat around in care homes and likely to die in a few weeks anyway!

 

[Journeyman]

A general question if I may, please.
i have mild asthma which is controlled by use of an inhaler. A doctor has told me that wearing a face covering could make the condition worse long term. If I was on a train without a face covering and showed you my inhaler, would you accept this as a satisfactory reason.

It would be good enough for me, but I'm afraid it's not my decision.

 

[NorthOxonian]

A general question if I may, please.
i have mild asthma which is controlled by use of an inhaler. A doctor has told me that wearing a face covering could make the condition worse long term. If I was on a train without a face covering and showed you my inhaler, would you accept this as a satisfactory reason.

"Those with breathing difficulties" are going to be exempt. I would expect that if wearing a mask will worsen your asthma, you'd fall into that category. I wouldn't say it was certain that you'll be exempt, but even if not officially allowed, I think most staff and enforcement will be reasonable about this.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

At the moment you might be, however, at least while in an indoor public place where distancing is difficult.

And here lies the problem - fear and fear conditioning

Treat everyone as a potential threat and be fearful. Exactly what the 24/7 news propaganda machine wants

 

[Journeyman]

I suppose one man’s selfishness is another man’s respect for the individual. I’d far rather live in a country where individual freedoms are respected than a collectivist culture. There is a severe downside to those cultures in terms of public shaming and ostracism of those who don’t conform.

It’s simply not right that people should be forced to wear masks when the science underpinning it is specious at best.

I think we're both from different ends of the political spectrum here, but I completely agree. I'm quite left-wing, but I couldn't support Jeremy Corbyn at all because of his hard-on for big government. At the last election I voted Green, as they're big advocates of local, decentralised decision-making.

The Asian cultures people are praising here have enormous downsides to them, including alarming suicide rates among those deemed not worthy of society's high expectations.

 

[Journeyman]

"Those with breathing difficulties" are going to be exempt. I would expect that if wearing a mask will worsen your asthma, you'd fall into that category. I wouldn't say it was certain that you'll be exempt, but even if not officially allowed, I think most staff and enforcement will be reasonable about this.

Is that before or after your fellow passengers hurl abuse at you, and shame you on social media?

 

[PupCuff]

It's been touched on upthread but there are a number of wider industry issues with this announcement and with eight days and eight hours left to prepare for it it's no doubt going to prove somewhat challenging.

The rail unions have all come out as saying this requirement is a positive; their enthusiasm is not matched by some (many?) of the staff on the ground, who will, rightly or wrongly, quite simply refuse to work if they're forced to wear unsuitable kit. Do you blame them when their managers are buying their own gear because they have no faith in the ones the employer is providing? The obvious impacts of this would be resourcing of traincrew, but also it's worth considering train maintenance teams, station staff, management and support staff behind the scenes need to be in place to ensure a service can run. It isn't just a case of a driver jumps in a train and there you go, you're running a railway.

It's been said that the rule will be written in to the National Conditions of Travel, but this doesn't make it a legal requirement and in effect means the police will be able to wash their hands of dealing with it. TOC staff have generally (I don't know if there are any exceptions) been told they are not there to enforce the coronavirus control measures. So who will enforce the requirement to wear masks? If it isn't enforced, then I give it approximately three days before people realise everyone else isn't wearing one and aren't being pulled up on it so they'll stop.

Those, like me, who have underlying health conditions which make use of masks particularly challenging are currently in very much a 'limbo' as we don't know what the requirements are going to be. It's been said there will be an exemption, how will this work and what if by the time it is announced there will be little time to prepare? Clearly if a there's a depot of conductors who all suffer from respiratory issues are told with a couple of days notice they will need to obtain a doctor's note to not wear a mask, they are not going to be able to come in and work trains until they have been able to see their doctor to obtain one.

There's also no requirement for these masks to meet any form of standard, or if they do, fit the wearer correctly or be worn correctly. A properly fitting mask which is suitable for the given task will help protect against transmission. A here's one I made earlier mask made out of an unsuitable material and which isn't properly fitting achieves very little other than an illusion of 'look, I'm helping!'

 

[43066]

I think we're both from different ends of the political spectrum here, but I completely agree. I'm quite left-wing, but I couldn't support Jeremy Corbyn at all because of his hard-on for big government. At the last election I voted Green, as they're big advocates of local, decentralised decision-making.

The Asian cultures people are praising here have enormous downsides to them, including alarming suicide rates among those deemed not worthy of society's high expectations.

I would describe myself as centre right politically, favouring small government, minimal interference, as I said upthread. We have plenty of common ground on this issue!

It saddens me that so many people in this country clearly don’t value freedom of the individual at all, and apparently aspire to live in a police state.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It saddens me that so many people in this country clearly don’t value freedom of the individual at all, and apparently aspire to live in a police state.

I'd personally prefer to live in a state where policing was unnecessary because people considered adverse effect on others before deciding to take, or not take, a given course of action, myself. You could call it the "Scout Law state", maybe? Yes, it's quite collectivist, but it doesn't have to be completely collectivist, it just requires basic consideration of others. Such as before deciding to drive at 100mph, "what if someone else doesn't have the reactions to cope with this?", or before deciding to take a train at the moment without wearing a mask, "what if I have COVID and I spread it to someone who it might kill?"

(Cub Scout Law, which is simpler and less wordy than the Scout Law so will do to explain it: "A Cub Scout always does their best, thinks of others before themselves, and does a Good Turn every day" - the latter meaning roughly "goes out of their way to help someone else at least once per day").