UK face coverings discussion

[cactustwirly]

TfL Rail have a very annoying announcement that plays after every stop. It says "You must wear a face covering on our services, if you do not you may have to pay a £1000 fine"
However there is nothing onboard GWR services which run on the same line, another reason amongst many many others why I'd choose GWR over the incompetent TfL Rail.

 

[py_megapixel]

TfL Rail have a very annoying announcement that plays after every stop. It says "You must wear a face covering on our services, if you do not you may have to pay a £1000 fine"
However there is nothing onboard GWR services which run on the same line, another reason amongst many many others why I'd choose GWR over the incompetent TfL Rail.

I don't think I'd describe TfL as "incompetent" for informing people of the regulations. What is notable however is that they make no mention of exemptions.

 

[sharpinf]

I don't think I'd describe TfL as "incompetent" for informing people of the regulations. What is notable however is that they make no mention of exemptions.

This is luckily being updated - today travelling out of Paddington the automatic message had changed and now both mentioned "exceptions apply" at the end and also dropped the fine to £100 from £1000.

 

[43066]

I don't think I'd describe TfL as "incompetent" for informing people of the regulations. What is notable however is that they make no mention of exemptions.

So, pretty incompetent about informing people about the regulations, then?

 

[Huntergreed]

So, pretty incompetent about informing people about the regulations, then?

I don’t think I’ve heard a single mention of exemptions anywhere. It’s always

“you must wear a face covering”
“It is mandatory to cover your face”
“Cover your Face or you could get fined”

Never “if you can, please cover your face to help others” (which I don’t believe it does but I think thats more appropriate messaging.

 

[MikeWM]

Anecdote alert

Just back from the supermarket. I've been there 6 or 7 times in in the past month, and so far I think I'd seen a grand total of one bare face in all those visits combined.

Tonight there were at least 7 or 8 customers, and a few of the staff, all showing off all their facial features in the normal way. Hopefully not just a one-off - maybe a sign of progress.

 

[NorthOxonian]

I don’t think I’ve heard a single mention of exemptions anywhere. It’s always

“you must wear a face covering”
“It is mandatory to cover your face”
“Cover your Face or you could get fined”

Never “if you can, please cover your face to help others” (which I don’t believe it does but I think thats more appropriate messaging.

I've heard that on buses here in the North East. I've heard some places which don't mention exemptions, but it's by no means all announcements.

I wouldn't be surprised if organisations and companies based in Scotland are being more aggressive in their messaging - could that account for some of the difference?

 

[cactustwirly]

I don't think I'd describe TfL as "incompetent" for informing people of the regulations. What is notable however is that they make no mention of exemptions.

It's not just face coverings, but I overall as a ToC TfL Rail are pretty incompetent, almost as bad as northern but that's for another thread.

 

[MikeWM]

I don’t think I’ve heard a single mention of exemptions anywhere.

I'm fairly sure GA had one playing at Ely on Saturday that mentioned exemptions. I don't think I'd heard it before.

GN's in-carriage PIS on the 387s mentions the existence of exemptions too.

I think we're moving in the right direction on messaging, though far too slowly, and it should have been right to start with.

 

[bramling]

I don't think I'd describe TfL as "incompetent" for informing people of the regulations. What is notable however is that they make no mention of exemptions.

I’d say at least two errors in what is evidently considered to be a vitally important announcement is pretty incompetent.

Another example of Sadiq Khan using the railway as a medium for pursuing political agendas.

 

[43066]

I don’t think I’ve heard a single mention of exemptions anywhere. It’s always

“you must wear a face covering”
“It is mandatory to cover your face”
“Cover your Face or you could get fined”

Never “if you can, please cover your face to help others” (which I don’t believe it does but I think thats more appropriate messaging.

You’re a uni student, right? I’m twice your age. I’m lucky enough to be doing a railway job I love, because I like trains, I made that move because I fancied it, and I earn a reasonably generous salary for it.

I was lucky enough to pursue a lucrative career before which paid very good money (not necessarily that much more per hour, albeit WAY more hours worked), but enough to buy a property etc. So on one level, I don’t care. The point being, uni was what got me there.

But, what’s happening to you guys, is what disgusts me the most, about this government’s approach. What kind of uni experience can you be going through? Not a good one.

