Face coverings compulsory on public transport in England from 15 June

[Journeyman]

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.

One thing that's really alarmed me about the whole outbreak is the expectation that the government will magically solve everything by telling us exactly what to do. The whole concept of weighing up your own risks seems to have been thrown out of the window completely. People don't seem to be able to make decisions at all without a direct instruction.

 

[PupCuff]

One thing that's really alarmed me about the whole outbreak is the expectation that the government will magically solve everything by telling us exactly what to do. The whole concept of weighing up your own risks seems to have been thrown out of the window completely. People don't seem to be able to make decisions at all without a direct instruction.

We've ended up with the worst of both worlds - laws which are looser than Government advice, and despite being told initially that it was an instruction, not a request, it's now emerged viz Cummings that we were supposed to be using common sense in relation to the Government advice. I feel strongly that the onus on the weighing up of the risks (not just in relation to coronavirus, in everyday life too) should lie with the individual, but the Government has decided against that.

 

[MikeWM]

I haven't seen it mentioned yet - have people seen this alarming article in today's Telegraph?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...ould-relaxed-britain-gets-accustomed-wearing/

Ministers hope that by forcing people to wear masks on public transport they will wear them elsewhere, removing the need for extra measures

...

One Whitehall source said "If peope start to see wearing a mask as the norm it makes it much easier to ask them to wear them in more places...

Government sources acknowledged face coverings might be necessary in shops by the autumn at the very least... Instead they could be allowed indoors in greater numbers if they are wearing masks.

This is the thin edge of a wedge to make mask-wearing 'normal'. It won't be going away any time soon.

 

[43066]

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").

That’s an interesting one. I suppose in an ideal world we would all like to live in a society where everyone is altruistic all the time. But, then again, I can imagine it being quite stifling!

One thing that's really alarmed me about the whole outbreak is the expectation that the government will magically solve everything by telling us exactly what to do. The whole concept of weighing up your own risks seems to have been thrown out of the window completely. People don't seem to be able to make decisions at all without a direct instruction.

Completely agree. Supposedly intelligent people have no understanding of risk whatsoever, and seemingly no ability to think critically. I suspect a lot of it is driven by irrationality - people are often very fearful of anything health related.

 

[Journeyman]

I hate to say "I told you so", but...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Strikes me as sensible, not "the thin end of a wedge". If the simple and minor inconvenience of masks means we can abandon 2m, that's excellent news. It means most things can return fully to normal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That’s an interesting one. I suppose in an ideal world we would all like to live in a society where everyone is altruistic all the time. But, then again, I can imagine it being quite stifling!

It is a bit idealistic, and even Scouting has a big fat rule book, a hierarchy and processes to deal with people (adults and young people) misbehaving and disagreeing, because we're in the real world, not an ideal one. But in principle it would be nice if we thought a bit more like that in society, and maybe thought about how masks could save lives and allow more people to return to normal (if they do work) rather than how rubbish it is to wear one (and I do agree it's pretty rubbish, but so are a lot of rules and laws that exist to protect others). I think that's how the Asian democracies (as distinct from China) think - but even the European and Scandinavian social democracies are better at it than us and Leftpondia.

 

[MikeWM]

Strikes me as sensible, not "the thin end of a wedge". If the simple and minor inconvenience of masks means we can abandon 2m, that's excellent news. It means most things can return fully to normal.

That strikes me as somewhat equivalent to being grateful that the school bully has offered to stop punching you in the face if he can repeatedly kick your shins instead.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That strikes me as somewhat equivalent to being grateful that the school bully has offered to stop punching you in the face if he can repeatedly kick your shins instead.

The school bully can be punished, of course, or at worst expelled entirely. We can't get rid of COVID in that manner. When we can (an effective vaccine or treatment), we will.

It's perhaps a little bit like carrying a personal alarm because you know there's a criminal on the prowl locally, until such time as he can be caught, as that's preferable to not going out just in case.

 

[Journeyman]

It's a lot more normal than the fact that I cannot at present:
- Stay overnight away from home
- See my family in one go or indoors
- Hug any of my family
- Go to the pub or eat out in any form (other than a takeaway on a park bench or similar)
- Travel by train (if I follow the present requests, which I feel I probably morally should)
- Work in the office even for a day
- Shop at Tesco without queueing outside in the rain (today's a bit grim!)

Etc.

I'm not sure I agree. Much as I want to see all those restrictions go, mask wearing is not a trade-off I'm willing to make.

 

[43066]

I haven't seen it mentioned yet - have people seen this alarming article in today's Telegraph?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...ould-relaxed-britain-gets-accustomed-wearing/

This is the thin edge of a wedge to make mask-wearing 'normal'. It won't be going away any time soon.

Very sinister indeed - basically controlling the population through fear.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not sure I agree. Much as I want to see all those restrictions go, mask wearing is not a trade-off I'm willing to make.

So you would prefer those restrictions all remain than to wear a mask in only a limited set of circumstances? It's your right to hold that view, but I respectfully disagree.

 

[Journeyman]

So you would prefer those restrictions all remain than to wear a mask in only a limited set of circumstances? It's your right to hold that view, but I respectfully disagree.

But it won't be a limited set of circumstances, and it'll go on for years, and I'm not prepared to tolerate that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But it won't be a limited set of circumstances, and it'll go on for years, and I'm not prepared to tolerate that.

It will be a limited set of circumstances; it is highly unlikely it would be mandated in any private home or car setting when occupied by one household, nor outdoors where spread is understood to be infinitessimally tiny.

 

[Journeyman]

It will be a limited set of circumstances; it is highly unlikely it would be mandated in any private home or car setting when occupied by one household, nor outdoors where spread is understood to be infinitessimally tiny.

But that's still a huge range of circumstances. Nope. Not good enough.