 

[bramling]

You’re a uni student, right? I’m twice your age. I’m lucky enough to be doing a railway job I love, because I like trains, I made that move because I fancied it, and I earn a reasonably generous salary for it.

I was lucky enough to pursue a lucrative career before which paid very good money (not necessarily that much more per hour, albeit WAY more hours worked), but enough to buy a property etc. So on one level I don’t care.

But, what’s happening to you guys, is what disgusts me the most, about this government’s approach. What kind of uni experience can you be going through? Not a good one.

This government doesn’t seem capable of thinking through the implications of anything.

The “key workers” are all forgotten now, no appreciation for keeping the country going - indeed Boris managed to express his thanks to one such group with the particularly stupid (even by his standards) speech whilst on a visit to Goole about driverless trains.

Still, Boris’s “Portillo moment” will come, and it will be pleasing to see his nose rubbed in it.

Face coverings is just one example of many things during this where there’s been a total lack of attention to detail. He got away with it as London mayor (it seems to be part of the job description that you have to be a freak for that), but as prime minister he’s well and truly bitten more than he can chew.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You do NOT get to know whether they feel distress if their face has been covered due to past experiences/shortness of breath etc, that's a very personal thing and it's for the wearer and the wearer alone to decide.

In a school, parents would be asked to write a letter confirming something like this. This would of course mean a parent who was anti-mask could just make it up (just like as I hated PE my parents didn't overly object to writing letters to get me off it for very minor injuries etc), but it at least means the kid can't.

 

[talldave]

I don’t think I’ve heard a single mention of exemptions anywhere. It’s always

To their credit Sainsbury's do; heard it yesterday, as a follow-up to the face coverings/distancing announcement.

 

[43066]

Still, Boris’s “Portillo moment” will come, and it will be pleasing to see his nose rubbed in it.

Face coverings is just one example of many things during this where there’s been a total lack of attention to detail. He got away with it as London mayor (it seems to be part of the job description that you have to be a freak for that), but as prime minister he’s well and truly bitten more than he can chew.

The temptation to ask for Maggie Thatcher back. That ship has sailed, sadly.

 

[bramling]

The temptation to ask for Maggie Thatcher back.

Absolutely right. I don’t think she would have presided over this shambles, especially with her real-world background. Far more expertise than a bumbling media hack.

 

[Butts]

Absolutely right. I don’t think she would have presided over this shambles, especially with her real-world background. Far more expertise than a bumbling media hack.

Degree in Chemistry was it not ? - a Scientist to boot.

 

[Ianno87]

Degree in Chemistry was it not ? - a Scientist to boot.

I ain't no Thatcherite, but people with scientific backgrounds are very under-represented in the 650 MPs.

 

[duncanp]

Absolutely right. I don’t think she would have presided over this shambles, especially with her real-world background. Far more expertise than a bumbling media hack.

I agree that Mrs Thatcher, as a scientist, would understand that there is no such thing as "...the science...", but that there is a range of scientific opinion, backed up by evidence of varying degrees of quality.

If someone had said to her that "...the evidence shows that face coverings in school can help reduce the transmission of the virus....", Mrs Thatcher would have said "..OK, let's see your evidence....".

She would then have gone through the evidence with a fine toothcomb, and asked lots of searching questions. It is also worth remembering that Mrs Thatcher was a barrister, so she would have been used to going through "evidence" with a critical and questioning mind, trying to find out weaknesses, errors and inconsistencies.

Oh how we need a Prime Minister like that now. We wouldn't have had any of that nonsense back in March with Professor Ferguson Pantsdown trying to scare us with predictions of 500,000 extra death if we didn't lock down immediately.

 

[jumble]

That’s incorrect. TfL employees, agents, and contractors can themselves issue fixed penalty notices for non-compliance with face covering rules on TfL services and stations. See sections 7 (11) (c), 2 (1), and 5 (9) of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings on Public Transport) (England) Regulations 2020 and sections 7 (11) (c), 2 (1), and 5 (10) of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) Regulations 2020.

Maybe they can but from what I have seen travelling in London there is pretty much zero chance they will be doing so especially in the suburbs
Bus drivers and barrier staff do not say a word .

 

[Huntergreed]

Confirmed this morning, masks will be mandatory from next Monday in school corridors and communal areas in Scotland, as well as onboard school transport, in line with updated WHO advice (notable how they don’t follow the advice on physical distancing, where they double the distance, and on masks mitigating the need for distancing)

Scottish secondary school pupils will have to wear face coverings in corridors, communal areas and school buses from next Monday.

Education Secretary John Swinney told BBC Radio Scotland the new guidance would apply to all pupils aged over 12.

He said the guidance would be updated based on new advice from the World Health Organization (WHO).

I don’t think this is good, but at least it isn’t in classrooms.

Is this now very likely to happen in England?

(Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53900825)

 

[jumble]

I don't think I'd describe TfL as "incompetent" for informing people of the regulations. What is notable however is that they make no mention of exemptions.

What is even more strange is the underground announcements at stations do say "unless you are exempt"
I dont think they do any mask announcements on the S stock ( or if they do I have tuned them out)

 

[westv]

Is this now very likely to happen in England?

(Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53900825)

Probably - and Wales too.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

I don’t think this is good, but at least it isn’t in classrooms.

Is this now very likely to happen in England?

I'm more concerned about the potential misuse and cross-contamination of face coverings in schools. Potentially on and off up to eight times a day, put into school bags/coat pockets, hands not clean before taking them on/off... the list goes on. I'm not holding my breath, but I hope the Scottish Government have undertaken a risk assessment with these factors included. If not ScotGov, then individual schools at least.

Any claims of them updating their stance on coverings based on WHO guidance can be debunked, as the WHO refer to "widespread transmission" - which is certainly not the case in the UK right now.

England, probably, because there seems to be an element of "whatever Scotland does, we do it too, but with our own twist" (and vice versa), but perhaps not in Wales. Drakeford doesn't seem keen on the idea of face coverings full stop, especially as they were only made mandatory in Wales on public transport to ensure "consistency" (or words to that effect).

Reading the article that @Huntergreed quoted, it says:

Mr Swinney said individual exemptions could be granted for health reasons, but the guidance would be "obligatory" for all secondary, special and grant-aided schools.

(my bold and underline)
...but later on it says...

Mr Swinney said while the new rules were not mandatory, they had the same status as other guidance on reopening of schools, such as physical distancing and hand hygiene measures.

(my bold)

So which is it?

Also - don't think it's fair making them "obligatory" in special schools, as there are a multitude of reasons why pupils are enrolled in these types of establishments, it should really be up to the parents/carers/teachers to decide if they are required in those circumstances.

 

[Yew]

Any claims of them updating their stance on coverings based on WHO guidance can be debunked, as the WHO refer to "widespread transmission" - which is certainly not the case in the UK right now.

Widespread is a lovely vague term that's open to interpretation

 

[AM9]

Widespread is a lovely vague term that's open to interpretation

As are 'minimal', 'minor', negligible and so many other words used by those who want to play down the whole thing.

 

[Scotrail12]

I've had enough of kids livelihoods being thrown under the bus. For heaven's sake! And it will probably be less hygienic, you just know that they'll be taking them off at every opportunity, shoving them in pockets etc.

We had the opportunity to be kids, it's been established that this is of no risk to them, let them have the opportunity to enjoy their childhood/school days like the rest of us did.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Aug 2020 ==

I feel slightly short of breath using them on public transport but I'm not too badly affected. Would take exception if they were mandated in uni or outdoors (like in Spain) though, that would be a step too far for me.

My main issue is that they just feel a bit dirty. I'm not convinced that they are actually hygienic. How long can you effectively wear one before it's rendered useless?

 

[Andyh82]

As is predictable the main headine on the BBC News at One is “Pressure on Westminster as Scotland make face coverings in school mandatory”

So the rhetoric is already that if Scotland do something, they are right, and England are now wrong

Watch the unions, the opposition to pile on pressure, and then the welsh government...

 

[MikeWM]

As is predictable the main headine on the BBC News at One is “Pressure on Westminster as Scotland make face coverings in school mandatory”

Our PM seems to think that following whatever Sturgeon and Khan demand is some sort of sensible political strategy. Does he understand anything about the people who voted for him?

In any event, the pattern is clearly to wait until things start up again, and *then* mandate masks a few weeks later. I don't expect any different here.

 

[Andyh82]

If the media actually challenged Sturgeon’s moves rather than reporting them factually and entirely correct, we wouldn’t be in this position. Why are questions not being asked about what has changed in the 3 weeks since Scottish schools went back?