 

[43066]

So you would prefer those restrictions all remain than to wear a mask in only a limited set of circumstances? It's your right to hold that view, but I respectfully disagree.

It shouldn’t be an “either or”.

Those other restrictions are also completely disproportionate, and were implemented on the basis of a discredited scientific model, by a government that was desperate to be seen to be doing *something*.

 

[Mag_seven]

There needs to be a statement as to when they expect us not to require wearing them. If people know that this measure will be temporary and they know under what circumstances it will end then they will be more likely to comply.

 

[Journeyman]

It shouldn’t be an “either or”.

Those other restrictions are also completely disproportionate, and were implemented on the basis of a discredited scientific model, by a government that was desperate to be seen to be doing *something*.

Yeah. I'm not swapping one gross infringement of my civil liberties for another, thanks.

 

[MikeWM]

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.

I meant to point this out yesterday, but I'm not at all convinced this is a good thing either. On the one hand, yes, not being in the regulations means that it is less enforceable by police/fines/criminal prosecution and so I suspect the realistic outcome is 'simply' that you'll be refused travel.

But those regulations will expire in September whatever happens. Yes, more may be made, but the current ones have a built-in self-destruct. Whereas
a change to the NRCoT may never be altered again.

 

[PupCuff]

I meant to point this out yesterday, but I'm not at all convinced this is a good thing either. On the one hand, yes, not being in the regulations means that it is less enforceable by police/fines/criminal prosecution and so I suspect the realistic outcome is 'simply' that you'll be refused travel.

And then, of course, when a member of rail staff (or contractor as some TOCs use) refuses a disabled key worker who can't wear a mask for medical reasons travel for not wearing one it'll be the headlines about the big bad railway going after the poor hardworking customer who faces so much adversity and pays £000s per year for their season ticket, and the staff member will most likely get no support from their managers or the wider public.

 

[Starmill]

... and I'm not prepared to tolerate that.

I think this is the really revealing point. It's simply that you don't want to because you don't want to. Perhaps it would make it easier for you to understand where other people are coming from if you thought less about yourself?

 

[43066]

And then, of course, when a member of rail staff (or contractor as some TOCs use) refuses a disabled key worker who can't wear a mask for medical reasons travel for not wearing one it'll be the headlines about the big bad railway going after the poor hardworking customer who faces so much adversity and pays £000s per year for their season ticket, and the staff member will most likely get no support from their managers or the wider public.

There’s absolutely no way rail staff should be expected to enforce these measures.

 

[NorthOxonian]

Whereas
a change to the NRCoT may never be altered again.

It might not be, but my gut feeling is that not long after this crisis is over, an incident will occur on a train (or bus or tram) where CCTV is needed, which will put the masks issue to bed.

 

[Puffing Devil]

WHO Advice has changed, based on more detailed studies having been completed. Advice is now to wear a mask in public.

Anyone still unwilling to help others by wearing a mask?

Coronavirus: WHO advises to wear masks in public areas

The World Health Organization changes its guidance saying masks can help stop the spread of the virus.

www.bbc.co.uk

The global body said new information showed they could provide "a barrier for potentially infectious droplets".

Some countries already recommend or mandate face coverings in public.

The WHO had previously argued there was not enough evidence to say that healthy people should wear masks.

 

[PupCuff]

There’s absolutely no way rail staff should be expected to enforce these measures.

Indeed.

 

[PG]

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...

Yes exactly, temporarily permanent!

As I've said a few times, I can just about stomach mask wearing as a temporary measure. But we cannot allow this to become part of our culture.

I haven't seen it mentioned yet - have people seen this alarming article in today's Telegraph?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...ould-relaxed-britain-gets-accustomed-wearing/

This is the thin edge of a wedge to make mask-wearing 'normal'. It won't be going away any time soon.

Very sinister indeed - basically controlling the population through fear.

There needs to be a statement as to when they expect us not to require wearing them. If people know that this measure will be temporary and they know under what circumstances it will end then they will be more likely to comply.

Indeed, the absence of any statements about if/when the mask requirement will be removed together with the Telegraph article quoted by @MikeWM leads to the conclusion that masks will be like the 2006 temporary air travel restrictions i.e. here to stay.

How do we teach children to be part of society if they grow up without seeing the faces of those in society at large - yes they will see the faces of their family/teachers/friends but is that alone enough if we end up as a society where anyone else they encounter has a covering which prevents non-verbal communication?

 

[ashkeba]

But fairly recently, Hong Kong flu killed 80k people in this country in a year, and we carried on regardless. Again - how is this different?

Hopefully this is different because with Hong Kong flu aka H3N2, the second peak was three times the size of the first, which would mean in the region of 120-170.000 deaths and make the early "20,000" estimate look very very silly indeed.

But Hong Kong flu was usually contagious for about 5 days and most of those were symptomatic. Its uncompromised R0 was estimated to be 1.8. This coronavirus is spreadable asymtomatic and has a base R0 of maybe double that. This is a good reason for different measures.

As well as being a flu rather than a SARS, H3N2 is still with us and keeps mutating, getting included in the flu vaccine fairly often, so let as hope this is different in that way too.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Very sinister indeed - basically controlling the population through fear.

Exactly

A fearful population is easier to control

 

[MikeWM]

As well as being a flu rather than a SARS, H3N2 is still with us and keeps mutating, getting included in the flu vaccine fairly often, so let as hope this is different in that way too.

Has any virus ever been entirely eradicated? Ever? The Spanish Flu virus is still with us over 100 years later.

 

[Starmill]

Yeah. I'm not swapping one gross infringement of my civil liberties for another, thanks.

If you really believed that, it would be a commitment to staying at home all the time. Now it doesn't sound to me like you've made that commitment? So this statement is pointless.